The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The commodification of green > Comments

The commodification of green : Comments

By James Carman, published 29/10/2010

Just because a product says it's green doesn't mean it is - it could be just another way of separating you from your cash.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
If The Media Had Covered Climate Change As Well As They Did Toyota……….
For the last 24 years of crisis warnings, the IPCC climate scientists have continued to agree that the consequence of Climate Change on the planet Earth is still estimated to be anything from “catastrophic” and “unstoppable” warming, to negligible consequences if any, and may or may not include more extreme weather events.
In other words, climate change was Liberalism’s WMD-ridden Iraq War of fear mongering and lying.
Meanwhile, the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 24 years of climate control instead of population control. Nice! History is watching.
NOW. who’s the neocon?
System Change, not Climate Change
Posted by mememine69, Friday, 29 October 2010 6:59:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hm, I don't recall using the term 'neocon' anywhere. Are you sure you're arguing against my article and not someone else's?

I'm not going to get into an argument about the basic science here. The evidence is in and has been for 20 years, it's just shouting left. But even if you don't buy it... aren't efficiency savings and lower emissions good for everyone?
Posted by James Carman, Friday, 29 October 2010 8:35:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, good to see an author engaging on the discussion thread. You'll find that the article is often a sort of Rorschach blot that people then bounce-off to talk about what really interests them in that area. It's humbling as a writer to labour over a model of clarity only to find what seem to you to be the most obvious points misunderstood.

I actually tend to agree with both you and mememine69. There is still an argument to be had about what increased amounts of CO2 actually mean in temperature terms (and I think the empirical evidence will eventually be in, because I don't see emissions slowing down, despite all the talk of it), but I don't see any point in using energy wastefully.

I certainly have a problem with much of the trading-off green issues that goes on, plus the failure of journalists and politicians to ask questions about just how effective a particular measure will be.

One point about your analysis. You seemed to ignore the second hand market in things like cars. As cars are normally sold to someone else when the first owner has finished with them shouldn't you have spread the CO2 savings over a much longer period?
Posted by GrahamY, Friday, 29 October 2010 11:13:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, comments will always be based on what sparked in someone's mind. =) I've also spent enough time online to know my way around. Mostly just trying to keep on-topic. =)

As for the second-hand car market, that cuts both ways. You may personally be saving emissions by running a more efficient car, but if you sold yours, then that more-emitting car is still producing emissions. While your own ongoing emissions might be down, the overall emissions arguably haven't gone down at all. In any specific instance, you'd need to track the chain of transactions back to someone who got rid of a car without passing it on... and then see what happened to that one. The main point is that it's just a lot more complex than it is at first glance. My advice is really more what I see as a good bet rather than something backed by solid numbers.

As for climate science in general, yeah, there are questions... but one of the strengths of science is what questions are always asked. Just because that's happening doesn't meant that there's doubt over the underlying science or the upward trend in temperature. It's why I didn't tackle that at all in my article -- it's a side-point. Scientificaly-speaking, it's settled.
Posted by James Carman, Friday, 29 October 2010 11:54:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article.

I certainly agree with what appears to be your thesis - that the word 'green' (and associated words) has formed the core of a 'feelgood' industry movement that may not actually produce the goods it claims to. Kind of like certain charities that take monthly donations, a small percentage of which go where the donor thinks they are going.

I think that, as the environment remains a constant in the 'guilt market', some regulation on the use of terms like 'green' needs to be imposed. Just as marketers of 'light' foods need to specify just how they are 'light' and those peddling 'low GI' foods need to state exactly what their GI is, I think 'green' merchants need to state in a quantifiable way how they are 'green' and how that 'greenness' is achieved. Thus the buyer who wishes to make an informed choice can do so. The seller who wishes to con buyers into making uninformed choices must obey regulations which make the con much less of a con. There will still be misinformation (e.g. yeah we save water, but we use a lot of plastic) but at least there will be information rather than just empty claims.

Sorry for all the quotation marks. I don't think I've ever put this many into a single post!
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 29 October 2010 8:05:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article James. Certainly the 'Green' business has opened the doors to anyone wanting to cash in on people's eagerness to reduce emissions, use less chemicals, non-GM etc.

Food and the organic industry has been commodified in the same way with the end item not always the authentic article. Last night there was an interesting documentary about the Tibetan 'caterpillar fungus' which has spawned a whole counterfeit industry milling out thousands of capsules of a related fungus of which the efficacy is exactly nil, for which people pay huge sums of money.

The commodification of green was inevitable - where there is a market money will follow.

The answer as always lies with the consumer being vigilant enough to do some homework before buying, comparing products and reading reviews and most importantly actually reading the labels.

Choice recently listed their top dodgy products, one being a well known fridge brand which claimed a low energy rating but was found to be rather higher emitter.

The trap with 'green' is not to fall into the appearance of doing something ie. the feel-good factor, as opposed to the reality which involve some of those pros and cons that you raised in weighing up emissions with the environmental costs of manufacture and issues of planned obsolesence.

The good news is inbetween the dodgy claims and products there will be some wins for the environment particularly if we rely on some good old fashioned commonsense.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 29 October 2010 10:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy