How much of a premium are you willing to pay for a product or service that's "green"?

Gret420 - You made a lot of good points, but txranger (ding-dong) does not care about anything except the government staying out of his life, so you are speaking to deaf and ignorant ears.
FYI: I saw just today on the science channel, scientific evidence that our sun is actually in a cycle of less sun spots, thus giving off less heat. So they are projecting the earth over the next 10 years will actually cool by a couple of degrees. But that does not mean destroy the earth and all of it's natural resources and keep burning tons and tons of fossil fuels without a care for what those green-house gases are doing to the over all environment.

How have we been (or how do you fear we might be) hasty?

I would rather not pay extra for green products but I will continue to until the market completes the transition from "Green-Lite" to fully saturated Green. My theory is that once green is all there is to buy then price will drop significantly due to competition.

What many forget is that Green is the Color of Money! Green light bulbs save a tremendous amount of money in their cost to operate and because they last so much longer we save once again. New Green tech and manufacturing creates more jobs--think of what this could do for auto industry it it fully committed to green cars?

Yes, the earth has gone through much worse but either life was destroyed as a result or life was not human when it happened. That just isn't a viable argument. "Climate change"is the term some use to say that our earth's dire condition is a normal part of nature's cycle and not man-made--it was never a term used by Green advocates other than to describe that our climate is indeed changing. "G...(Read more of this comment)lobal warming" is not a "Green" term or a belief--it's a fact and it is primarily due to our self-serving, human-made abuse.

For those who think we don't have to do something TODAY, remember when "Made in Japan" meant cheap but poorly made? Now it means cheap and high-quality. US Automakers and the public, in our arrogance, didn't heed the warning that people like W. Edwards Demming declared way back in the 1950's. Look where we are now a short 60 years later; the automaker management is whining and their employees and linked industries are dying. They are still trying to keep their dinosaurs alive in an economic, environmental and marketing climate where dinosaurs cannot survive. We have to stop being so selfish and short-sighted. Let's let the dinos die and get the baby boom of green cars procreating!

Aren't their enough examples of what short term goals and greed lead us? Right here, right now we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is a direct result of short term gain and greed combined with a kind of "magical thinking" that nothing bad will happen if we just get our wants and needs immediately gratified.

It's time for us to grow up. We are paying the price for Green today because, in part, it's our time to Pay the Piper.

What do all of you naysayers think we'd be paying for Green now if we started to live a green life back in the 1970's? (Show less of this comment)

"America, what have we become. it costs more to have gasoline unleaded, it costs more to not use chemicals on food, it costs more to go organic for instance, it costs more to not pollute the environment we live in, and so on and so on. Do we have to save you for sure before you join in, or can we plan to save the kids and grandkids and have you join in the movement....!! If we don't start it, the rest of the world won't even consider doing it. Go Green!!"

So would you be one of the "20% or more" voters by any chance?

Now we need another nested poll to find out what percentage of the orange slice voters are lying and which are just colossally ignorant fools.

Yes I am serious, we agree on this. It is quite arrogant for humans to believe we can somehow 'save the planet.' As I said Carlin said it best, "For 4.5 billion years, the planet's been through all kinds of things way worse than us. The earth's been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages. And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans, are going to make a difference? The Earth isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!' (LOL)
He was the best at using comedy as a vehicle to show us just how uncivilized, childish and barbaric humans still are. Just like you, I am also for responsible foresting, recycling, conservation of the world's natural resources and responsibly getting away from petroleum-based fuels. Let's fa...(Read more of this comment)ce it, burning fossil-fuels shows the rest of the universe just how archaic and ancient we humans still are and how far we have yet to go.
(Show less of this comment)

If the total cost of ownership to buy a green lightbulb costs about the same, or less than a "non-green" one, why wouldn't someone buy green?

The same with a car. If a hybrid, or even electric car performs the same, costs the same to maintain, and lasts just as long? Why wouldn't people buy green?

From what I've seen so far however, "green" products do not put any more green in our wallets. The environmentalists are trying to change our economics by creating an artificial value where none (or little) exists.

For example, solar heated water or maybe even electricity by way of solar panels, has been touted as a green energy source. But there would be an enormous initial cost onsumer an to purchase and install the panels. The savings would only come after 15-20 years, and would be so small, no sane investor or consumer would find them worthwhile.

mikeft -

I would mind favoring "green" over "not green". Except it is usually more expensive to be "green" and thus the product would have a premium, which I would not be willing to pay for. Maufacturers should be concerned whether their product is green or not, but only because the consumer would prefer green. They should not be mandated by the government, to spend the companies own money, on R&D because some outside source "said so". If they don't make a green product and a competitors product catches on that is green, and people are willing to pay a premium for it, so be it. That is capitalism.

While not willing to pay a premium, I would tend to favor "green" products. Unless I'm alone on this issue, manufacturers should consider how their products and manufacturing sourcing and methods impact the environment.

Kodydogg - I knew there would be a time we would agree on something. Just like the late George Carlin said, "The planet is doing fine, through out the last 4 and a half billion years, its been through things far worse than us. The planet isn't going anywhere, WE ARE!" HAHAHA (LOL)

65% say they would NOT pay a premium (when I took the poll). Classic example of why the government should not be pushing nor mandating "green" projects, because the market is obviously not ready for it. Global warming, whether you believe it is more than a natural cycle or not, is not going to end the world tomorrow or in any of our liftimes, or our childrens childrens lifetime. So, let it rest until the market is ready for it. We don't need the government wasting more dollars on programs, or trying to create a market that doesn't exist.