A recent poll by Macworld suggested that 60 percent of Macuser would pay more for a greener computer. Only 8 percent said that they don't care if Macs are green or not. At first thought, it seemed like this was a good thing, but now I'm not so sure.
I'm not sure if this is the right type of driver to run a sustainability movement, because it requires the open hearted consumer to do the paying. This model is about as big a mystery to me as all of the private fundraising for Hurricane Katrina. Don't get me wrong, I think it great that people are contributing to help out others, I do this myself and I actually did contribute to Hurricane Katrina. But I can't help wondering that, as a policy, if relying on goodhearteness from for private individuals is really the right road. With Katrina, the implicit policy seems to be "there will be no hurricane relief unless you the people provide it." For green products, it sounds like "I will never see a green product until I actually shell out cash to get it produced."
It reminds of of buying cold medicine for my son Elliot. I can't remember the brand, but one of the medicines is purple-colored and will stain clothes if you get it on them, which you almost certainly will when feeding it to a wobbly kid. But, they have another type, the non-staining formula, which costs several dollars more for the same bottle. Yeah, I want the non-staining formula, take the dye out of your product.
I want the green computer too, take the toxins out. Figure it out, take them out. They don't need to be there any more than the dye in the medicine does.