Green Is In At CES, But Is It Real?

OTL writes "You've heard the talk of 'Green' throughout the whole of 2008, but the way a product affects the environment will be a huge consideration in consumer buying habits, at least when it comes to gadgets. But, the CEA report also said that consumers are very skeptical about the green claims made by high-tech firms for their products. More than 38 percent of those interviewed by the CEA said they were confused by green product claims and 58 percent wanted to know the specific attributes that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green."

Comments

The specific attributes

[getuid()]

58 percent wanted to know the specific attributes that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green

#00ff00 maybe?

Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the veal.

What the hell is green anyway?

[girlintraining]

What, do they paint it green? Is it because it consumes less electricity? Is it because the circuit boards are made out of cardboard and bio-degradable silly putty? Or is this whole "green" movement nothing but an excuse for the boomers to try to look responsible in the waning years of their power, covering up the gross excesses of the past few decades, living amongst superfluous abundance while the rest of us watched the economy go straight to hell? These people jabber about carbon footprints, kilowatts, and they act like this is hard science. Most of the terms these "greenies" use are vague and could be defined many ways. People think driving an electric car is green -- but then fail to take into account that those high performance batteries are highly toxic and need replaced every few years. And the aluminum required to build those cars to be light enough to be practical requires huge amounts of electricity -- and most of that energy is created by burning coal.

The problem with the green movement, and any product that caters to it, is two-fold: One, lack of total picture. There is no objective way to compare two products in a similar category in a cradle-to-grave capacity. Fundamentally, it can't yet be done because we don't know what's more or less harmful than the next thing -- does a ton of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere equate to "more harm" than several ounces of CFCs? Without a way to make a direct comparison, or have a way to objectively measure a products "green performance", calling something green is meaningless. The second problem is... Many green products are of inferior quality and are higher priced than their non-green counterparts.

Why is this sham movement getting attention in the technical community? I'm not saying this as a troll, I honestly want to know -- how can you people as engineers and scientists look at this and say that any aspect of this so-called movement is objective?

Really?

[cayenne8]

"...the way a product affects the environment will be a huge consideration in consumer buying habits, at least when it comes to gadgets. "

Is this really the case?

Honestly, I don't know anyone that takes into consideration how 'green' something is before they purchase it...especially gadgets.

I know there is a sizable minority growing that is concerned about everything 'green', but, really...in the general public, while they may even be vocally in favor of 'green' things...does it really affect their everyday life and their purchases?

Those green advertising dollars are certainly lost on me...I buy stuff I want because I want it, without regard to greenness or anything else.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like something the feds could or maybe even should do. They want restaurants to put dietary information on menus, what's the harm in putting wattage draws on electronic product? There is a pretty clear gap in the knowledge out there now, is "Green" ROHS? Is "Green" higher efficiency parts?

If there were two nearly identical machines and one drew 80w and the other drew 120w would that affect your decision?

I historically haven't cared but I have built some systems with AMD's HE parts and saw a measurable difference in my electric bill.

Re:Really?

[Fozzyuw]

Honestly, I don't know anyone that takes into consideration how 'green' something is before they purchase it...especially gadgets.

Actually, there are some but the general market research that my company has conducted (as well as many others I'm sure) will show that almost no consumer will pay more for a "green" product but they will likely choose a "green" product over a "non-green" product if all other things are equal. Which comes down to a simple idea of perceived value. In this case, the "green" product will make the consumer feel like they're getting more for their money (as intangible or obscure as it might directly be).

However, there is a very small segmentation of society that will "walk to walk", so to speak, and spend considerably more money on products labeled green. Most will not and most that do buy green products buy them for financial, not environmental, reasons. Meaning, they bought a Hybrid because they figured they'd be saving on gas costs. Or they bought CFL bulbs to save money on the electric bill. Stuff like that.

Very few consumers, if any, will pay more for green products. Simply said, spending money on making your product green, which will increase the price of your product, is not a good business decision. Luckily, most companies are finding out that they can do "green" things and save money. Turning off the lights and computers at the end of the day. Finding ways to reuse/recycle manufacturing waste or even implementing better recycling programs can save a company a lot of money while benefiting the environment.

I'm close enough to these ideas as the Market Research guy sits right across from me and has shown me our report on the "green" topic. I'm also part of my companies "Green Team" for which we've implemented and discussed some of the above examples. Just by implementing a better recycling program, we're cutting down a sizable percentage of waste going to a landfill, which in-turn, means less cost because waste removal is charged by the weight. As well as, once being charged for hauling away recyclables, there are companies who will do it for no cost because they actually make a fair amount on turning in recyclables.

Though, one interesting statistic from the last Executive Leadership Team minutes was that my company has managed to reduce overall electrical consumption by a few percentage points but the total costs more than doubled. Ouch.

Though, the whole "green" push has turned into "green-washing", where companies are overstating or trying to point out excessively small environmental impacts for the sake of PR.

Lead Free Solder, for example?

[retroworks]

Well, let's see the track record of the biggest consumer electronics green endeavor - lead free solder, enforced under ROHS. It replaces a very small amount of material (lead) which was 85% post consumer recycled content, with silver and tin which are mined from coral reefs. True, the waste when the product is thrown away (in a regulated, lined landfill in a rich green nation) is less toxic. Coral reefs and rain forest mining is a small price to pay. Perhaps we could make even less toxic, "organic" solder from baby seal pelts.

Re:Next thing you know...

[snowraver1]

Energy Star deals with electricity consumption in operating and standby modes. I think that this discussion is about more general "greenness". How much water is the factory polluting? How many cancer causing chemicals are present in this product? What is your recycling plan, and how many 3rd world countries does it include? Etc, etc.

Re:What's the definition of green?

[UncleWilly]

Son

Obviously you never looked at America's rivers,etc in the 1960's.

Look at China now, that's what America was like in the 1960's.