bit-tech.net

Dell to go green in 2008

Dell to go green in 2008

Dell is planning to go green by 2008. Michael Dell's secret identity as the Hulk will finally be revealed.

Dell is planning on going carbon neutral in 2008 - a full year earlier then previous plans.

The company plans to achieve carbon neutrality by replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs, buying carbon offsets, conserving electricity by turning computers off at night, and requiring parts suppliers to list their environmental policies.

In the short term, Dell plans to buy carbon offsets from other companies. Many argue that buying carbon offsets is not a valid method for going green because the purchasing company is not actually changing methods to reduce carbon emissions. Instead, the company is just buying carbon credits from companies that are using methods to reduce carbon emissions.

Dell currently ties Lenovo for third place in environmental rankings according to Greenpeace International.

Greenpeace ranks the top fourteen companies manufacturers of mobile phones and PCs in the policies for toxic chemicals and recycling. Nokia has maintained the number one spot in all but one version of the tables. Sony Ericsson currently ranks third.

Dell is also expanding it's 'Plant a Tree for Me' program, which gives Dell laptop customers the option to have $2 of the sale used to plant a tree somewhere in the world. Desktop buyers can donate up to $8. This is a method that many companies are using to help reduce their carbon footprint.

Currently 'Going Green' is a major trend in the electronics world and many companies are either producing more eco-friendly products or revamping production lines to help reduce electricity use. Unfortunately, going green is prohibitively expensive for companies but, as more people become environmentally aware, they will hopefully choose to buy their products from more eco-friendly companies.

For many companies the move to greener production methods could also save them money in the future, hopefully bringing costs down as well.

So, do you prefer green companies or do you just go for the best deal? Leave your thoughts over in the forums.

12 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Bladestorm 27th September 2007, 18:03 Quote
nice to hear :)
Mr T 27th September 2007, 19:52 Quote
I'm probably gonna get ripped for this but am i the only one who's sick of hearing about 'Carbon Neutral' this and that? It seams to be buzz word of the moment.
MrBurritoMan 27th September 2007, 21:10 Quote
bloodcar 27th September 2007, 21:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBurritoMan
Enough said on this crap

I'm not a believer in Global Warming but I do believe every person should do their part to not destroy the environment. I applaud companies who reduce their emissions and switch to using non toxic materials. Back where I was raised, the river is so polluted that you can't eat the fish, but it's not a result of actions done by the chemical plants that remain in the area today but from the actions of chemical plants fifty years ago. Just because you don't see a difference right now doesn't mean there won't be one down the road.
MrBurritoMan 27th September 2007, 22:23 Quote
now now, calm down. did you actually click the link and read anything that was on that page.

i do not deny that pollution is taking place around the world, that is obviously a fact but we all need to look at what exactly is a pollutant before we just go throwing money around. the only thing that i am 100% disputing is the validity of "global warming as it is being caused by humans" and all of the junk that goes with that. so chill out, and realize that #1 Carbon is not a pollutant; its how things grow. you and i are made of carbon as well as anything that lives and grows. #2 the news article mentions nothing about them changing any of their other business practices than those that supposedly produce "carbon as a pollutant" which is complete bunk. now if they said that yeah, we aren't going to use lead or mercury anymore i would be supportive because those are extremely harmful and there are numbers behind that. as far as carbon being a pollutant everything behind that is political.

i prefer to get my information from non-biased sources and look at the hard data, i.e. the numbers. i get suspicious when politicians and actors are the ones trying to push these agendas because they actually have something to gain/loose. if you want to know more i can present all the data if you so please.
completemadness 27th September 2007, 23:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBurritoMan
Enough said on this crap
interesting read, if true
Duste 28th September 2007, 00:29 Quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg from that article indeed does show that temperature does increase and decrease whenever the levels of CO2 do. However, a few mates at school have also been talking about this, and from what I've heard it could very well be a viable theory.
bloodcar 28th September 2007, 00:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBurritoMan
now now, calm down. did you actually click the link and read anything that was on that page.

i do not deny that pollution is taking place around the world, that is obviously a fact but we all need to look at what exactly is a pollutant before we just go throwing money around. the only thing that i am 100% disputing is the validity of "global warming as it is being caused by humans" and all of the junk that goes with that. so chill out, and realize that #1 Carbon is not a pollutant; its how things grow. you and i are made of carbon as well as anything that lives and grows. #2 the news article mentions nothing about them changing any of their other business practices than those that supposedly produce "carbon as a pollutant" which is complete bunk. now if they said that yeah, we aren't going to use lead or mercury anymore i would be supportive because those are extremely harmful and there are numbers behind that. as far as carbon being a pollutant everything behind that is political.

i prefer to get my information from non-biased sources and look at the hard data, i.e. the numbers. i get suspicious when politicians and actors are the ones trying to push these agendas because they actually have something to gain/loose. if you want to know more i can present all the data if you so please.

I clicked the link and I read it but if you clicked the link to the Greenpeace ratings in the article you would have seen that Greenpeace doesn't rank companies based on carbon footprints but on a huge variety of things. If you want to dig slightly deeper then you would see that Dell has a time line for removing toxic chemicals such as PVC and BFR. I can add a great deal more to the news article if you wish and I could also go into a massive reply on here about how I think carbon offset points are bullshit and the such.

At least Dell is moving towards actually being environmentally friendly. I'm no massive supporter of the company, hell I worked for it for a very brief time a few years ago, but I applaud it for the steps it is taking. Dell is actually doing more then just offsetting the amount of carbon they produce during manufacturing and transportation of goods by planting trees and conserving electricity. Now just what is so bad about that?
Aankhen 28th September 2007, 08:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBurritoMan
so chill out, and realize that #1 Carbon is not a pollutant; its how things grow. you and i are made of carbon as well as anything that lives and grows. #2 the news article mentions nothing about them changing any of their other business practices than those that supposedly produce "carbon as a pollutant" which is complete bunk.
Carbon might not be a pollutant, but have you heard the expression "everything in moderation"? You need water to survive, but we all know what happens when you get too much of it. Perhaps becoming carbon-neutral is less about removing necessary substances and more about not creating excessive waste?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBurritoMan
i prefer to get my information from non-biased sources and look at the hard data, i.e. the numbers.
I take it you do all your own research, then, since it's 1. impossible for a person to not be biased (I'm assuming you don't consider yourself to be biased) and 2. unlikely that any major study will escape having a particular spin put on it? :D
Da_Rude_Baboon 28th September 2007, 09:10 Quote
To be carbon neutral you have to produce as much energy as you use so unless Dell is investing heavily in some renewable power plants they are not going to be carbon neutral.

MrBurritoMan that is an interesting link but you seem to be putting it forward as fact which is just as bad as what the article claims the green movement is doing. There is also a common misconception that the scientific community doubt global warming is being accelerated by man. The vast majority do believe we have a direct effect on it.
Neo40k 2nd October 2007, 08:17 Quote
Agreeing with Mr. T We Need to look through the “Buzz word” Bull*hiT right up there with “No trans fat” and even “Economical” can be taken into question. Don’t let the media control you….. sorry iv been watching a lot a George Carlen and Robin Williams.

Many companies do things like dell as a PR pump…. If they are legitimately looking for ways to help the environment and are using this as a “short term” solution then that is ok. But this is not solving anything but merely redistributing the destruction
- Dell makes Multi Hundred Watt devices….wow plant a tree
- Toyota makes cars……wow plant a tree……
- Company X ……bla bla bla……wow plant a tree
Trees do make a difference…..and I support reducing footprints…. Lots of vegan, bike riding, friends making tiny foot prints too (I cant give up my bacon…mmmmm)

This is all media that is keeping us happy with what is going on….I say bullocks to Global warming and all of it arguments…..arguing will solve nothing…Simply accept that fact that we are damaging the environment one way or another….and that are ways to prevent this….. We will get there I just hope its no too late.
MrBurritoMan 3rd October 2007, 00:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Rude_Baboon
...
MrBurritoMan that is an interesting link but you seem to be putting it forward as fact which is just as bad as what the article claims the green movement is doing. There is also a common misconception that the scientific community doubt global warming is being accelerated by man. The vast majority do believe we have a direct effect on it.

i looked for the video that was hosted on Google a while back but it keeps getting pulled. the link i posted doesn't present the data as well as the actual documentary (the one that created the wiki page) did. please watch this documentary as i think it might answer a lot of questions, i know it did for me. here it is:

part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7
part 8
part 9

it was posted in its entirety on Google but all of those videos have been pulled :|.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aankhen
...

I take it you do all your own research, then, since it's 1. impossible for a person to not be biased (I'm assuming you don't consider yourself to be biased) and 2. unlikely that any major study will escape having a particular spin put on it?


i consider myself to be unbiased because (1) i don't have anything to loose or gain by agreeing with either side of the problem and (2) i look at ALL of the data from BOTH sides before making a decision. the thing i found while looking at #2 was that all of the arguments for Global Warming were alarmist with very little scientific fact. the sparse scientific data that was presented was vague if present at all. when i started looking for arguments from the other camp on global warming i not only found conclusive data but it was consistent as well as it was from multiple organizations with NO relation to each other. that is what the data tells me, it allows me to see the continuity and validity of any argument via the actual data that they present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodcar
I clicked the link and I read it but if you clicked the link to the Greenpeace ratings in the article you would have seen that Greenpeace doesn't rank companies based on carbon footprints but on a huge variety of things. If you want to dig slightly deeper then you would see that Dell has a time line for removing toxic chemicals such as PVC and BFR. I can add a great deal more to the news article if you wish and I could also go into a massive reply on here about how I think carbon offset points are bullshit and the such.

...

i went to the greenpeace page and found it to be far too vague. i read the entire greenpeace ranking page, the company scorecard template, and the outlines for ranking and it just doesn't sit well with me. for example the constantly mention "toxic chemicals" but fail to mention what they might be. the only ones that they do specifically mention are PVC and BFR. this tells me that (1) they don't want to list anything because if they do and one of those is proven to be non toxic they will look bad and (2) since nothing is down in writing they can add or take away a chemical at anytime. i fail to see where this is a solid "ruler" to be held up against.

also they do not mention in any of the ranking documents i read "global warming" or any of the associated buzzwords. i fail to see why the greenpeace page was even linked in the news article because it has nothing to do with dell reducing their carbon dioxide output.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloodcar
...

At least Dell is moving towards actually being environmentally friendly. I'm no massive supporter of the company, hell I worked for it for a very brief time a few years ago, but I applaud it for the steps it is taking. Dell is actually doing more then just offsetting the amount of carbon they produce during manufacturing and transportation of goods by planting trees and conserving electricity. Now just what is so bad about that?

its just a PR campaign disguised as something else, that's whats wrong with it. they want people to buy more computers and so they want to appeal to a large crowd of consumers. a large group of people to appeal to now-a-days is the environmentalists and what better way to do that then try to be "green".
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums