Tech industry still leaving dirty great footprints, says Greenpeace

Consumer electronic goods are a little bit greener than those sold a year ago, according to a new report from Greenpeace. However, the eco-hardliner pressure group has warned that the industry could still do a whole lot more to improve its environmental footprint. Greenpeace found that fewer electronic products on the market …

[Chronos]

Ain't that a shame?

Come back when anyone gives a shit about Greenpeace. Even its founders are starting to say it has lost the plot:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

[Obama Smith]

PVC

There is no problem with the use of PVC and BFRs according to industry experts and Dr Patrick Moore, one of the founders of this eco-maniac organisation

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right

and I'm going to check with greenpeace next time I purchase some hardware.

[Jacob Reid]

Does anyone care?

No?

...Didn't think so.

[Robert Pogson]

It Actually Saves Money and Increases Performance to be Greener

Any organization with multiple computer seats can be a lot greener by using thin clients. Thin clients are generally good for ten years of use, two or three times the life of a thick client with all its moving parts and high maintenance. That automatically cuts down negative environmental effects by a large factor and gives benefits of reduced maintenance, lower power consumption, less noise and no dust collection, smaller footprint, all big money savers and things that increase productivity.

On the server side, consolidation and virtualization will do more than any change in manufacturing technique.

For software, using FLOSS saves a lot of money and increases the lifetime of equipment because FLOSS is not in the conspiracy to force upgrades. Money saved on licences and longer lifetime of equipment can be invested in other green technology or put in the bank.

[Graham Jordan]

@Robert

But they're shit.

[Martin]

"Greenpeace still a pain in the arse, says me"

"Independent charity 'me' issued a release yesterday saying "Greenpeace still persists in issuing annoying press releases to be gobbled up by a hungry media, although thankfully numbers are down on last year." A spokesman added "organisations like Greenpeace need to wake up and stop with this nonsense, it's the sanity of the planet at stake". In a recent survey (of 2 people), 100% said they wanted Greenpeace to "STFU", and 50% expressed a liking for "Steak and Kidney pie". Later, 'me' issued another release drawing attention to the fact that detectable quantities of 'chemicals' are present in Greenpeace releases, adding "In large quantities, some 'chemicals' can be dangerous, and can even be found in cancer in babies. Chemicals are also linked to smoking and crack cocaine. A recent study revealed that when rats are injected with chemicals, there is a slight possibility that they may turn into giant walruses that sing Auld Lang Syne". We asked the government for their response on this sensitive issue, and they claimed that "34% of chemicals are caused by speeding. All large companies should be nationalised immediately." "

[Anonymous Coward]

@ Robert Pogson

Agreed.

I think that government needs to step in on this issue, I know they interfere too much already in many areas, and charge recycling fees for old electronics equipment and higher fees up front for any new electronics equipment. Not a very popular idea I'm sure, but perhaps then there would be a market companies that can write fast, functional, efficient software that actually uses the potential processing power of the computers we have.

Hardware companies whose equipment is found to deteriorate too quickly, hard to define, could be charged some additional fee. This is to break the engineered obsolescence that manufactures love to build into equipment and, in my opinion, the leading down fall of North American car manufacturers.

@ Graham Jordan - if by shit you mean stable and functional you're right. Otherwise, I'd like to know what alternatives you are offering.

[Pascal Monett]

Unique innovation ?

What, innovation is no longer enough now ? It has to be unique innovation ?

I gather that Greenpeace has bitten the corporate speak bullet, where the meaning of the word has been beaten to a pulp by adding it willy-nilly to just about every PR puff piece made in the last ten years.

So now innovation has to be unique to be meaningful. How long until Microsoft "embraces" the new definition and "expands" its meaning the next time it moves a button around in the UI ?

After all, the true meaning of "innovation" has been just about extinguished, hasn't it ?