As I said in my previous post, I believe that "going green" will not catch on for a while. This is simply because it is more cost effective to continue using the already developed technology. Slade explains that companies "make things to break" in order to increase their revenue and keep consumers active. However, this process contributes to the waste in our dumps and directly contradicts the "going green" movement that is sweeping our nation.
I first began my research by looking for statistics that could quantify how much more expensive the "green" that way I could support my argument with real facts not just generalizations. I found some of the following information:
- In a February 2008 article, the Wall Street Journal cited a study by Enermodal Engineering that found that green homes cost between 5 and 10 percent more to build than homes using conventional materials and methods. An estimate from "Building Products" magazine suggests a 19 percent increase in costs for home builders who opt to go green instead of using traditional methods.
Read more: How Expensive Is it to Go Green? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_7327471_expensive-go-green_.html#ixzz17wluBIPB - Three days after the new iPhone's July 11 debut, Appleannounced that it had sold 1 million iPhones. For comparison, it took 74 days for the original iPhone to hit the one million sold mark. The new 3G iPhone has already sold nearly half as many as the original iPhones in total.
- http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/08/technology/iphone-3m.fortune
- The adoption of 3DTVs is expected to spike next year.Futuresource Consulting predicts that 4 million 3DTVs will be sold worldwide by the end of this year. The figure could at least double next year to 5 million 3DTVs in the U.S. and 3 million in Western Europe, the market researcher said today. Futuresource added that so far, "year-one adoption of 3DTV is running at a far quicker rate in most territories than it did for high-definition."
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20023981-17.html#ixzz17wnTmynM
To me this information says a few things; first of all, it is clear that companies understand they are able to create new models and increase their profits. These statistics only support the fact that newer models lead to increases in sales because you attract new people to try the product, as well as those using the older models already.
Another thing that I found interesting during my first round of research was that even if something doesn't explode right away (3D TV) the potential for expansion is always right around the corner. The comparison of this with HDTV shows us that there is a good chance these new TV's will catch on in the future. Now almost everyone has an HDTV and therefore it is not hard to believe that one day almost everyone will have a 3D TV.
Overall I believe that because going green is more expensive to do, and since creating new models is so profitable there is little chance that our culture of consumerism changes. It is obvious that the goal of any company, regardless of their product, is to increase profits as much as possible and unfortunately trying to "go green" is not feasible in a society where being lucrative is the priority.
I do believe that the public will put pressure on these companies though. As time goes on and our planet's situation gets worse more and more people will begin to step up to have their voices heard. Still, I don't think this will be enough to change anything. Our culture is so driven by consumerism that it would be ridiculous to imagine things changing over night. Now that I have an idea of statistics, I'm going to begin writing the paper. However I still have many things to find out. I definitely want to get some more statistics on the increases in "the green movement" over the years and to try and find some information about companies trying to decrease the waste they produce over time. I believe that once I acquire that information I should have everything I need to finish the paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment