The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

Wow- this is just silly. There are countless choices out there where two products work identically yet one is the smarter choice for you, your children, and the planet.

Once more consumers start using the little amount of brainpower needed to make that choice- and hopefully make the more responsible one- is when manufacturers will respond by making their own responsible choices that also help the bottom line.

↓↑report

. . . for three reasons, Jason: (a) the environmental movement has practically nothing to do with the environment and virtually everything to do with politics, (b) rarely do two products "accomplish the same end result", because, by definition, there would be no decision to make, and (c) the environment is not ours to save. The implication that it's ours to save is that it was us that significantly harmed it in the first place. That line of thinking gives us too much credit and not enough credit to the planet or science, itself.

I use "green" products mostly, but for two reasons only: (1) they may help me conserve money - my primary motivation, and (2) they may make me feel better for one reason or another.

If you're going to do something because it makes you feel better - including "saving the planet", then do it because it makes you feel better. But not because of some illusion of having some 35-year lasting effect.

For all your admirable efforts are 2.0B people living in squalor just trying to feed themselves and drink clean water, the environment be damned. "Green" policies to them would yield extinction today. That's a real problem. Until those people have some higher standard of life, politically-motivated green policies are a problem of luxury.

↓↑report

Not sure what your talking about. If you want to see two products that accomplish the same thing walk into a grocery store.

I see two bottles of shampoo, both clean my hair very well. One from a company that distributes its chemical waste into the river of one of these aforementioned villages of people living in squalor which in fact are in the process of decontaminating its water supply. The other which does not have a chemical waste that needs to be disposed. It does not make me feel better to pick the one that does not pollute. I have contributed to subtract the need for more of that product to be made. Hopefully others will do the same which will intern help the villagers now and in 35 years.

Oh and by the way did nature create Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) that are poisoning the food we eat today? Or would blaming man the creator of the toxins that I was referring to above in our seafood be giving us to much credit also?

↓↑report

(a) the environmental movement has practically nothing to do with the environment and virtually everything to do with politics,

Are you kidding me?? Tell that to the fisherman who can no longer find fish, the people living next to industrial waste sites, the children playing with toxic DEADLY toys (yes, that too is an environmental issue. It's not just about the landscape and pretty trees). It doesn't take -any- political learning or influence to know that it's WRONG to come down with a gastrointestinal illness or a bacterial infection a few days after bathing in some water.

Green policies are NOT a problem of luxury. They are a a problem of the poor championed thankfully by those who have the luxury to help.

↓↑report