Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Green Is In At CES, But Is It Real?

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the hi-fi-jumpropes dept.

Earth 165

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."

cancel ×

165 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pea soup! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360441)

We should all eat it. It's the greenest soup.

Really? (5, Informative)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360571)

"...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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360679)

Mod up, Mod up, Mod up, Mod up. Exactly what I was going to say. I even have the same snippet of text currently sitting on my clipboard. Guess I won't have to hit V now.

Please mod parent off-topic (karma whoring) (-1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360805)

Parent is posting off-topic - it has nothing to do with pea soup - in an attempt to attract moderator attention. This is gaming the /. moderation system and it should not be tolerated. If you are uncomfortable moderating Off-topic, please use Overrated.

To the parent: if you have something to say about the article, reply to the article like everybody else.

I was putting it back ON topic... (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361093)

" Parent is posting off-topic - it has nothing to do with pea soup - in an attempt to attract moderator attention. This is gaming the /. moderation system and it should not be tolerated. If you are uncomfortable moderating Off-topic, please use Overrated.

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 take an off topic post...and steer it back to something related TO the article in question.

Re:I was putting it back ON topic... (2, Funny)

2.7182 (819680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361403)

I think to clarify the situation it should be pointed out that pea soup isn't the greenest soup. That would probably be broccoli. Can the parent be modded down for culinary trolling ? He probably knew that all the broccoli people would jump in screaming to the thread.

Re:Please mod parent off-topic (karma whoring) (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361473)

Parent is posting off-topic - it has nothing to do with pea soup - in an attempt to attract moderator attention. This is gaming the /. moderation system and it should not be tolerated. If you are uncomfortable moderating Off-topic, please use Overrated.

To the parent: if you have something to say about the article, reply to the article like everybody else.


While true that the article has nothing to do with pea soup, it has plenty to do with buying green products. Pea soup is green.

The parent post will get a +1 insightful to grant karma, and then get modded to +5 funny. As for your post, sadly we lack a -1 Joyless Whiner mod, so you will have to settle for Off-topic.

The Mod Squad

Re:Really? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360809)

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? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361723)

What an incredibly stupid idea. Anyone that cares if something is green or not can do their own damn research.

Re:Really? (3, Insightful)

LotsOfPhil (982823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361123)

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

What about appliances (fridges, laundry machines, etc)?

Re:Really? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362303)

"What about appliances (fridges, laundry machines, etc)?"

Nope...not at first at least.

I'd buy a stove (hopefully a new one soon) to what I want...something with massive BTU's, like a gas Vulcan or Wolfe stove. I'm looking for heavy, fast heat. Something I could even use a real wok on and stir fry with. So, in that case....looking for the opposite of efficiency....

For fridge, I want sub zero or the equivalent...I'd ideally like separate fridge and freezer units

Other appliances...well, washer and dryer, I want front loaders...decent capacity. I supposed if it came down to deciding between two equally appealing models, I'd look at the 'green' numbers there. But, really...that would be the last factor.

I'm looking for appliances with function/features I want...that is first and foremost concern. I'm a bit of an outlier here though, I'll admit. I like to cook a LOT...and I want as close to pro level stuff in my place as I can get for a personal residence.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361193)

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

Hi! Now you know me.

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?

While it's not my #1 consideration for gadgets -- semiconductor manufacturing is extremely ungreen -- I do take things like the use of recycled materials, power consumption, emissions (both factory and from the product itself), recyclability, re-use potential, environmental track record of the company, etc. into account when I make any purchase decision.

Sadly, in purchasing gadgets, most of the time all of the choices are equally bad. :(

Re:Really? (1)

Solra Bizna (716281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361223)

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

Me.

I won't even consider buying a computer that will use more than about 300W of power at any time, because it's too much. My current Linux desktop uses about 20W, and my server about 10W.

-:sigma.SB

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361483)

The Greenest is the Fit-PC

http://www.fit-pc.com/new/ [fit-pc.com]

but you wont get performance or Vista running...

