Good for Wal Mart. That'll put pressure on the others to follow suit.

The market economy system would probably be fairly decent for the environment if it wasn't so distorted by subsidies to pollution (fossil fuels, energy intensive stuff, chemical agriculture, roads, etc) and the absense of a price put on very valuable stuff such as ecosystems and clean air, water, etc.

I bet that if these distortions were correctd, the market would produce much better results than it has in the US...

Energy efficiency should only be a a small part of a 'green' computer. A look at the chip and board production should be there too, as well as a recycle program.

"Energy efficiency should only be a a small part of a 'green' computer. A look at the chip and board production should be there too, as well as a recycle program."

Indeed. If you follow the link above, you'll see that ROHS and other standards will be used, which means less toxic heavy metals and such. Thank you Europe for that!

The market economy system would probably be fairly decent for the environment if it wasn't so distorted by subsidies to pollution (fossil fuels, energy intensive stuff, chemical agriculture, roads, etc) and the absense of a price put on very valuable stuff such as ecosystems and clean air, water, etc.

Energy efficiency should only be a a small part of a 'green' computer. A look at the chip and board production should be there too, as well as a recycle program.

>>I completely agree. And we should all use our purchasing dollars, political power, and access to blogging forums to get suppliers to include all of these items in their marketing decisions.

The time has come to consider whether faster, bigger, hotter makes any difference in our lives. By constantly upgrading the OS, and fattening our screen pixel densities we are setting ourselves up for increased e-waste production. I'm for getting the computer that has the highest reliability rating from Consumer Reports, the one that gets the best customer service, the one that lasts the longest. Hmmm now what brand might that be?

what's this about us voting for a market based economy as the answer to global warming? that decision was made for us by the current administration - there was no vote involved.

There was an election, and like me, you probably voted for the other guy. Then, maybe like me, you were crushed as the results unfolded.

My point is that each country has signed up for trying to solve the crisis, and that we all need to fully participate in the solution at hand. In the US, that means deeply exploring the marketplace for the right alternatives.

Good consumer keep buying shiny junk from the mega corp, dont mind the war, dont mind the man behind the curtain. Eat your bread and watch your circus and be happy that you live in the land of "freedom & democracy".

Don't be such a tool!
Our(bush’s) energy/environmental/globalwarming “plan”, is much like our(bush’s) iraq “plan”, which is to subsidize oil/gas/coal and waste the environment in order to enrich his cronies until he is no longer in office and can leave the whole mess for the next president & the next generation, he doesn’t care if implementing his plan means a lot of poor/black/muslim people have to die along the way.

As an American you should stand up and demand that our leaders be held accountable for not doing the right thing. Anything less is abdicating your civic duty and then you are nothing more than a pawn to the monarch.

War is Over (if you want it)

"what's this about us voting for a market based economy as the answer to global warming? that decision was made for us by the current administration - there was no vote involved."

Capitalism is a cultural heritage, but it isn't in the Constitution. If it were, perhaps we wouldn't have such anti-capitalist regimes as farm subsidies.

I personally think a market solution can do a lot, but it requires government to regulate, so that everyone is made to pitch in equally. If the regime is voluntary, then those who opt-out can boost their bottom line even more.

So don't blame capitalism per se, blame politics.

Well, as flawed as it is, the US is still a democracy, so some people did vote for what they got (even if indirectly -- if they wanted something else, they should have gotten involved.. heck, so many people don't even vote or really follow politics, they get what they deserve).

will "the market" solve this problem on its own? No. The market needs to have standards imposed on it. These standards help the consumer, when you see Energy-Star, for example, that means that the product meets certain standards. Without standards and treaties the marketing departments take over and crank out so much greenwash that the consumer can't make an informed choice.

the US decision not to ratify Kyoto is just plain irresponsible. The market needs standards, and tough ones. Business will do what it has always done (bitch and whine, and then adapt) the alternative is to go out of business. Tough standards will make better products

Any US company that trades with a Kyoto-compliant country has to meet a portion of Kyoto standards for that part of their business, so Kyoto standards are oozing their way into our workflows anyway.

So the rejection of Kyoto was kind of a pyrric victory for Republicans. Like the Panama Canal, it was more an issue of flag-waving than reality.

Any US company that trades with a Kyoto-compliant country has to meet a portion of Kyoto standards for that part of their business, so Kyoto standards are oozing their way into our workflows anyway.

>>Right, we are going to be brutalized by this type of activity. This is primarily why I think the US policy is wrong, because we are put in a position of reacting to Kyoto, reacting to RoHS. And since we didn't sign up for the program, we will always be the last to know... It will be a real challenge to see the US market approach can react to these types of initiatives.

mark

A few things:

1) Technically, the United States is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic.

2) As far as the Free Market is concerned, iirc it can only handle quantifiable costs and benefits - typically in terms of economic value (think $). It does not do a very good job of things like non-quantifiable public costs and benefits (the value of wildlife, pristine woodlands, etc).

3) Typically, businesses (and this country, imo) tend to do things for their own "enlightened" self-interests...same as the nature of the Free Market. The problem is that usually means anchoring down as best as they can so as not to change their day-to-day, business-as-usual mindset.

GM, for example, said for the longest time that a hybrid was not a viable automobile concept and that we should be focusing on hydrogen. In the meantime, Toyota has released three(?) generations of the Prius and GM's taking a bath because more people are fed up by high gas prices.

4) The U.S. opted to bow out of Kyoto because of the effect on American jobs. As I understand it, we're losing all of the manufacturing jobs to other countries anyway and in the meantime our environmental standards are (compared to the rest of the Second- and First-World countries) still subpar.

Spencer

I am really suprised to see such a unilateral position for stallmart on treehugger. The credit they deserve is a big welcomeafter. C'mon Mark, don't be such a corporate tool man. Think for yourself. Its a stretch but it gets easier with practice. Begin with the book "in the absence of the sacred." Peace.

I am really suprised to see such a unilateral position for stallmart on treehugger. The credit they deserve is a big welcomeafter. C'mon Mark, don't be such a corporate tool man. Think for yourself. Its a stretch but it gets easier with practice.

>>In all seriousness, at this stage of the game thinking for myself is a waste of time. The world has spent millions, probably billions coming up with a plan, and I'm not keen on throwing that time and money away, nor am I interested in dawdling. Walmart is reacting to that plan, possibly in a good way, and with a lot of clout to make things happen fast. I say check it out.