Slightly complicated rant: "Good for the environment"

[Popeye_Card]

Recently, there have been a rash of products and services advertised as being "good for the environment". The whole Green movement, etc.

Here is my issue with this. These products are not "good" for the environment when they use less electricity, produce fewer emissions, etc. They're just "not as bad". Even a car that is zero emissions is not "good". It doesn't actually negate CO2 emissions. It is a zero for the environment. Yes, it is better than other cars, but it's still not a positive. Just not a negative.

So kudos to companies and individuals that take steps to make their footprint on this planet smaller. That effort is "good", and I applaud it. But the actual product is just better than the alternative. Still not good in and of itself. So please replace "good for the environment" with "better for the environment".

Thank you.

[Arthur Dent]

I agree with this. I think the "good for the environment" marketing is a way to make people feel good about the national passtime of consumption.

[Fat_Bulldog]

It's like saying "Light" cigarettes are good for you.

[ThatGuy]

If you could come and speak with my neighbor (Satan) regarding this issue, I'd very much appreciate it.

[Popeye_Card]

It's like saying "Light" cigarettes are good for you.

Yes. Or diet soda.

"Good for the environment" would be actually going out and planting trees or something.

[Fat_Bulldog]

If you could come and speak with my neighbor (Satan) regarding this issue, I'd very much appreciate it.

You should start pooping in your yard and when Satan questions you, tell her you are doing something good and fertilizing your lawn. Then spit on her and pee your pants.

[jim]

It's like saying "Light" cigarettes are good for you.

Yes. Or diet soda.

"Good for the environment" would be actually going out and planting trees or something.

Not necessarily, I would say that most Amish farms are actually good for the environment.

[G. Keenan]

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.c ... ota-prius/

[Socnorb11]

Recently, there have been a rash of products and services advertised as being "good for the environment". The whole Green movement, etc.

Here is my issue with this. These products are not "good" for the environment when they use less electricity, produce fewer emissions, etc. They're just "not as bad". Even a car that is zero emissions is not "good". It doesn't actually negate CO2 emissions. It is a zero for the environment. Yes, it is better than other cars, but it's still not a positive. Just not a negative.

So kudos to companies and individuals that take steps to make their footprint on this planet smaller. That effort is "good", and I applaud it. But the actual product is just better than the alternative. Still not good in and of itself. So please replace "good for the environment" with "better for the environment".

Thank you.

It's "good" because it prevents us from using products that would be worse for the environment.

[Popeye_Card]

Recently, there have been a rash of products and services advertised as being "good for the environment". The whole Green movement, etc.

Here is my issue with this. These products are not "good" for the environment when they use less electricity, produce fewer emissions, etc. They're just "not as bad". Even a car that is zero emissions is not "good". It doesn't actually negate CO2 emissions. It is a zero for the environment. Yes, it is better than other cars, but it's still not a positive. Just not a negative.

So kudos to companies and individuals that take steps to make their footprint on this planet smaller. That effort is "good", and I applaud it. But the actual product is just better than the alternative. Still not good in and of itself. So please replace "good for the environment" with "better for the environment".

Thank you.

It's "good" because it prevents us from using products that would be worse for the environment.

Like I said, the act of buying that alternative is good. The actual product itself isn't inherently positive for the environment. In most cases, it still requires the use of electricity, gas, etc. Better, yes. Good, no.