Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
calveless wonder said:
i love gin and tonics, but I decided to go with vodka tonics last night instead.
the article is on...
the misconception that green business practices involve capital losses and long payback periods.
boring as HELL. it's for an IT magazine. *edit- it's for infoworld magazine.
I just started it this morning and it's so rough right now. I actually couldn't remember which magazine I was writing it for and was too lazy to get up to find my notes, so right now it's a little scattered (i would have had more focus if i knew who i was writing for).
this is my 390 words so far (I need at least 1000). the last paragraph is going near the end- i'm filling in the middle right now:
The Green Misconception
As the United States falls behind in the race to be Green, a common misconception remains that environmentally friendly options involve tremendous capital and a long payback period. Actually, plenty of green initiatives’ payback periods are three years or less, while some are even immediate. Large capital expenditures such as cooling equipment aren’t always necessary; simple approaches, such as obtaining high-efficiency lamps with reduced mercury content and alternative suggestions for custodial and other supplies are both immediate waste and cost reductions. Re-using your companies assets rather than destroying them provides an immediate return on investment (ROI), while saving recycling resources and landfill real estate.
With 80% of corporate America expecting to engage in green at least 16% of the time by next year, it’s a safe bet your peers and competitors are either doing likewise or about to. The sensible first step is learning how to develop green purchasing strategies that not only benefit the environment, but your bottom line. The measured green benefits must translate into a precise ROI. This is perhaps the most important criterion for both long and short term. Green has to make sense economically, or it has to solve some other problem that trumps the ROI issue.
Adding to the misconception is the promotion of new products as green replacements for existing technology. For example, the concept of replacing a current PC with another more energy-friendly model. According to a June 2008 Kiplinger report, a new PC for a knowledge worker costs roughly $500. How much energy would it have to save for you to actually save money on it? At 10 cents a kWh, it would take 5000 kWh. Most energy-efficient $500 PCs today save at most 80 watts per hour compared with their forebears, about one-twelfth of a kWh. Hence, it would take 60,000 hours to recognize any savings on power consumption alone, or almost seven years. That is far longer than the average life of a PC.
(more middle stuff goes here)
Evaluating solutions and quantifying performance is a challenging but essential part of the green process. The key to success lies in continually benchmarking, evaluating, implementing, and reassessing. The best methodology for this process is a system of continuous improvement. While most commonly applied to business environments, the philosophy of small incremental changes is easily applied to a green purchasing program as well.
Last edited:
