Slashdot Log In
Green Is In At CES, But Is It Real?
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jan 07, 2009 01:16 PM
from the hi-fi-jumpropes dept.
from the hi-fi-jumpropes dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Pea soup! (Score:2, Informative)
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about appliances (fridges, laundry machines, etc)?
Parent
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NOpe...I do ok...but, I work hard and save for things I want and like. Frankly, I don't care if it has the Wolfe or Vulcan name on it...but, I do want a stove that DOES what those do in terms of BTU output. I want a 6 eye top, pref. with a griddle area too. I just don't seem to see many other stoves out there fro
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
Having given this scenario a lot of thought recently, consider what happens to the money that the company saved. The "control" case is that they money is spent on energy/waste whatever. The "better" case is that less money is spent on energy/waste. Let's assume this translates into the company spending X dollars *less* on these expense accounts.
At the end of the accounting period, assuming revenue and all other expenses are the same, the company actually has more money in the bank. What happens to that money?
a) If the company leaves it in the bank, the bank will loan it out to other people/companies, all of whom will use it to purchase stuff, all of which will consume energy.
b) If the company re-invests the money in itself, it will spend it on capital projects, which of course consumes energy.
c) If the company disperses the income as dividends to shareholders, then the shareholders either put it in the bank (see (a)) or spend it (see (b)) or invest it. Investment increases the capital pool, which is all money available to companies to use and spend, presumably on stuff that will use energy.
Now all of these things are good *for the economy* because money is being spent more efficiently (we as humans are getting more of stuff that we value). However, I just can't see this kind of activity making any kind of difference on total energy, because what's happening is that we are getting more for the same amount of energy. The total energy used by a society will be roughly correlated with the amount of money spent in the economy, or depending on how you look at the relationship, vice-versa.
Has anyone else followed this line of thinking? Any thoughts?
I know that there are "clean" technologies vs. "dirty" technologies, so theoretically, expending equal dollars on a clean alternative might work (certainly common sense says it will). The immediate effect would be a lower price of the dirty technology (supply and demand), and then some suppliers of the dirty technology would stop producing it because it's no longer as profitable, until the supply drops enough that the price returns to a profitable level.
So from what I can tell, reducing consumption (and waste) of a commodity is good for the economy, but not necessarily for the environment. However, switching to an alternative "cleaner" commodity that costs the same *is* good for the environment, but neutral to the economy.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
And what's wrong with that? If there's no effective difference between Brand X and Green Brand, what is wrong with putting an extra filter on your smoke stack, tossing it in a green bottle and slapping a couple of 'Green Brand saves the planet!' stickers on it? It's Marketing 101 -- differentiate your product. It just has to be factual -- nobody said it had to be meaningful. Really, it just has to get a handful of shoppers to throw your product in their cart rather than the other guy's product. It's a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I buy things because they're useful. I consider energy usage as measured in efficiency when purchasing a vehicle or even a PSU - because it costs me less money to operate the device.
I heard a PSA on the radio a couple of days ago about unplugging your cellphone charger when you're not using it - the implication being that it uses just as much electricity when you're not charging your phone as when you are. I just checked real quick. Two cell phone chargers (Motorola usb wall charger and iPhone USB wall a
I was putting it back ON topic... (Score:2)
To the parent: if you have something to say about the article, reply to the article like everybody else."
Well, the parent by AC...wasn't really on topic at all. What does pea soup have to do with this article? Funny? Maybe...
I was basically trying to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Greenest is the Fit-PC
http://www.fit-pc.com/new/ [fit-pc.com]
but you wont get performance or Vista running...
Buzzwords (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Advertising 0g trans fat in a product that never had it is not a bad thing, it's showing "hey look at us, we've always been here but maybe you didn't notice... no trans fat!" Rather than saying "0g trans fat" when your product really has
The specific attributes (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:The specific attributes (Score:5, Funny)
I'm #ff0000 #00ff00 colorbind you insensitive clod!
Sheldon
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
#00ff00 maybe?
Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the #00ff00 eggs and ham.
T, FTF Sam-I-AM.
"Huge Consideration"? (Score:2)
I don't think so. It might at best be a secondary concern. I doubt in the current financial climate people are going to be stressing green in their purchases when they might be able to get a less-green alternative for less.
