Green Electronics: Only Half of the Story?

As more and more people grow concerned about the climate crisis and what they personally can do about it, we're seeing that they're becoming more and more aware of their power as consumers -- and for good reason.

American consumers drive our national economy and have more impact on the global economy than any other single group of people in the world. Together, we are a trillion dollar economic powerhouse.

Not surprisingly, as consumers search for more green ways to spend their green, companies are rapidly responding -- pushing out greener and greener consumer products. Now, if you want to buy a greener computer, a greener car, a greener t-shirt, even greener pencils, you can find them and have them.

Should consumers buy a green product when faced with other less green choices? Sure, but not before asking themselves, first, whether they need the product at all. New products still use new resources, even if they are relatively greener than their predecessors.

Consider the consumer electronics sector where many companies have focused their greening efforts on creating products that environmentally minded consumers can purchase in order to reduce their own impact on global warming.

Actually, rather than seeking the next best "green" thing, extending the useful life of the personal electronics we do have may be one of the best things we can do to reduce our environmental footprint while still remaining connected and maintaining our modern sensibilities. But there is actually a far more powerful way for consumers to vote with their purchases and that is to think not just in terms of green or climate-friendly products but of climate-friendly companies.

An important issue for consumers to realize is that a so-called green product may actually come from a very profitable company that may have only a minimal commitment to addressing climate change broadly and substantively or may have a portfolio of other products that are not climate-friendly at all. For example, an energy efficient electronics gadget is designed to help consumers reduce their own energy use without considering the energy expended (or conserved) by the company in developing it.

A number of studies have drawn attention to the fact that the vast majority of the environmental impact of a product occurs BEFORE it is purchased, not during its use. That's not to mention longer terms impacts of product disposal. The negative impact a huge multinational company can have on the environment will, in the end, greatly outweigh the positive cumulative impact that consumers can have in using the products they sell.

Some companies hear the larger call. They are reducing their footprint AND offering consumers better choices at every level. Those are the companies I believe we should support.

These are the innovators that have made company-wide improvements during design and production that lead to measurable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Companies themselves create colossal amounts of climate pollution and need to take aggressive action to reduce it. It's time for less green marketing and more measuring and reducing.

How can consumers know how serious a company is about stopping climate change and how they compare to other companies in their sector? There are four particularly illustrative benchmarks that get to the heart of the matter:

* Have they measured their climate footprint?

* Have they reduced their climate pollution (what we usually call greenhouse gas emissions) or established clear goals to reduce?

* Have they supported or suggested intent to block progressive climate policy initiatives at the local, state, or federal level?

* And have they publicly disclosed their climate actions clearly and comprehensively to consumers and stakeholders?

In fact, these are exactly the benchmarks -- framed by 22 detailed criteria -- that help us at Climate Counts get a solid read on what companies are doing to see who's striding (tops in a sector), starting (middle of the pack), or stuck on climate change. Of the companies we've evaluated so far, notable climate striders include Nike, Canon, IBM, and Unilever. Our new scores slated for release in early spring will tell us much more about the progress being made (or not) by the companies we've scored.

So the next time you get set to send an overnight package, buy running shoes, shop for a computer or even go out for a beer, let Climate Counts help you whether the largest companies whose products you have to choose from are actually working to lessen their impact on climate change. We even have a tool that lets you get company ranks right on your cell phone as you shop.

Collectively, we can have a huge positive impact on the environment simply by how and where we spend our money. Just remember that supporting an environmentally responsible company can be exponentially more powerful and positive than merely buying the latest green product to hit the shelf.

Comments

[PerryWhite]

I plan to open a chain of solar powered tanning salons.

[derik]

I agree green is essential for our continued presence on the plantet. Though, I now see that companies are now adopting green for increasing their green money. Thus, it seems that there is fake green as opposed to real green. The fake green is now being created by the massive marketing machine. As for the mere mortal consumers, they will now be sucked up by this massive marketing machine. To be fair, I work in the industry that creates all this e-stuff. Even worse, I am a part of the marketing machine myself. That must make me real brown, I guess. Albeit, policy is what should drive the real green into the planet. Sadly, policy at all levels of government and the economic is all political and marketing. So, we have fake policy driving fake green. It is time to start peeling the onion and going after all the fake greeness. Otherwise, the mere mortal consumers will turn real green and finally go extinct. Which I guess is just a pathway of evolution and entropy.

[T.Roll]

Realistically, what percentage of the population will be looking into how green a company is before buying it's product. Enough to make any sort of difference to the climate? What about students and lower income people? Think they'll be looking at anything other than price? Especially with a recession looming?

[realitytrumpsbull]

People should dig up their old Blue Oyster Cult records and listen to those...if they haven't all been recycled, yet.

'you use that special option, in your car....'

But, but, what about my quad-heated in-dash dog polishers? They only bring the GVW up to 4,900 pounds, and this L1011 jet turbine only consumes 3,000 spotted owls per minute, that's pretty good, right? ;)

[Sciguy]

"Should consumers buy a green product when faced with other less green choices? Sure, but not before asking themselves, first, whether they need the product at all. New products still use new resources, even if they are relatively greener than their predecessors."

Although extending the useful life of electronics was mentioned, it wasn't emphasized that we buy, use, and throw away WAY too much stuff. Planned obsolescence is only a pert of the story.

Does anyone you know really need that new cell phone, or will the old one do? Must you have new shoes, or could you resole the old ones? Could you have your fridge - washer - dryer - other major appliance repaired, rather than buying a new one? Do you really need that new pair of pants? Can your underwear withstand one more wearing before you toss it into the trash? Can you finish using that new brand of toothpaste instead of throwing it out because you don't like the taste?

Once upon a time - I'm showing my age here - the expression was "use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without." Whatever happened to plain old thriftiness with respect to goods, not just money? Just wonderin'.

[eshock]

There is a third half to the story and it is about sustainability. There are rare earth elements used in nearly all consumer electronics. Market prices for elements like Coltan have been skyrocketing. Consider that 80 percent of the world's supply is mined in the Congo where 3.6 million deaths have occured due to conflicts over these mines. Clearly, yet another reason to recycle your cellphones and televisions is to reduce the demand for these elements. Bruce Sterling has described the end of our gizmo era where you would buy a device and use it for only a short period of time because it has become obsolete. The RFID world is the beginning of our new epoch, the spime, where products will be traced through space and time and its elements reused for the upgraded product. This is our future, our only future, sustainable technology is the only technology.

[MaxMarginal]

So so true. Despite Macbook Air's green features, it comes from a company with next to none (and I am a hypocrite as I type this comment on my 24" iMac...)

[jcboston]

welcome to HuffPost Wood