The whole "green" factor

[alexander]

hey guys, i figure we haven't discussed anything debate-quality in this thread recently, so i figured i should post it here as well.

Recently wrote an article on the "green" effect, i just wanted to know what people think.... so more of leisure reading for those who are at least a bit passionate about the planet.

Originally Posted by me

The so-called “Green”

First, this is a declaration of thought - my own personal opinion that I feel compelled to express at this time. While this post does not deal directly with computer security, it does have to do with my personal belief in information trust as well as the information that companies share with the third-parties and those they deem to be “trust-worthy”. This will likely not be the kind of a post you generally see on this website, but i just felt that i need to get this off my chest.
Trust, simple enough, is the reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc… of a person or thing. Trust is sometimes given, and sometimes taken for granted. Like so many other things in life trust is easily lost and not easily regained. In the computer world, as well as the corporate world, trust is something that should be earned, and not freely given unless it is checked to be genuine. This is actually more of a call to people to stop blatantly trusting things that some website, or some commercial tells them because they believe that what they imply is true. To commerce, it’s a game of psychology, commercials tell you things that are not real, but they do it in a way that is honest and truthful.
As an example, Acme (and I’m not here to get sued, as you can imagine) aspirin commercial will say something like “Acme aspirin, no other brand will relieve pain better or faster then Acme.” If you hear that in a commercial, it is likely that upon visiting a store, you will pick up Acme aspirin, because you beleive that Acme acts faster and relieves pain better then other makers, based on the wording of a commercial; but in fact, that is not what that commercial says. Aspirin, or C9H8O4 is C9H8O4 no matter which company produces it, it acts in the same way, and takes approximately the same amount of time to dissolve (that depends on the size of the tablet, and it’s surface area). The wording is what is so deceiving, it does not say that Acme aspirin is better, if you read into it, it merely states that it is the same, it’s not better, but there isn’t anything that is better then it, because aspirin is aspirin.
Now to the main part of my rant, the “Green” part. Over the course of the last several years it has become prestigious to call your company green. It’s all a part of the global green initiative, or the green craze, but in actuallity, its another way for a company to increase the profit margin on their product by misrepresenting themselves to appeal to a target demographic. Now in many cases green actually means that something that was being done in the past, is more “environmentally friendly”, though once again the wording of that catch-phrase is tricky, but it is being done to a lesser extent.
Let’s first start with the “environmentally friendly” catch phrase. It is, after all, used to describe production lines of computer processors, and chemical factories, though what does it actually mean to become more environmentally friendly? In the words of agent Smith from “The Matrix”, ” You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area.” Production lines are wasteful, many chemicals that are emitted through smoke, and other waste, are damaging to nature, such was the case in the processor industry, the solder used in the production of the units, contained lead. The excess solder was to some extent reused, to some, discarded, though the majority of lead in electronics production is released after the components are recycled. When the solder gets another chance to melt, and can easily leak out, or be burned up and released in the atmosphere, to come back down with rain water. Since then, major electronics production lines, have switched to lead-free solder, and have called that their environmentally-friendly initiative. They still produce damaging waste, but now that they produce less of it, they figure that they are saving the environment, and to an extent they are, but in no way can that action make your production line environmentally friendly. It is less damaging, yes, but in no way is it friendly. If you were growing trees, and replenishing the forests that have been cut down, you would be friendly, if you were cleaning the water of pollutants, or cleaning the air (using for example the Cobalt Ferride rings heated to high temperature by focusing sun’s rays on it, producing oxygen and hydrocarbon from CO2 in the air), or raising animals to be released into the wild. You would then be environmentally friendly, but as of the current state, the overwhelming majority of production lines, still pollute the atmosphere, so they are environmentally less damaging, and in no way friendly.
And this gets me to the part where I rant on the use of the word “green”, especially in the information techologies super-structures. Question, if a customer is faced with the choice of choosing a host that is a normal host, or a host that allows them to put a green badge on their website, most people would go towards the green host. This is simply due to the fact that “Green” is “In”. Very few poeple and/or corporation actually read and/or know what makes the host qualify as such. The problem that every hosting company faces is the fact that actually making hosting more or less green, takes signifficant monetary resources. Most people who know anything about datacenters, will know that there is a very small chance that it will move to a facility with dozens of acres of solar panels and wind generators with a green roof that creates an extremely small percentage of pollution in the course of it’s operation as compared to a conventional datacenter.
The bottom line of it all is that we live in a capitalistic world, where just about everyone is out to make money. At some point during the green initiative people decided to make money on this “Green” idea, created a form of eco-currency or what you and I would refer to as carbon credits, or carbon offset credits. While I do not fault this system as it’s way to draw money into research of alternative sources of energy, I firmly do not agree with the fact that after paying 15mill and not changing a single thing, an ISP or a datacenter should call itself “Green”, not even carbon neutral! There needs to be a term invented for a business that invests money into green research, but “Green” is not the right one, there is nothing in purchasing a piece of paper that says that you have helped finance the alternative fuel research, that allows one to call themselves “Green”, it’s missleading!
The photo above misleads people in beleiving that buying carbon offset will decrease their emission, thereby allowing themselves to be called “Green”, but it is only a piece of paper.
My point is don’t trust everything you read or hear! Check out companies claims for yourself and act upon your constitutional rights to question those who would tell you otherwise.
By now you may have noticed my little green logo at the bottom of the page, only to wonder “What in the world is that about?”. Well, the above are my thoughts and reasons for it…
-Niksoft-