The green practices of high tech companies are how to properly recycle and make re-use of electronics is confusing to most people, considering that many still believe that these products are impossible to reuse. Anything more complicated than paper in the green bin, is mystifying to m
What the hell is green anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:What the hell is green anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
What good is "being green" when you're going to generate twice as much waste throwing the pieces of shit away?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I dunno... it's less to do with being "green" than it is trying to save money, but I look for things that use less power (laptop over desktop, for example... yes, I know $ for $ you get more power with a desktop, but most uses don't require the kind of power than processors are giving us unless you're a computer nerd slashdot reader).
Even my desktops... last system I built I had a choice in AMD processors between 65 watt and over 100 watt (older generation, but similar clock speed). It was only a couple bu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I'll start taking you "Green is BS" people a little more seriously when you stop using your FUD.
The Prius has been on sale for 9 years, and they have YET to replace a battery for wear or lack of charging issues (source toyota, look it up yourself).
Oh, and Nimh batteries are almost completely recyclable in environmentally safe ways. NiCads are nasty, but they are in use less and less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also an an aftermarket for replacement batteries from wrecked Priuses so clearly someone needs them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'll start taking you "Green is BS" people a little more seriously when you stop using your FUD.
Well, as long as you asked me to look it up, and because you just had to take my general statement and turn it into a specific instance, well then okay -- here you go [toyota.co.jp]. Word from Toyota itself stating that most emission ratings are higher in the Prius than gasoline powered vehicles -- with exception only to the driving cycle.
In plain english, your champion green car is less green to produce than those evil gas burning cars.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
In this day and age everyone needs to take responsibility for the environment, so it is our pleasure to announce Foomatic Industries Green Initiative and it new line of Green* Widgets.
----
* Green products are those made with natural materials** only
** Natural materials are considered those found naturally within our universe consisting of normal matter***
*** Normal matter refers to matter which does not contain dark matter or exotic particles****
**** Please note some of our products may contain exotic parti
What's the definition of green? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big difference between what people interpret as being green. If you believed Greenpeace, we would all be back in the stone-age since everything has some type of impact on the nature. If you believe Apple and set it as a standard then all of our stuff would be more expensive, in line with the Apple products, no more $200 laptops. If you believe Dell 'green' is everything that is painted white (or black) in order to attract/detract heat or other types of radiation from certain components.
Then there are the politicians trying to define what is green and if you believe them, selling vouchers of cubic meters of carbon exhaust to 3rd world countries is their form of becoming 'green' while China and other 3rd world companies are becoming burial grounds for and are 'recycling' valuables from our dead gadgets in what they call 'green' initiatives.
A few years ago (60's-80's) becoming more environmental friendly was burning trash and putting exhaust pipes of factories higher in the sky effectively moving our problem higher. Now we've gone to burying our trash, effectively moving our problem again.
Re:What's the definition of green? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you believe Greenpeace, the worst offenders are a) whichever companies get them the most publicity by attacking them (Apple, Nintendo, but not semiconductor makers consumers have never heard of) and b) whoever doesn't give money to Greenpeace.
Parent
Re:What's the definition of green? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Some issues? You mean like catching fire?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the definition of green? (Score:4, Interesting)
Environmentalism has always been about balance. You can't survive and have 0 environmental impact. However it is about making the right trade offs and getting a balance where the earth can heal from our pollutant, but it doesn't hinder progress.
One can say Visualizing is Green because you can take 3 or 4 servers and run it on 1. However if you just visualized one server your not being green as the extra processing uses more energy.
You can say don't use computers but to get the work done we will need that much paper. There is even energy wasted in recycling the paper, as well all the driving to move the information on paper to the correct location.
Even calculating a carbon footprint is rather complex much like processing a Bill of Materials. And finding the most green choice will need an A* algorithm to process it.
Parent
Attribute (Score:2)
There is only one attribute needed to label a product 'green'.
The ability to boost sales in so doing.
Lead Free Solder, for example? (Score:5, Interesting)
Dirty little business secret (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
"More than half are willing to pay a little more for 'green'," said Mr Koening. "22 percent said they were willing to pay up to 15 percent more for it."
Green as a marketing gimmick is dangerous. The general idea is that green somehow is more expensive.
White wine vinegar is a nice natural cleaner, and it's cheap. So is ammonia in water. Why spend so much money on other alternatives?
Reducing package size is green and it costs less to produce. Why increase the price if cost is lowered?
