“Green” marketing hype turning off consumers

THIS ARTCLE IS VERY INTRIGUE AND INTEREST GREATLY I WOLD LIKE MORE OF YOUR INFO PLZ REPLY WITH E MAILS AND ADDRES TO REACH

Protecting your own economic well being during a time of economic struggle is profoundly selfish. It is in your rational self interest as Ayn Rand put it. And that is good not evil.

There are two types of greens - those who want clean air and clean water to live in and to reduce the cost of living and those who think nature is intrinsically good and should be protected for its own sake not for the benefit of man. This latter ultimately seek to destroy man. Read their rhetoric. In a truely free market with private ownership all externalities will be accomodated. The cost of landfil will make it uneconomic to throw away certain kinds of trash. The cost of increasingly scarce whales caused a switch from whale oil for lighting lamps to fossil fuel. The cost of fossil fuel will eventually force a switch to other energy forms. The economy of paying for appliances will cause people to choose more energy efficient models at the right capital cost. It is the intrinsicist who can not allow the market to work because working is not his goal, rather elimination of man is.

More 'green' idiocy... well, marketing hype, anyway... Dyson has a new commercial about his work on developing a 'new' kind of motor: one without carbon brushes. This will reduce carbon dust production, he says. A bit later, he summarizes his new, soon to be developed, brushless motor as having no 'carbon emissions'! OMG! Obviously he is asking us to disregard the carbon emissions produced in the manufacture of the device itself, and the power to run it, and of course the fact that carbon dust IS NOT CO2, and if found in the upper atmosphere, is most likely to assist in the reduction of global temperatures. That, and there's nothing 'new' and 'revolutionary' about brushless motors. Unless he meant 'revolutionary' as a pun.

I hate "Green". A sure-fire way to turn me off is to tout your ''greeness''. And it''s more than ''fatigue''. It''s the factless religious fervor as evidenced by most of the posters named ''To'' on this page. I''ve investigated the latest solar/wind/hydrogen products for the home, and they fall far short. The paybacks are exceeding two decades for some of the stuff out there. Even when a government will pay up to half the cost to subsidize, it often still makes no sense. BTW, if libertarianism doesn''t work, and government regulation is the only answer, then what explains Yellowstone National Park? The place was a ''pristine'' wildlife paradise before it was ''nationalized'', after which well-meaning bureaucrats ran it into the ground. It turns out that it wasn''t so ''pristine'' after all. It turns out American Indians had been ''managing'' it just fine on their own. This included controlled burns, hunting, and other wildlife control measures to produce a virtual paradise. They didn''t kill off all the game animals to feed themselves. They didn''t kill off all the predators because they might hurt the deer and elk. They didn''t need government regulations and bureaucrats to tell them that that would be bad for their future.

Consumers are very smart indeed. They will gladly replace old appliances with new energy efficient ones, but the question is when. If their old appliances are nowhere near their end-of-life yet, then they must see energy bill savings to justify the immediate replacement cost. But if they are near end-of-life, then consumers must buy something and it will only make sense to buy the latest and greatest green product. Consider something else, too. How will consumers know how much they are saving on their energy bills with green products. It's nearly impossible without the right equipment to monitor their electricity consumption in real time in the home. A hot idea would be to provide consumers with a real-time in-home energy display that communicates directly with your electronic smart meter on the house. Too bad governments and utility companies are not terribly motivated to provide this sort of technology to consumers... yet.

"I do know that technology is the only way to solve technical problems." You have GOT to be kidding me! This is exactly what is wrong with the world today, and it is called "techno-triumphalism". Additional complexity does not always solve complex problems - often it just reduces them to complete chaos.

I was all excited to post a comment pointing out that cars costing 100 times more than they do now wouldn't "force us all" to buy them...it might force us all to walk, it might force us all to use (or develop) mass transit... But the idea that we'd have to accede and purchase the car regardless of the price is kind of an America-centric point of view...and may not stand up in the real world. Any more than the concept that 'green' must be economically advantageous to be feasible. "Green" should reflect the real cost of things...otherwise, we end up with 'sub-prime' greenness. But then I read the other comments here, and realized... Bummer - You're not going to understand a word I said.

What people who are Green driven are realy saying is, I''m willing to change this much. Example - you by a hybrid car to help conserve gasoline, why don''t you give up driving if it''s realy that big of a problem? You say use windmill''s for electricity, why don''t you quit using electricity? The answer is obvious to live the way we want we''re not willing to go that far to "save the earth". Economics in a free market will allways give the correct answer. If you mess with it you will accept a result that is under performing or more expensive or both.

What a horrible article. So ignorant. Do some research and write this again with some truth. Thanks

JR- Unfortunately ... you speak the truth. :-) If the greenhouse effect and global warming is all due to human activity, then why is it a proven fact that Mars is getting warmer too? Ain't no SUV's, coal fired plants, or industrialization over there...

I love you and want your babies.

As I walk out of my house I am suffocated by the plume of smoke from my neighbor''s fire place! The first place to start green is stop using your fire place as it is the most polluting way to heat your homes. I have stopped using my fireplace 20 year ago eventhough it may save me a buck or two using it.

You have been brainwashed by the liberal left. It makes no sense to trash a good machine to buy an expensive green machine. Sure, when mine dies, I'll buy an energy efficient machine, but until then, forget it. As for solar heating water, it depends on where you live. PV payoff in 7-9 years? Not a chance. Wake up and do the math. It ain't there even in sunny climes let alone anywhere else. Did you ever think about the resources required and by-products of PV production? Not exactly a green prospect. When "green" makes cents (the other green) then it will happen. Otherwise you are just out there spending more money making yourself feel less guilty.

The themes in this discussion all boil down to one "inconvenient truth": Environmentalism has become a religion. It's no use talking facts with the true believers. They know what they know and data that doesn't fit their model will not penetrate.

I think you're smoking crack, son, and ranting about some mythical "externalities economists" (this is like saying "addition mathematician" - externalities are about as fundametnal and uncontroversial in economics as addition is to math). First, as a society, we are more concerned to not harm ourselves in a wider sense, so making sure bad things dont happen in some sense more important than insuring that particularly good things do. However, more than that, when you reward positive externalities, you actually end up eliminating them somewhat. For example, if a person volunteers for a year, if the government rewarded them with a year's salary, then obviously this is a wash; there is no or nearly no positive externality. Governments do indeed promote positive externalities all the time - for example, in Pennsylvania books are not taxed and particularly good neighbor companies and individuals are routinely given awards. I don't think you've thought your point through enough!

You hear a lot about how capitalism doesn't account for market externalities and therefore demands regulation, but you never hear those same "externalities economists" demanding that the government step in to reward those who create positive externalities. Like when a businessman succeeds and his efforts create not just profits for his company, but also contribute to the gentrification of his city and improvements to the standard of living of the cascading customers, clients, and vendors that are touched by him, he's created a massive increase in societal well-being for which he is uncompensated. Answer me thusly, if we are so concerned with externalities, why do we ignore positive externalities and only talk about negatives? I'll happily pay the government my carbon tax and other neg externalities when it pays me for my positives.

Toxic gases from semi plant killing birds? Give me a break, ever heard of scrubbers? And if you really really really want to be green, don't bathe and don't bother washing your clothes in the first place.

I was busy clubbing baby seals with puppies...what were we talking about again? Oh yeah. Green is neato!!!