What does it takes to be a real Green User?

1

I’ve been an educator in teaching people how to transition to green living. Despite this the world in general still uses relatively archaic manufacture of consumer needs. Much of these processes are evolving to increase economic productivity but it is offset by dirty cheap methodology and the governments of our world are taking bribes to allow these industries to not evolve as green producers of all this tech, happy humans use in all walks of life but are oblivious with most disregard of what real Green Technology requires to sustain its development. There is a fraction of industries making relevant and expensive change to manufacture today, 2022.

Whilst I look at the products Choice tests, it is far from reality with making real long range decisions to help consumers understand the waste these products all produce in an endless transition, they are designed to empower the user to buy the next best gadget and discard a product which is designed to fail internally or a relatively important part breaks and cannot be replaced as that is a created design constraint in testing longevity of product. All product is replaced over and over with a newer model having similar design flaws to make it replaceable the cycle is endless.

The real issue of Choice is that the consumer is not being educated to recognise their contributory outcome of real waste to the world footprint of carbon positive. It fails to incentivise the consumer to consider the relevance of what is recyclable versus what is not and conributes to ignorance in a form of language illiteracy the manufacturer would praise it has imparted it ignores green energy and its real purpose those manufactured item which contain such, is a growing industry of change but it fails to realise what other sites have already brought to advising customers.

I’m not sure if Choice is a consumer advisor currently? In recommendation, it fails to inform the buyer of what an ongoing contribution is doing to our planet and to humans who by location and discrimination to disaregard health humans no robots, recycle toxins but robotics builds much of your products. Everybody who has discarded a modern T.V. have sent that to waste but it is not in landfill. Any electronics or fabrication is recycled. The manufacturer doesn’t recycle its products.

the future is not a healthy planet even if we reach carbon neutral, our practices of convenience needs to change dramatically.

Why does Choice choose to ignore green relevance. It even has very little researched green product other countries are try to sell but have started to implement transition to reduce energy cost and the damage recycling creates to our world by changing the consumer Standards. In reality Choice should be research and educating consumers of value in what they purchase and explain the validity of new design which is actually green power instead of the same old narrow focus.

The whitegoods being sold overseas are generally not sold in Australia. Getting green product takes effort and finding a seller is hard. Convenience and warrantee sells most product.

However, I argue here why isn’t a well-known and appraised consumer research organisation investing some change to how consumers think about their buying leverage and looking at processes of inverter, gas and newer types of energy saving technology using cycling rechargeable energy cells. There is little discussion sadly, explaining the relevance of cost in the making of such changes to help the world of tomorrow reach the target carbon neutral quota’s we are not considering in our current purchase arrangements. We discard our old with no regard of what that cycle we readily contribute to creates long-term.

it will take real effort and a whole lot of serious reduction of human technology spending to curb the ever-increasing battle to undo the Plastic Ocean we are all creating but that in effect is already changing the natural elements of our dependency on food resource globally. It is destroyed by the toxicity we discard with most disregard, we ignore the facts of how we buy toxicity.

It takes 500 years to allows grade 5 waste to breakdown into elements crops will grow to provide food. Toxins are in all plastic even recycled plastics, some metals, formed plastic-glass, some synthetic parts, it is in all electronics boards and some energy regulating electronic componentry is the biggest hazard in your homes. Your Microwave is the most dangerous tool you use. All whitegoods contain hazards for recyclers, the biggest contributor to cancer, lesions or wounds which don’t heal, birth defects and a multitude of health-related lung diseases medicine cannot fix.

Why does Choice endorse product which creates hazards for humans who are recycling these toxicities? A research organisation knows this but fails to pass on the risks we all contribute toward.

Why do we ignore the relevance of global change, the trend and insight of invented new technology helping us to become more efficient energy users but in fact products we use are not providing this result in reality, as the site has less green purpose than European equivalent consumer advisories? Reality check - Australian consumers are being duped by poor research practices.

