Previous poll Next poll

Are you more likely to buy something that is considered “green,” or less harmful to the environment?

Response Percent Votes
62% 481
37% 293
Total 774


Nick Yoho 6 years, 1 month ago

if you had a choice, why would you vote no?!

Majestic42 6 years, 1 month ago

Because, sadly, most of the time it's a scam.

CLARKKENT 6 years, 1 month ago


denak 6 years, 1 month ago


You are probably right. What does the government consider green? If a food says it is "fat free" that doesn't mean it is. If a food says it is made with "no trans fat," doesn't mean it isn't. The government has let the food industry off the hook by requiring certain amounts to be legal but not exactly honest.

Just like chickens that are supposedly "cage free" or "free range" aren't necessarily. It only means that they are not in cages 24 hours a day. The chickens can be in a cage for 23 hours and let out for a hour (kind of like prisoners) and still qualify as "free range."


bearded_gnome 6 years, 1 month ago

also, "green shoppers" actually display what's called "moral self licensing," having "done good" they feel they have some slack to misbehave then.

here's my blog, my writing could've been better that day:

Majestic42 6 years, 1 month ago

But who's to say the products are actually green? A large portion are most likely not any more green than the generic brand sitting next to them in the aisle.

dogsandcats 6 years, 1 month ago

Green products cost more, so no I don't buy them. If green products were to cost the same as non-green products, I would choose the green one every time. I mean, who wouldn't?

madameX 6 years, 1 month ago

Not necessarily, I know there are some products that by their nature greener than others that don't cost more, although the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Bon Ami being greener than Comet but costing about the same.

Mike George 6 years, 1 month ago

Here's a no-brainer example of good practices - our office here in KC has changed all the default settings of our printers to 2-sided printing, and in the first six months, we have reduced our paper consumption by 40%. We can still go in and set any particular print job for one-sided printing or copying if we have to. Another new practice is sending all of our construction waste to various landfills or recyclers by simple sorting at construction sites. This costs about 10% more for waste disposal, but produces 100% recycling. You don't have to buy $20 LED lamps to make a difference. Think about good practices in your home, like turning off lights and only watering once a week in the summer for an hour. Going "green" is not nearly as painful as some of you imply.

gphawk89 6 years, 1 month ago

"changed all the default settings of our printers to 2-sided printing"

My employer did this too. But everyone in my department and several others are required to produce single-sided documentation. So very often we print two-sided, mutter some profanities when we pick up the prints, throw them away, then print again using single-sided. I'd bet our department uses 20% more paper than before.

bearded_gnome 6 years, 1 month ago

BBoy: Your writing is fine by me. But, the concept while interesting is kindergarten psychology.

---epic fail! try reading the original research. are you saying the Toronto U psychologists are engaging in kindergarten psychology?

okay, let's see your degree BB!

no, this is real research with real subjects.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

I read that study last time you posted it.

Your conclusion may be somewhat flawed.

If I remember correctly, the study showed that those who have spent more money on green products tend to give less to charities. There was a high percentage of students in the study, who I'm pretty sure don't have lots of disposable income.

So it's likely that they gave less to charity simply because they had less disposable income after spending more for green products.

bendover61 6 years, 1 month ago

All of you greenies have fallen for Madison Avenue advertising. It is just marketing. You are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

So the ongoing destruction of the natural world isn't a problem?

Majestic42 6 years, 1 month ago

Yes, but so is the baiting and ripping off of gullible consumers.

somedude20 6 years, 1 month ago

I ditched the K2 and went green. You are right as it does cost more but is a much better product! RIP Dio!

Liberty275 6 years, 1 month ago

I am less likely to buy anything that even hints that it is a "green" product because I know it's a compromise away from utilitarianism for the sake of idiocy.

Adrienne Sanders 6 years, 1 month ago

Considered "green" by whom? Anybody can stick the word "green" on the label and it's fairly meaningless. I recommend reading this site: and thinking about what you're buying.

Most cleaning products can be replaced with white vinegar, water, and baking soda. "Green" and cheap.

overthemoon 6 years, 1 month ago

yes. the labels mean nothing. my grandmother used vinegar for everything. every thing!! it was a family joke that has come around to making sense.

preebo 6 years, 1 month ago

The first rule in being "green" is to BUY less. Consuming less is the first step in lightening ones footprint on the planet. Simply buying something that is "green" is not going to do the job. However, if one were to replace one purchase for one that uses less packaging material or is even made from recycled materials, that in itself is being "green."

overthemoon 6 years, 1 month ago

this is so true. if everyone were to curb their usage of resources by 5 percent, it would make a HUGE difference.

ralphralph 6 years, 1 month ago

Most of the "Green" marketing is a crock.

Curtis Lange 6 years, 1 month ago

I'll buy 'green' if the green product is superior to the comparable non-green product. If it is not, then no, I will not buy green just to buy green.

shicks44 6 years, 1 month ago

I honestly don't understand why they (whoever "they" are) can't just do away with the plastic bags and plastic for produce at all grocery stores. Why can't they just stop being produced? They didn't always exist. Why can't it just go away from on high? What's stopping that?

mr_right_wing 6 years, 1 month ago

Because we like the plastic bags. At the Dillons I go to they have a bin you can put your used plastic bags in and they (allegedly) recycle them. Unfortunately I always forget to bring them back so to the dumpster they go. (Sigh)

Pretty much all environmentalists would hate me....bottled water (I usually buy 2 1ltr bottles per visit so they need to be double bagged for the walk home), paper plates and cups and plastic spoons, forks, etc. (No dishwasher and I hate washing dishes.)

My 'carbon footprint' is probably big enough that if Al Gore had the power he'd have me arrested!

On the good side I just live two blocks from the store so I never drive there.

denak 6 years, 1 month ago

No, I'm not more likely to buy something "green." Just like many of the other posters, I don't because of cost. I recycle, I have the grocery totes and I try to keep the temp. down in my house, but I'm not going to buy something that is reportedly "green" namely beause 1) it is more expensive, 2) doesn't work as well most of the time and 3) seriously, most of the time, when I go to buy something, I don't even remember to think about it. It is just not a priority.


Commenting has been disabled for this item.