If you can recycle all of a manufacturing plant's waste within the plant, you don't need to hire waste disposal, so why increase the price of goods made at the plant?
Business is constantly trying to get people to buy crap and justify it. Many of them are using the green label to justify their price tag, which is bullshit. In economics, the price of an item is not determined by the cost of the single item, but how much it is in demand, how much supply there is, and how much people perceive it's value. Companies go green because it either saves them money, or because a government tax break or tax penalty makes it more expensive not to go green.
Do not pay more for green products, demand the current products go green and don't increase their prices. On your own, look for natural alternatives which are just as good and easy to procure, but aren't made by big name brand labels.
Re:Dirty little business secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
All my Green... (Score:2)
Give me tons of money, or I'm chopping down this frakking tree!!!!!
Huge impact ... maybe monetarily. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all for being a good steward of the environment (that probably gives you a good hint as to my worldview, too).
But when it comes to "green," unless we're talking about dumping pollutants into various ponds, lakes, and oceans, the primary thing that I would be interested in "green" about is monetary. Like most things.
Specifically, if it uses less electricity, power, etc., and I don't need it to use more, that's a Good Thing (tm). For example, light bulbs. Unless it's a reading light (I don't like the "weird" light when I'm reading), the electricity-saving bulbs are nice on my electricity bill. I assume the same about other large appliances, though I haven't had to buy one yet.
But the "green" craze that companies seem to be going through is kind of annoying. Sort of like the organic fad. I'm actually into the organic food stuff (read: anti-hormone, somewhat against certain GMO stuff, not a fan of ingesting pesticides, and organically grown food usually tastes better, too), but the rich-posh-styling-trendy organic thing (the typical Trader Joes or Whole Foods crowd) is silly. A trendy, posh thing is one thing; a good reason to do it is another. I prefer good reasons over trends. Fashionable organic food or fashionable "green" consumer items are usually silly and overpriced, it seems. Like most lemming-reaction trends.
The Dilbert cartoon on "Director of Green" (Score:2)
How you get a job like 'Director of Green'? [dilbert.com]
Recycle Is Ususally Greener (Score:2)
Unless the person has never had a computer or does not know where they can get a used one the new ones are not going to off set the energy of disposal of the old one and creation of the new one. I believe that this applies to just about any commodity.
To be really green I think that they should take in the {insert thing name here} for disposal / recycle, and show the true cost like a sticker on a hot water heater shows the energy usage.
People are way too busy patting themselves on the back driving their Pri
Green == Cheaper (sometimes) (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the however that a small part of them that feels like they are doing the "right thing", because it does seem when two products are the same in price and quality the green one is chosen; but it is definately secondary for most people. I'd say the best test for that was to see how many consumers would but the more expensive product that was identical except the "green" bottle was $.10 or $.50 or $1.00 more; particularly for consumer goods that don't have other buying decision reasons such as being "organic" like food.
Companies love it because like the consumer, it saves them money, particularly when they can sell the product for more money "because it is green" when it cost them less to make it, or pass the savings on to the customer and beat their competitor at the price game. It is a win-win in either scenario; and gets their foot in the door with the truly eco-conscience consumer who may never have bought form X vendor due to their environmental history. In this case, lip-service is still service.
Green computing in a nutshell (Score:4, Informative)
He told me that the most common application for "green computing" that companies request is to help with heat management. In particular companies in climates that need regular heating are moving their datacenters to the lowest floor possible to try to re-use the heat from the servers on higher floors.
In short, a big part of "green computing" right now comes down to (moving) hot air.
Which of course many of us IT guys have been good at for many, many year already.
The Truly "Green" Products Are Those Not Made (Score:3, Informative)
The truly "green" products are those that aren't made to begin with.
Reducing global human population growth would go far further at conserving the environment than all this "green" nonsense combined.
Ron
Re:Next thing you know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Next thing you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
mod up! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh... would that be a bad thing or a good thing? Since this would presumably be specific to advertising, it's not exactly doublespeak.
Re: (Score:2)
that's "lite", and I believe the requirement is to incorporate a disgusting aftertaste.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The big problem for consumers is that when buying an assembled product such as a computer, there's really no way to determine whether or not it's actually "green" other than by taking their word for it. There's just too many pieces from too many sources for a consumer to realistically track it all down. What needs to happen is the industry needs to rally around a third party grading system that tries to objectively measure and then certify finished products.
The example that comes to mind is the LEED system