Home : Networking : News

Green tech: Readers speak out

IT PRO readers voice their opinions as to who should take responsibility for making the tech world a greener place to live in.

By Maggie Holland, 28 Mar 2008 at 11:57

gallery

Following a poor show by some of the key tech players in Greenpeace's recent Greener Guide to Electronics, we asked readers: Who do you think should take responsibility for ensuring greener production lines?

Here's what you had to say:

"In the end, it needs to be a combination of the industry as a whole and the end users. We, as the consumer, need to put pressure on the corporations by not purchasing their products (and going with the competitor who is greener-even at a higher price). That will push the industry as a whole to say "Wait a minute. They're willing to pay a little bit more for my competitor because his product is more environmentally friendly." But, they need to realise that "environmentally friendly" doesn't just mean the product-it also means the process in which the product is made and distributed. Sacrificing the environment at the factory just to make a greener product isn't any better than a non-green product."

Patrick Dickey

"Regarding the choice of responsibility for greener production lines. The responsibility should rest with:

1. The industry that produces the future mess.

2. We should all be aware of our involvement.

3. The World's Governments should enforce this."

Elfed Dowler-Jones

"End users I think are the only way forward.

Government sees this as an opportunity to levy even more taxes.

I can't see any point in levying a tax that goes into the maw of government coffers and is not specifically targeted: run targeting up the flagpole and see how many parliamentarians find a reason for not doing it.

Allowing Greenpeace to think for you is a bit like becoming a Calvinist; all hair shirt and constipation.

The great ignored public have a much better grasp of the intricacies of global warming than they are given credit for they have fine tuned bullshit detectors.

They realise that most of the statements about CO2 production have to be evaluated for veracity and that science can be misrepresented by the great and the good because the point of a study and it's findings are subject to interpretation and do not necessarily support or deny a particular position.

I for one see the general behavior of governments to be cynical and self serving for example the notion of carbon credits is a nonsense; they are just another commodity to be traded on the stock exchange and meaningless.

The latest rash of coal fired power stations are pretty difficult to rationalise and the concept of nuclear power as an alternative is quite extraordinary given the cost and complexity of decommissioning the existing stations due to come off line.

Still I suppose instead of worrying about the lack of carbon fuels to bequeath to our grand children we can salve our consciences by leaving them an awful lot of nuclear waste.

My premise is that we, the people, have a better understanding of the problem and are disillusioned by the posturing of those who are trying claim the moral high ground: therefore the solution is with us."

Bernard Donovan

"The onus for producing green products must be on the manufacturers and they will be spurred on, hopefully, by government and consumer demand. The demand for ever greener products is increasing rapidly, not just in response to public calls but also because more Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have seen both ice floes melting, weather patterns changing and they welcome a new and green, challenge. Whatever the cause, we all must watch how we walk these days and reduce our carbon footprints."