Is green living just for the rich?

Is green living just for the rich?

Summary: When a clebrity celebrates green living, one standard reply: I can't afford it. Is the slow food movement only for latte-sipping Prius drivers?

SHARE:
TOPICS: Tech Industry
8

When a clebrity celebrates green living, one standard reply: I can't afford it. Is the slow food movement only for latte-sipping Prius drivers? Here in my semi-rural part of Oregon the locally-produced, organic cheeses cost at least double what the mass produced cheeses cost at the big chain groceries. Henry Ford unleashed the devil when he proved the economic efficacy of mass production. It now dominates the food business, industrial fuel for the human body. It may not be good for us, but it sure is good for business.

The buzz-words abound around green living. And they seem to cost more. Fair trade. Shade-grown coffee. Organic. No preservatives. Carbon neutral. No articifical additives. Remember when you paid MORE to have lead-free gasoline?

In the hardware we still see LEDs more expensive than CFLs which are, in turn, more expensive than incandescent bulbs. A recent study shows that CFL penetration in the lighting market in the U.S. is about 23% and has not increased since mid-2008. One reason is surely price of replacement in a sour economy. Chart courtesy NEMA.

An efficient furnace or wood stove costs more than the less efficient or older models. Energy-efficient appliances are more expensive than the wasteful cheapies. It's much cheaper for me to drive somewhere than try to use our crapola rail system. Are the bicycle and show-leather the last energy-efficient products is still cheaper than its energy-wasting competition. [poll id="131"]

Topic: Tech Industry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

8 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Al Gore & Obama living rich

    Yes, I would agree Al Gore is getting rich off carbon bogus lies.
    Christian_<><
    • the greenhouse effect was theorized in the 1950s...

      I think Gore cited that chap too in one of his books.

      I'm too busy learning skills to stay marketable; no time to keep track of what people say regardless if it's the truth or if it's chicken little scaremongering.
      HypnoToad72
      • Actually, Greenhouse effect theorized in 1827

        Fourier theorized the Greenhouse Effect in 1827, Arrhenius quantified it in the 1890's so this is not new science.

        I like this bit: "[i]Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 degrees Celsius , recent values from IPCC place this value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees.[/i]" - So Arrhenius was the first to exaggerate the risk from global warming - but not by much.

        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v432/n7018/full/432677a.html
        http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/21540/Svante-August-Arrhenius.html
        Reality-based
  • RE: Is green living just for the rich?

    I don't buy into the "green movement", at least not in its entirety. Sure, I'll use CFLs, but that's because they save money in the long run. If the whole "peak oil" theory is true and goods will become priced more and more based on how much energy is used in their production, then we should see all of these "green" products costing less than "non-green" products. Either that, or they should at least cost less after having been used for a while (like CFL bulbs). Because this is not the case, it's clear to me that "green" products are not worthwhile because they either are not "green" or because the manufacturers are attempting to extract much higher profit margins than "non-green" products. Sure, for technology there is licensing of technology, research, etc. but I'm referring mainly to everyday products like food and clothing. One sure way to be more "green" is to simply consume less. Live a simple lifestyle, don't go out to eat as much, etc. It's not hard to be "green".
    gotamd@...
  • RE: Is green living just for the rich?

    Yeah, Gore *IS* the rich guy who can afford to go green in everything, but his Tennessee mansion has a huge carbon footprint. Of course, he'll claim that is offset by his purchase of carbon credits, (or in other words "I'm rich, so i'll live how I want and just pay some money to ease my conscience. You poor people go green.") By contrast, Bush's Texas ranch is basically a green dream home. Go figure.
    smann5@...
  • RE: Is green living just for the rich?

    [i]Here in my semi-rural part of Oregon the locally-produced, organic cheeses cost at least double what the mass produced cheeses cost at the big chain groceries.[/i]

    That's because you weren't eating Tillamook cheese. Sorry had to say it, I have a friend that is from there and he would always talk about it.

    For right now yes, it is just for the rich depending on how green you want to go. Most people can't afford new solar panels due to cost but CFL bulbs are fine because they are a few bucks. People would want to see a quicker return on investment with all the green living because it costs more upfront.
    Loverock Davidson
  • I think it's about the celebs too. How many actually do as they say?

    I won't ever need a Mac Pro with three 24" monitors just to read web sites (I'm a designer and can still suffice with two), but I will acknowledge their efficacy in their construction, power requirements, and how well tuned the OS is to the hardware.

    When the next fad comes out, we can all guess who will be on the bandwagon first.

    Doesn't mean climate change isn't a potential problem. We're all in this together so I will do my part.
    HypnoToad72
  • I've said it before. I'm sure I'll say it again.

    If you want people to be 'green,' make it less expensive to be 'green' than to not be 'green.'
    Letophoro