Dell's Customers Say: I'll Take the Computer, But Not The Tree

Maybe they should just attach the cost to the price of the computer and add the fact that the emissions will be automatically offset to the item specs. I doubt that 2 or 6 extra dollars would be much of a factor to 99% of buyers.

Maybe their customers realize that plants and archaea are more than capable of propogating themselves.

Maybe their customers understand the second law of thermodynamics?

Maybe their customers realize that the only time in gological history that atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature were as low as it is in our era was the Carboniferous.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

and so they don't really see how returning the planet to it's "normal" state is a "sin" and thus don't waste money earned through their labor on rediculous inefficiencies like carbon offsets.

I also question how much CO2 they released advertizing their program, how many trees were cut down to make fliers, and how much fuel was burned feeding/clothing/transporting the folks doing the planting.

These programs remind me of my kindergarden teacher back in the 80's who would drive all over town picking up a handful of newspapers to recycle... WASTEFULL, ILL CONCIEVED, and SELF DEFEATING.

"Maybe their customers realize" comment saddens me, it reinforces my suspicions for the reasons why the replanting of trees has not taken place. Because so many people don't believe in it.
The quest to somehow create a stable environment for mankind and the creatures that live in our planet is not only to reverse the damage done by the industrialization that have gotten us so far (but damaged so much) and to try to understand nature and how it works, the battle is also a psychological one which takes so much more effort as it involves millions of opinionated souls with different belief systems depending on which angle they see it from.

It has been proven that deforestation has a direct link with climate change, to try to act so as to balance that delicate formula is the most immediate option we have to act on.

We have to consider the big picture.

Peace.

Matt: Yeah sure, trees will self propogate if left to their own. When they are cut down faster than they grow however, some additional effort on our part is needed.

As for the "normal" state of the planet: Your point is ridiculous. For most of the history of the earth, there were no humans. What's normal for the planet is not normal for humans. By your definition, the "normal" state of the earth would be one in which there were no people, a state which you imply that we should return to. The overabundance of C02 that you call normal would make this place inhabitable.

You sound like someone who just likes to visit websites like this and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt. Almost as if you were employed by someone with a vested interest in doing nothing about pollution. Wasteful, ill conceived and self defeating indeed.

Maybe they don't believe and/or have any way to verify that they extra money is actually going to the intended purpose.

It would be nice to have some additional context for the data. Okay so less than 1% of Dell's customers took advantage of the program, but does that fraction change if we look at personal purchasers only? Are 95% of Dell's sales to corporate clients? I have no idea, but it would certainly give some insight into what the number given represents. It is an interesting statistic, but it raises far more questions in my mind than it answers.

I'd like to respond to Matt's comment, but he is clearly beyond help and would not pay attention to anything I would say.

This is probably a failure of advertising more than anything else. I hope Dell continues to lead by example.

I was going to slam Matt, but Al did a pretty good job already, so I'll leave it at that, except to say this:
Matt, go back under your bridge.

Maybe this is the negativist in me, but I think this is (yet another) display of greed. Aside from some dedicated people, there's a limit to how much people care - in too many cases, it goes as far as the wallet. Take, for example, that craze about the loss of US jobs to overseas. How many Americans buy American products that are more expensive than imports to keep the jobs back home? Not many - and it's not just because there's no choice for the consumer. If the choice were present, I'm sure most would buy the cheapest, regardless, unless there were other social pressures or it was a "fad."

I've commented before that the reason why I'm against the drilling offshore is not because of the immediate environmental impact - I don't think spills are too likely. I am opposed because I know that, if successful (which I know most people here think it won't be), there is the real risk that it could kill any investment in and development of alternates, like solar. After all, would the average consumer pay more $$ when they don't need to, even if it is better for the environment?

The answer is simple - look at Dell's tree initiative.

But, the human mind is strange. I agree with other commenters (commentors?) that Dell should tack this cost on to all purchases, and then show the customer how well they've done with their Dell purchase, environmentally. Oddly enough, I'm sure that most people will feel good about it. To the contrary, asking people to *voluntarily* spend on this initiative, seperate from their purchase, obviously has not worked.

Obviously I'm in a very rant-ish mood today ;)

I agree with Tom. I would question where my money was really going to. If Dell would also say in advance that they will track their initiative, maybe post a blog about it and add pictures of all the trees that were being planted, then I can see more people willing to add the extra few dollars. But I doubt Dell has gone that far to ensure that the money is going to a worthy cause.

Why would I pay even a few dollars for something I could do for free? Planting a tree is not hard. The notion that you have to pay someone to offset your carbon for you is a really lame way to feel good about yourself.

I don't visit websites like this to spread fear; I visit them to DISPELL fear.

-Maybe their customers realize" comment saddens me, it reinforces my suspicions for the reasons why the replanting of trees has not taken place. Because so many people don't believe in it.-

Yes, nature, if left to its own will reforest, I mean how do you think the trees got there in the first place?! If our cutting takes more than nature replenishes, then sure, replant, just as we plant corn or other crops each year, the logging industry does that already.

If they were going down to the banana republics and replanting native species in clear-cut land and had some way to assure that the idiots that run those places wouldn't just burn it again in a few years, then they MIGHT have some claim of "restoring natural habitat" which would be great I'm all for that really... but it seems that they are just stupidly planting trees in North America which has MORE trees today than it did when the white man first landed on it's shores.

-As for the "normal" state of the planet: Your point is ridiculous. For most of the history of the earth, there were no humans. What's normal for the planet is not normal for humans. By your definition, the "normal" state of the earth would be one in which there were no people, a state which you imply that we should return to. The overabundance of C02 that you call normal would make this place inhabitable-

There were animals, big ones, mammals even during much of earth's past, including times of high CO2. Do you think CO2 is a poison? If you think an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is going to end human life you are incredibly naive.

Even assuming there was a substantial greenhouse effect and eight times the current amount of CO2, we would just have bigger tastier plants to eat, more "habitable" surface area, and a thicker atmosphere protecting us from cosmic rays, charged particles from the sun and rocks from space, it isn't a zero sum game, the bubble of air around the planet is not a fixed volume, nor is the amount of oxygen static.

-It has been proven that deforestation has a direct link with climate change, to try to act so as to balance that delicate formula is the most immediate option we have to act on. -

Yeah, you cut trees you get grassland/farmland, this surface reflects more energy than the trees did back into space, the planet cools.

-Peace-

LOL, you have no right to that word.