(original appears here: SecurityEnthusiast, enthusiastic about important things in life Blog Archive The so-called “Green” )

[alexander]

Just moved it to environmental studies, figuring you guys will probably be more willing to discuss this

[Cedars]

Its an interesting topic for sure. The most current example I can think of is China and solar panel production.

Heres a good starting article:
Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China - washingtonpost.com

So China is now invading the solar panel market, producing a product at greatly reduced cost. But if your "green host" purchaced panels from this base, they not only contributed to pollution elsewhere, they actually increased the pollution factor more, when 'greener' methods exist.

[Eclipse Now]

Hey, I agree with your rant against 'Greenwashing'. Some companies have the hide to call their products 'Green' because the product is wrapped in paper or cardboard that might be recycled... yet the 'Green' label appears to be indicating the company produced it without Co2 emissions, or at least has offset the emissions by carbon trading.

(And don't get me started on carbon traders that abuse that system!)

However let me just add that I take global warming very seriously. Human beings trying to make a quick buck is a story as old as the hills, and doesn't disprove the actual science of global warming.

As to your quote from Agent Smith: It's great! I love that quote... especially when looking at the maths of growth. It's so true of the population bomb that's been going off in slow motion over the last century. I'm a member of Sustainable Population Australia and take population growth and IPAT very seriously.

However, the Greenwashing is under attack from regulatory bodies, at least in Australia. The ACCC is going to regulate how products can be labeled and then police the claims of 'green products' and get some consistency in this field.

[alexander]

Glad you liked the article (it actually takes a long time to write these sometimes)

The ACCC is going to regulate how products can be labeled and then police the claims of 'green products'

This is my problem, and its already great that some regulatory body will control the "green" labels, but as far as i am concerned, the only "green" products are plants, and at that, the only ones grown without the use of chemical enhancers and hormones....

its wrong to call anything else green, it does not do good for the environment, therefore it's less gray then the other stuff, but its still not quite green yet

Yes, global warming is a real and big problem of today's society, and more we talk about it, the more the people that refuse to see it, and the more they spend on trying to disprove it...

[Eclipse Now]

Google "Cradle to Cradle". It's a whole design movement launched by ecological designer William McDonough. William has been given the job of designing eco-cities for 400 million Chinese to move into over the next xyz decades. (I forget how long this project is.) He said something like "They'd use up ALL their coal just baking the bricks for the cities required in China." So he's trying to design eco-cities that use the lay of the land for effective sewerage recycling in a massive, high tech, industrial eco-system where every industrial and biological waste product is recycled back into the city or farming system.