Re:Really? (1)

poached (1123673) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361753)

I have always thought the use of the word green is overloaded and meaningless. What does green mean? Does it mean sustainable? Does it mean it is biodegradable? There is no standard for what these words mean and there isn't federal regulation on a standard that the companies must meet. The only way I think to cut down on energy and resource consumption is to consume less. See story of stuff [storyofstuff.com] and Wall-e for examples on our materialistic society. Unfortunately, the kind of self-restraint required to be thrifty and frugal is too much to ask for most.

Re:Really? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361899)

The only way to "consume less" is to massively reduce the worlds population. Conservation is a dead end. It will not "save the planet". It can't. If you cut your "footprint" to 50% of what it is today, when the planet's population doubles you have made no ground what so ever. Thrifty and frugal is simply a red herring.

Re:Really? (5, Informative)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361913)

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.

Re:Really? (2, Interesting)

horatio (127595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362245)

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 adapter) - both use 0 when plugged in with no phone attached. The motorola charger is using 3 watts to charge the phone.

I call bullshit, and this is exactly why I'm so tired of "green" this or "eco-friendly" that - because I don't believe any of it. The hyperbole drowns out any meaningful facts. We're being asked to do stupid, completely inconsequential things that have zero or near zero measurable impact. My full-size tower / gaming rig uses a little under 200W powered up (idle), and 4 whole watts when on standby - not hibernating - standby. Obviously 4 > 0, but give me a break with the malarky about how the little LED is killing the planet.

Obviously, we don't want to let facts get in the way of our millions of green (dollars) of marketing "green" products. (I won't even get into the really interesting link between "Green Week" on TV and the owner/parent company of said TV channels who just happens to produce and sell "green" products...)

Conservation is great, I have no problem with taking good care of the planet. But enough with the BS marketing, and the BS from the gov't -- including what kind of lightbulbs [worldnetdaily.com] I'm allowed to buy. Oh, you didn't realize that Congress has outlawed most incandescent lightbulbs? Yeah, it seemed to kind of be one of those things they just did because they can. I'm stocking up. Instead of any meaningful changes to our energy policy, like more nuclear power, this is the kind of BS the "green" movement decides we should have.

Sorry, /rant.

Re:Really? (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362257)

A sizable minority that is getting huge product lines aimed at them? Have you see the Greeworks line from Clorox? How about the green labels on SC Johnson Wax products? I don't know whether this movement will continue or not, especially with the recession, but it seems to be based off of the huge number of products aimed at "green" people, I'd hardly call it a minority.

Re:Pea soup! (1)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361513)

We should all eat it. It's the greenest soup.

When I saw this, I imediatly thought of Soylent green.

Re:Pea soup! (1)

YetAnotherProgrammer (1075287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362351)

Tomatillo Gazpacho has my vote for the greenest soup.

Next thing you know... (1)

Jonah Bomber (535788) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360483)

...the FDA will come out with rules about what constitutes "green" like they already have with "light" and "plus."

Re:Next thing you know... (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360627)

Like Energy Star? [energystar.gov]

Re:Next thing you know... (5, Insightful)

snowraver1 (1052510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360755)

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.

mod up! (2)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360797)

exactly what I was going to say

Re:Next thing you know... (2, Interesting)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360663)

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:Next thing you know... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361105)

that's "lite", and I believe the requirement is to incorporate a disgusting aftertaste.

Buzzwords (4, Informative)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360497)

It's a buzzword. It'll get people to buy your product regardless because it catches attention, along with terms like "This new design is very Web 2.0." Want to know more? Watch Penn & Teller's: Bullshit!, they have an episode on Going Green.

Re:Buzzwords (1)

siuengr (625257) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360573)

I agree, its cool to be green, so everyone is making up ways to be green, just like foods advertising being trans-fat free even though they never had trans-fat to begin with.

Re:Buzzwords (1)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361077)

Actually I would equate some companies "going green" to products advertising 0-trans fat even though they do in fact contain trans fat.

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 .4g (which I believe is the maximum you can have and still say you have 0g).

Re:Buzzwords (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361063)

P&T had an episode denouncing handicapped parking, for fuck's sake. They're typical self-deluded glibertarians.

Re:Buzzwords (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361197)

P&T had an episode denouncing handicapped parking, for fuck's sake. They're typical self-deluded glibertarians.

That episode was actually about how handicapped parking and the Americans with Disabilities act is abused and very vague at who qualifies. You clearly didn't watch the episode closely enough or just didn't want to listen.

The specific attributes (5, Funny)

getuid() (1305889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360513)

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 (4, Funny)

stokessd (89903) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360835)

I'm #ff0000 #00ff00 colorbind you insensitive clod!

Sheldon

Re:The specific attributes (1)

Soko (17987) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361175)

#00ff00 maybe?

Thank you, I'll be here all week! Try the #00ff00 eggs and ham.

T, FTF Sam-I-AM.

Re:The specific attributes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361499)

green is #008000.

"Huge Consideration"? (1)

Rayeth (1335201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360525)

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 most people. I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of those claims.

Re:"Huge Consideration"? (1)

yodleboy (982200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361113)

I doubt in the current financial climate people are going to be stressing green in their purchases

exactly this. green is all well and good and quite trendy when you have disposable income. Too bad a lot of the products cost so much that unless you're really just doing it for the environment there's no compelling reason to buy. The cost savings rarely outweighs the price premium. These companies are only hoping to milk the cash cow. It's too bad really because everything being 'green' would probably be a good thing.

What the hell is green anyway? (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360557)

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? (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360703)

Personally, I'd avoid RoHS products like the plague given the poorer quality of the solder joints.

What good is "being green" when you're going to generate twice as much waste throwing the pieces of shit away?

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361673)

Afaict it's pretty much impossible to avoid products made with lead free solder and/or lead free component finishes. Few manufacturers want to produce products that can't legally be sold in the EU (yeah, I know there are some exceptions but often the same motherboards and expansion cards get used in servers and top end desktops so the sensible thing from the manufacturers perspective is to make them ROHS compliant).

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360707)

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?

There are several aspects of the whole "Green IT" thing that make sense no matter how you put them.

Examples:
* Virtualization makes your IT more flexible and requires less hardware (= less cost)
* Faster computers that require less power (= higher density, less energy cost, etc.)

But yes, you're right. I never understood the leftist/green crap we've been seeing for the past few years - and it's getting worse.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360951)

Posting anon for various reasons:

My company recently had an internal IT Expo for employees, which advertised, among other things:
1) "Green IT" is coming
2) We are no longer allowed to VPN in from personal assets with the exception of a special remote desktop access client, so if we want to telecommute we now have to leave our desktop PCs on and use remote desktop.

Note that 1) and 2) conflict...

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361271)

Virtual desktops or terminal servers.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361837)

Yay, virtualization! Virtualization in every important way has been around for years. Memory and CPU are virtualized to isolate processes from eachother. Plan 9, though not very popular, has been influential in virtualizing the filesystem per process (the /proc filesystem on Linux). BSD Jails let you isolate processes' and users' resources further, simplifying configuration in many cases. Yay!

What I don't get is what everyone calls virtualization: the recent trend of running multiple copies of the entire OS on one box at a time, plus virtualization software and hardware. It's a waste of CPU, memory, and disk. That's not green at all. If your hardware can handle both servers, just run them both on the same copy of the OS. That's what the OS is there for!

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (2, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362041)

It's a waste of CPU, memory, and disk. That's not green at all. If your hardware can handle both servers, just run them both on the same copy of the OS. That's what the OS is there for!

In theory, you're right - in practice, you're wrong.

The problem here is that many important LOB applications are only supported in very specific conditions, which usually makes it necessary to dedicate an OS to the application.

Most of the Microsoft infrastructure also requires or recommends several OS instances to run most of their software.

Segregating applications into their own OS instances is also a good idea anyway, as it eases troubleshooting and removes negative interactions between applications running in the same OS instance.

If you do not run any Microsoft software, you'll probably have less of a need for virtualization - as it solves many problems that were created by both Microsoft and most of the 3rd party vendors that surround MS.

There is additional flexibility gained from virtualization, like VMware DRM, VMware DRS, VMotion, Storage Vmotion. These can give you advantages no single server can give you.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (2, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360731)

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 bucks more to get the 65 watt.

