Comments on: Survey: 'Green' tag should be banished

Lake Superior State University poll reflects annoyance with excessive green labeling. To improve the picture, ask for standards and more disclosure from business.

[brightstarbeing]

Go Kermit Go!

While it's not directly related to tech, I think they should have (if they didn't already) added "Organic."

Take Wholefoods for example.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Wholefoods - it's a great business model: leverage on morals (and, to a large degree, the idea of "status"). But if you're a consumer who's really in it for renewable energy, truly organic farming, humane work conditions, etc., you have to be extraordinarily careful. Sometimes reading labels just isn't enough. It sure would be great to see how a product is deconstructed down to raw materials, sourcing, and the process in which those raw materials are acquired, but at the end of the day would we really have the stomach to buy anything? Would we care? (Has/would knowledge that cobalt is the new "blood diamond" in Africa drive Wii/PS3/cellphone/etc. sales down?)

I have to admit Wholefoods has done some great marketing/branding. I could ask 10 friends and all 10 would say Wholefoods is about safer, organic (albeit pricier) produce. Actions speak louder than words. The new Wholefoods "upgrade" they've opened up (it feels like you're almost stepping into a Costco-Safeway hybrid - almost) has a full parking lots almost anytime of day, any day of the week.

*(woops I meant "coltan" XD)

[meworkingman]

Excuse my abruptness, but I gotta call BS on this. Like it or not, the "green" tag is attached in people's minds to the "global warming" hoax (and "green" crusaders have no one to blame but themselves for that). The reason people are sick of hearing the "green" term thrown around is because they are recognizing more and more that global warming "science" is based on nothing more than horribly inaccurate computer models that have yet to predict a correct global average temperature, even in hindsight.

Face it, "green" is tied to "carbon footprint" (another term people want banned) and people are realizing that carbon dioxide is *not* a pollutant as the huckster AlGore would have us believe but a gas that is required for life on earth. As the "green" fanatics become shriller, people are seeing through the smoke (carbon-free of course) and this survey demonstrates that.

[biffhenerson]

Ditto

[cp256]

"Consumers simply need to be as savvy as they can and seek out as much information they can." That's all well and good to say, but honestly, what percentage of folks _really_ research the greenness of a product or service beyond the greenwashing they see advertised? I think there are far more sheeple that green-up because it is fashionable than informed people who are intelligently green.

[mlamonica]

Agreed - that is a serious challenge. But I still think that more and detailed disclosure is helpful even if only a minority of consumers dig into that info.

[gsmiller88]

I've been sick of the "green" tag for quite sometime now. It really got annoying when auto makers began showing their hybrid cars painted an ugly mint-green hue in their advertising.

[William Crow]

The whole "green" thing and "carbon footprint" concept is about people learning to shut their mouths and staying in their designated place in line. Many people, though they don't realize it, are very happy with this.

[fuzbears]

The problem with tags is they need certification bodies, and those most qualified, are too idealistic to actually be able to be practical in implementation. What you would need is something like consumer reports for "cleaner" products, combined with levels. The problem is that not all products in our life can be 100% clean, but we can choose by the company that is better, to create competition to be best. Few ask for the organic cancer drug, but you should be able to get your tires from the company that is rated as the least polluting.