See eclipsenow.blogspot.com/2007/06/reinvent-industry.html for my links to this guy. (Sorry you'll have to copy and paste link manually... I couldn't hyperlink because I'm new here.)

[DougF]

alexander
Recently wrote an article on the "green" effect, i just wanted to know what people think.... so more of leisure reading for those who are at least a bit passionate about the planet.

Very good article, alexander
It seems like every commercial I see now days is Green this or Green that, and you know they didn't clean up there act in the last six months, I'm with you on this if they aren't Green..... and that solar panel production plant that Cedars posted (good link, Thanks) from the article

Last year, the Luoyang Zhonggui factory was estimated to have produced less than 300 tons of polysilicon, but it aims to increase that tenfold this year <--> For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste. <--> The tests show high concentrations of chlorine and hydrochloric acid, which can result from the breakdown of silicon tetrachloride and do not exist naturally in soil. "Crops cannot grow on this, and it is not suitable for people to live nearby," said Li Xiaoping, deputy director of the Shanghai Academy of Environmental Sciences.

You'd think this was a race, to see how fast we can destroy the planet.

[HydrogenBond]

Green brain washing is a mass delusion. Most people will not take the time to research claims. We follow the delusion buzz word like good herd animals. It is a wonder that someone hasn't come up with the idea of painting houses green because it is good for the environment since it reflects green light energy back to nature for a mingling of green.

The green color of nature is dependent on CO2. Without CO2 the amount of natural green would be very low because there would be no basic raw material to help make chlorophyl. Artificial green requires less CO2. The idea is to change the natural meaning into an unnatural delusion.

Here is how the delusion works. The buzz word green brings images of a pristine natural ecosystem that is green. This natural green is dependent on CO2 as part of its natural diet. The goal is to take away part of its food. At an unconscious level this logical inconsistency creates a conflict in terms of the actions that are suggested. The result is sort of a compulsive affect to overcompensate for the inner doubt. Fear and vanity play a big part in this affect keeping the mind away from common sense.

Even if CO2 is rising this makes more natural green since it improves parameters like CO2, warmth and water. The real buzz word should be brown, but reality isn't as affective for a mass delusion. One will not be able to generate the inner doubt to get the mass delusion in motion.

The affect of CO2 should be pitched this way. Although CO2 is essential to nature with more CO2 making more natural green, we don't care. We are more concerned with human needs. To be more honest, we are changing the color from green to gray, like cities, since we are trying to preserve all the human encroachments into the once natural green ecosystems. People can not say this to themselves so we needed help them pretend.

[Zythryn]

I agree that just about anything we do detracts from the environment.
However, the level of damage is exactly what the 'green' label indicates.
I know very well that any 'green' manufactured product I buy is going to impact the environment. I also know that in many cases (most, hopefully) that buying 'green' will have LESS impact on the environment than not buying 'green'.

These stats on pollution caused by solar panel production are alarming. They are also useless on their own.
Please also list stats on how much pollution, and its affects, come from coal plants in China. Include the polution created to create the same amount of power that the solar panels will create over 20 years.

And Hydrogen, congratulations. It doesn't happen often, buy I am speechless.

[alexander]

Yes, we are a gray society.

Z, and that is my problem, don't call a product that is less damaging to the environment green, because it's not, less gray, maybe, but there is nothing about the product that will save plants... it just kills less then the next product that is not green. It's that whole glass 1/2 empty or 1/2 full, they try to present rather pessimistic information in an optimistic way, and i am an optimist, but i look at the core of the issue, and not at the marketing campaign...

Here is another one, fluorescent light bulbs. They are marketed as green, they look as if they are safe, and they are the driving force of the green factorial (hehe, thought you'd find that funny)
What most people dont know, is the fact that the only country that makes the bulbs is China, and that over 95% of then contain mercury vapor in the bulb and are extremely not environmentally safe, if they are broken or not properly disposed of. Yes they save you electric costs, but noone really knows what the compounded environmental factors of the bulb production and shipment are in comparison to the amount of environmental friendliness of the device, and how long of a running it takes to make up and actually come out in the green...