Consumers happy to pay 'green premium'

Hmm...

I wonder who sponsored this survey. Pushing consumer acceptance of price increases means that technology companies can maintain their margins while claiming to be ecologically sound at the same time.

Why should the consumer pay more when the companies responsible for the provision of this technology have made significant profits on the previous non-green versions? Shouldn't the companies absorb the costs in return for the years spent polluting and not recycling?

wtf

how about corporations getting by on a 10% lower profit rate instead? I sure as hell wouldn't pay that premium while over half my money is taken by the government in taxes and VAT. and now green crap lies to generate even higher inflation? thanks, but no thanks. keep the overpriced green stuff and shove it up.

Say one thing, do another...

Yes, I believe that those people *say* that.

But when they're in the shop, they'll make their decision based on price, physical attractiveness (shiny, silver, small), brand reputation and advertising recall.

There are already plenty of more environmentally-friendly (i.e. lower-power) PCs out there, and a few seconds with Google will find them, but they make up only a tiny percentage of sales because they lack the edge on price, silver-shinyness and brand reputation.

Nonsense !

There's plenty of people that have spent loads of dosh on pricey, silvery, branded underpowered stuff. How many Apple users are there already ? And Apple is even become environment friendly !

Okay, let me just get my flame-retardant asbestos coat . . .

Surveys

Someone should do a survey to find out how many people have lapses of honesty when they take a survey.

Really, who's going to say no when some guy calls up and asks if you're willing to pay 15p extra for 'green' (whatever that means these days) technology?

And as Phil says when they get to the shop they feel completely different.

What a crock of ...

Here in the state of New Mexico (that is actually part of the USA for those on the Eastern seaboard...), we have the option of paying an additional electric surcharge to "use" electricity generated by the wind power farm in central New Mexico. The surcharge is only a few cents per kwh.

As soon as this became available, I hit up the biggest "Greeny Wennie" I know. You know the type, always talking about what we HAVE to do to save the world from imminent destruction, always talking about the new laws that we just HAVE to have to save us from ourselves, etc.

The question: "Have you signed up for the wind power yet?"

The reply: "Are you kidding??? I can't afford to increase my electric bill! I have kids to feed."

Like most (all?) environmentalists, he is perfectly willing to talk about the sacrifices we MUST make for this cause or that, but as soon as he is in the position to MAKE that sacrifice himself, it is a totally different response.

What a crock of ... was aptly named

I'm an environmentalist living in Texas, and I voluntarily pay an extra cent or two per kilowatt on my power bill to use green power. Despite the stereotypes, I'm not the only one either. Your generalization is doing a disservice to most of the environmentalists I know. Obviously, your "Greenie Weenie" is more weenie and less greenie.

Getting back to the article, this survey only addresses upfront costs. Instead of asking "Would you pay 10% more for kit made with green technology?" companies should ask "Would you pay 10% more for equipment that cost 20% less to power?" I wish I had the choice between Vampire Electronics (crud power chargers, inverters, and power management) and equipment that wasn't crap. Give consumers enough information to make a purchase based on the real cost, and most companies can come out ahead by going green.