But I don't walk around all high and mighty about it, I didn't put a "green" sticker on the computer case. I did it because I'm cheap, because the fans have to work less so make less noise...

There are side benefits to green sometimes.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (2, Insightful)

ShadowBlasko (597519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360821)

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:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

ShadowBlasko (597519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360899)

Crap, self disclaimer: That article from toyota was from 12/06.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361303)

The Prius is not an electric car, it's a hybrid. It doesn't use NiMH batteries either.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26362227)

Yes, it does use NiMH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prius [wikipedia.org]

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (2, Interesting)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361435)

That's funny, one google search for "prius battery replacement" shows that there were issues with the '01-'03 modles all thought they appear to be cleared up in the newer model which does not allow the battery to go move outside of 40-80% charge.

There's also an an aftermarket for replacement batteries from wrecked Priuses so clearly someone needs them.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (2, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361751)

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:What the hell is green anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360825)

girlintraining, are you really a girl? because if so I'm going to leave my wife and kids and dedicate my life to winning your heart. You are ABSOLUTELY. FREAKING. BRILLIANT.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362325)

Outspoken women attract weirdo-stalker types like magnets. Even our local food critic was being harassed by some guy on her forum.

Do you need a mommy? Besides, you know she's really a man. Pretending you're female on Slashdot amounts to an automatic 2 extra mod points per post plus the sympathy of horny sycophants everywhere.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361367)

Wow.. you're right. Perhaps we should then have new colors to define what it does. Let's make blue-friendly mean air quality, and red-friendly mean animal friendly. There... that's the spectrum.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (2, Funny)

N1ck0 (803359) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362075)

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 particles and forms of matter but these were not explicitly added during the manufacture or created by a man-made process*****.

***** Please note Foomatic industries is only aware of the actions made by Foomatic Industries Employees****** during the manufacture process.

****** Some components of Foomatic Industries products are outsourced to other companies, and Foomatic Industries is not liable for the manufacturing processes or regulation of exotic matter in the creation of those components.

Re:What the hell is green anyway? (1)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362271)

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.

You don't really lose the energy since aluminum is very recyclable.

The real question: (1)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360589)

Will it blend?

What's the definition of green? (4, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360597)

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? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360733)

Ha! Green! HAHA GREEN! Get it? GET IT? I'm being funny and ironic! HA! Now look...VODAK. GET IT??? GET IT?? I misspelled vodka and called it vodak instead! LOOK AT ME! HA! And now I'm going to post a picture and I'm going to hotlink it and I'm going to say that it's hotlinked after a slashie! I'm unstoppable! HA! OH MY GOD I CAN'T STOP LAUGHING! Look! I'm typing THIS after quoting someone! HA! Oh my God I need to breathe. Oh, wait. Wait. Someone said God. INVISIBLE SKY FAIRY! HAHAHAHA. Oh lord. Oh geez. Whoo. Here, let me find a Spaghetti Flying Monster picture. AND I'LL HOTLINK THAT, TOO! Oh, jesus somebody stop me. Oh Jesus I said Jesus again. INVISIBLE SKY FAIRY! HAHAHAHAH. Wait, wait: THIS. HAHAHAHAHA. THIS!

Re:What's the definition of green? (4, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360741)

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 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.

Re:What's the definition of green? (5, Insightful)

UncleWilly (1128141) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360787)

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.

Very unlikley (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362167)

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

Americas rivers in the 60's had some issues, but are nothing like the waste we see/have seen in communist countries where people have less power to intervene against the state.

Can you point to a specific river in China you are thinking of?

Re:What's the definition of green? (2, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360901)

What can we say? Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous. Here's how I see it. China and other third world "companies" are ideal places to dump the garbage we're too prudish to dump in our own backyards. Personally I think the garbage problem is way overrated. If junk wasn't meant to be thrown away, someone would pay you for it.

Re:What's the definition of green? (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361269)

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.

It won't be really green... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360629)

Until they add the "eco" prefix. Nothing truely good for gaia comes without the "eco."

Attribute (1)

mark72005 (1233572) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360667)

"...the specific attributes that prompted hi-tech firms to label their products green."

There is only one attribute needed to label a product 'green'.

The ability to boost sales in so doing.

Lead Free Solder, for example? (5, Interesting)

retroworks (652802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360701)

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:Lead Free Solder, for example? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361981)

In the funny but true category. Baby seal pelts are a renewable resource.

Maybe some consumers are overwhelmed (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360715)

With all the green stuff flying around, and some of it merely being transferring the emissions to an earlier part in the process (solar panels) or being horribly expensive (solar panels) and so on, people are getting jaded.

Also, there is a huge campaign against global climate change and selective reporting (e.g., DailyTech), never mind the man-made aspect of it, so lots of people just don't care that it matters.

In addition even recycling efforts have had negative PR - local governments getting residents to recycle, collecting it all, and shipping it off to China. Each time this happens, people think "why do I bother?!"

The best way to reduce emissions is to be thrifty - make use of what you have now, use things for longer, etc. Of course, that's not good for the economy!

Dirty little business secret (4, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360739)

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 (4, Insightful)

Silentknyght (1042778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361135)

Except that green does not mean cheaper in all cases. Some additives to products are plentiful, cheap, and harmful to the environment. Replacing them with to be "Green" and not harmful usually means a replacement additive that is scarce(r) and/or (more) expensive. Food is an excellent example of this. Eating organic foods is excellent for your health, but rather expensive. That fast food cheeseburger, while cheap and tasty, is made from low quality products, fillers, and flavorings.

Re:Dirty little business secret (1)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361199)

I'm with ya for the most part. However making a plant green costs money. Equipment has to be purchased for dealing with waste etc. The market will bear out if that product is viable and at what price. New Belgium Brewery is one of the greenest plants and is head and shoulders above most breweries. They product is sold at a very competitive price too so it can be done.

Re:Dirty little business secret (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361535)

The problem is that not all green alternatives are in fact cheaper, especially many that are used in industrial process. Landfilling CRTs is a lot cheaper than recycling them, incinerating hazardous waste is a lot more expensive than putting it in a drum somewhere to forget about it.

Then somebody will get pedantic (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361721)

and say "oh yeah, but what about the externalities like the cost of health care when kids in the neighborhood get lead posioning from the landfill?". Then some snarky jackass cites some Penn & Teller episode that says that CRT's dont have lead in them but instead are a great source of Omega3 (liberal myth) fatty (liberal myth) acids (academic myth) and are actually healthy for children and pets (liberal myth). Then some damn hippie (nixon) jumps in and starts saying we are evil for wasting perfectly good CRT's and the Corporate Man (myth) wants us to spend money on useless LCD's (myth). Then some nerd chimes in that LCD's consume 1.3465GW less power (myth), which of course is a myth debunked on Fox & Friends (lie). Then everybody says "Fuck you" (swear) and nothing gets done. Welcome to modern US (imperialist) political debate(myth).

Our politics have gotten too divided, too tit for tat and and too bitter.

Look. Here is the deal with CRT's. We should recycle them. But right now, it is a pain in the ass for most people so instead of getting properly recycled they get dumped or left on a curb. I mean, I did the right thing once, and those assholes wanted to charge me $20 bucks to take my old TV. Screw that! Not to mention I don't own a car now and the garbage guy doesn't collect them. Lets not even get into the fact that some of these recycling companies offshore the whole process and a bunch of kids with gas masks get to burn them in open pits.

How do we solve the problem? We need to do *something* with this dinosaurs called CRT's. Dumping them into a landfill is unhealthy thanks to led and god knows what else in them. How do we do it and who pays for it?

Re:Dirty little business secret (1)

radtea (464814) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362249)

Reducing package size is green and it costs less to produce. Why increase the price if cost is lowered?

The problem is that faux environmentalists have for decades tried to convince people to change they way they live based on a kind of puritanical moral argument. They want people to change to become supposedly more morally pure through self-sacrifice, but they don't have the guts to say that--instead they hide behind the genuine need to protect the environment.

This propaganda campaign has been so successful that "green" as been equated in the public's mind with "costly, difficult, limited and painful," to the extent that businesses sometimes reject green solutions out of hand because of the up-front perception that "green costs more."

In reality, the underlying economics of genuinely green technology is almost always better than non-green tech, unless the non-green tech is specifically exploiting a loophole in the system of property by dumping effluent into the commons, which is becoming more difficult due to better protection on private property around the world.

Even the cases where people are claiming in this discussion that "green is not always cheaper" they are typically asking us to look at the problem in a completely myopic way, by considering only exactly the same industrial process that is currently being used and post-processing the effluent from it, which is in most cases silly compared to re-engineering the process so that the amount or toxicity of effluent is reduced.

Green companies have been doing this kind of process re-engineering for DECADES, with the primary goal of saving money. Look at the well-known example of Interface. And if an older company can't afford to replace existing plant... well, let 'em get competed into the ground by newer companies that can.

The opposite of "green" is "wasteful", and what economically sane company is in favour of being wasteful?

Re:Dirty little business secret (1)

the_one(2) (1117139) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362399)

Reducing package size is green and it costs less to produce.

Individually plastic wrapped cheese slices would be a good place to start... Such a silly idea really... why??!

All my Green... (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360753)

Give me tons of money, or I'm chopping down this frakking tree!!!!!

Huge impact ... maybe monetarily. (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26360761)

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.

Re:Huge impact ... maybe monetarily. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361185)

I'm all for being a good steward of the environment (that probably gives you a good hint as to my worldview, too).

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 bucks more to get the 65 watt.

But I don't walk around all high and mighty about it, I didn't put a "green" sticker on the computer case. I did it because I'm cheap, because the fans have to work less so make less noise. :=)

Re:Huge impact ... maybe monetarily. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361819)

Trader Joe's products are consistently cheaper than what you find in a real grocery store.

Re:Huge impact ... maybe monetarily. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361955)

[begin offtopicness] Maybe the store near me is just weird, but most of the prices are more expensive than many places... except for some items including dairy, if I remember correctly. Their dairy actually tends to be cheaper. And beans. Other items tend to be more expensive. [/end offtopicness]

Simple. green == energy (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26360823)

'green' means energy, does it not?

Its usefullness anyways..

For portable devices that means battery life improvement by a factor of 10. From the 4-8 hrs for mp3 players/notebooks, etc.. to 4-8 days on a single charge.

For static equipment, server rooms, desktops, its the opposite. Squeezing more computational power at fewer watts, and less heat generated from less power being consumed.

Demand proper documentation (1)

trollebolle (1210072) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361141)

The only way to make sure is to demand thorough documentation of the manufacturing process and ensure the authenticity of the documentation provided. Consumer pressure is needed to make companies deliver green products on a regular basis. They will manufacture what the buyers want. Governments are usually important customers and can lead the way on behalf of the public.

As a side note, one should also demand that the products are "fair", such as the manufacturer and subcontractors don't exploit third world countries, the workers are properly paid etc.

Re:Demand proper documentation (2, Interesting)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361401)

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 that is used for buildings. The architecture/construction world has the green building council, and through all that there's some standardized education systems for helping people learn how to do sustainable design, and there's a point system that is used to basically grade buildings on the basis of green/sustainable design/construction/etc. This system allows a building owner/tenants/etc to be confident that their building is actually sustainable, and not just take the architect/contractor's word for it. But it also has other positive side effects, because it gives the architects/contractor's some solid goals to shoot for if they're attempting to design sustainably, and it also gives building component/materials manufacturers good benchmarks to shoot for when designing their individual products.

There are a number of competing systems to LEED, but at least in the US, LEED is the main game in town.

Recycle Is Ususally Greener (1)

theManInTheYellowHat (451261) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361177)

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 Prius and using their green MacBook when the landfills are full of their old SUV and Gateway notebooks.

Green == Cheaper (sometimes) (3, Insightful)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361181)

The products folks are clamoring for to be green are because "going green" saves them money; which is really what consumers are concerned about. CFLs are huge right now because in some markets (e.g. Southern California) they are cheaper than incandescent lighting and reduce ones electric bill, even if only by a small margin. "Green" cars were in when gas was $4.00/gal, but now that prices have fallen, I'm seeing more and more 07-08 Priuses having been traded in. Those buyers weren't "true believer" green purchasers, they just felt being "green" would be cheaper in the form of lower engergy costs. When driving a 17mpg car became cheaper than the car payments on a hybrid or the maintainence (having to go to the dealer for service) folks are now unloading them (I'm car shopping and have seen a big raise in the number of used hybrids available; part of which may be that they are just becoming more common and the 3-year/car dirvers are now starting to move to their next purchase).

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.

evile counting on j publics' gnat sized memory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361203)

paying attention (that's cheap enough) to everything except the disposition of the spirit, leads j back to the greed/fear/ego based swindlers time after time.

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_as/as_nepal_buddha_boy;_ylt=A0wNdN1I6RpJfGoBfhWs0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081106/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_who_pays;_ylt=A2KIR3MR9hJJ3YkAGhms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_us/obama_catholics;_ylt=A0wNdOs0AR1Jam0AfE2s0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081107/ts_alt_afp/environmentclimatewarmingatlantic_081107145344
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

  it's time to get real now. A LOT of energy/resource has been squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, many of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're still in.

http://www.carnicom.com/ (yikes almighty)
http://weatherwars.info/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."--chronicles

A lot of Manufacturers don't understand either! (1)

hovercycle (1118435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361283)

I have worked in SMT assembly and even when a business claims lead free processes, there are still _many_ reels of parts that are not. Just a little inside info. Not to mention the bags and bags of packaging for the CF connectors and the like.

Green computing in a nutshell (3, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361309)

I had lunch last week with a former colleague who is now working for a company that does setup and support for data centers all over the country. The conversation of course at one point went to "green computing".

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.

Prime attribute used (1)

sheepofblue (1106227) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361379)

The prime attribute the product contains is the power of green to line the lemmings up for a walk

Green - the new Fresh (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361411)

Just substitute "Green!" for "Fresh!" in you advertising copy and you're good to go and ready to make big bucks off consumers brainwashed by entertainment and news media.

"Green" isn't real- why would it be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26361451)

From the HennyPenny hoaxers going into business selling 'carbon offsets' to scientists needing 'consensus' and the idea that sending money to Washington will solve the the problem....what part of green sounds genuine?

Why should anyone's support of 'green' be genuine?

HOAX.

Green is only fashionable because it's cheap. (1)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361565)

Suddenly big business is concerned about the environment? Doubtful. "Green" is only fashionable because it's a way of simultaneously having your PR people crow about saving the environment while your number crunchers are busy trying to save as much money as possible on energy consumption. If the price of energy were not rising, there would be no "green" initiatives.

The Truly "Green" Products Are Those Not Made (2, Informative)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361783)

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:The Truly "Green" Products Are Those Not Made (1)

cowscows (103644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362275)

People aren't going to stop having kids, and people aren't going to stop using technology to extend their lives. Survival and reproduction are the two most fundamental biological impulses that humans have. Reducing global population growth sounds like a good idea on paper, but any efforts to forcefully do so are immoral at best.

But even ignoring that fact, I don't think you're right that it'd be more efficient. It's true that history has generally shown that as standards of living increase, population growth tends to slow. But at the same time, individual consumption goes way up. Africa has birth rates well beyond those of the USA, but are you really trying to make the argument that Africa is more to blame for resource overuse and pollution than the USA is?

The only real "Green" at CES is MONEY... (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26361873)

The rest is fluff. Take it from a guy who been going to the trade shows since the 80s, the only thing the vast majority of the manufacturers care about is the bottom line, more so in these tough economic times. "Green" is a fashionable label that helps push a tiny bit more product, and as long as the buzz lives on the Marketing Guys will keep pimping it.

Real Green is comparitize cost of inputs (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26362255)

If you have a "green" HDTV that is plasma and uses more energy than an entire household does in France, than it's not green.

But ... if you are replacing existing servers with ones that deliver more CPU per watt and don't spend most of their energy cooling a room that they heat up, that's actual green tech.

Or replacing CRTs with LED screens that have a true sleep option (not just standby).

It depends on usage. Some new fridges are twice as big but use less energy per year than the old fridges that spoil food - those are improvements.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>