Here’s the thing, if Choice decided to be realistic it would not have much product to research and it would be bombarded by criticism from different consumer groups. What it should do versus what it is doing is not my call but it fails to deliver a proper level of conduct to be transparent and display every product available in Australia. It’s namesake - chooses which products it wants to research but its not a good Choice anymore for consumers to rely upon just their word. There is more than double of their product reviews on other well known advisory sites and the net allows consumers to match product overseas, not just in Australia, anything bought from Japan fits and works in AU electric grid out of the box. There is very minimal product which can be labelled Green efficient. But Choice is truly lazy too, as it fails to educate the reason products are dirty and it endorses very dirty engineering practices in manufactured goods as a reason to ignore the toxicities and just continue to contribute to global hazards to that end.

To all you consumers, where’s the logic in caring about what we are all using whist the result explains we are killing our species with the toxic waste we discard to be recycled. The future is beyond breathable. It is what we all are creating wherever we live.

3

Welcome to the Communiy @techgeek101

You might try adding ‘researcher’ to your list of accomplishments. for example you seem oblivious to (a random selection from Choice)

as well as its activist efforts for ‘flushable wipes’, then nappies, printer inks, and many other items. All easily found by searching the Choice web site.

Is your point you expect Choice to have become The Activist organisation to educate and Choice, in your opinion, falls short from your viewpoint?

3 Likes
4

There is always an assumption that the content is reliable, that the classroom is accepting and able to comprehend, leading to a learning outcome.

Breaking any topic into simple bite sized chunks, progressing one learning outcome at a time, reinforcement and confirmation of learning are all valuable to effective teaching technique. Principles of effective teaching 101?

It’s also important to provide factually supported content. From my years of reading Choice and the content offered by the Choice Community it performs well above the standard suggested. Critically Choice delivers on fact and presents the content (educates) consumers using simple and effective communication.

2 Likes
6

It is important to understand that Choice serves a wide audience, who may have disparate views about the comparative importance of various factors.

Sometimes environmental considerations are aligned with short to medium term consumer considerations. For example, a crappy TV that dies irreparably after 2 years is in noone’s interest - not the consumer, not the environment. But what happens if a better TV that will last the consumer’s lifetime falls down in some ideological consideration?

Then there’s the vexed question of changing technical standards. Early adopters of digital TVs may have gotten saddled with a TV that only does Standard Definition, not “High” Definition, or Full High Definition, never mind about Ultra High Definition. (Hence an otherwise fine TV, misses out on many channels and may eventually be unable to receive any channels. Before that there was the same issue with analogue TV.) Who controls the relentless march of technology? Not Choice. Not the consumer. Maybe not even the government. At a certain point Choice needs to give an objective review of the TV, rather than focusing on the more ideological elements.

On the other hand, sometimes it really is down to government to set the standards. While Choice frequently advocates for the consumer to the government, ultimately it is the government who makes the decision.

1 Like
7

Clearly you are passionate about the environment, but blaming Choice might be the result of some smoke and mirror tricks by big industries and some misguided governments.

Blaming consumers, and putting the pressure on them to become responsible for global climate change has been said to be ruse perpetrated by the very same big industries that produce the things that cause the climate to change. That way the focus moves from them to us, the little old consumer. We feel guilty that we haven’t done enough, when in reality we will never be able to offset the changes while the big industrialists continue to produce the material that changes our climate.

An example of this would be the plastics industry telling us that they produce ‘recyclable plastics’. This improved the image of plastics and they can continue to produce vast quantities of it, while most ends up in normal landfill because while technically recyclable, the processes to do so are out of reach at present. So even if all consumers did the right thing with plastics, most would end up in landfill. Who profits? The plastics industry. Who pays the price? Consumers do. Who feels guilty they aren’t doing enough? Consumers. This could be generalised out to most industries. Changing all consumer behaviour to be perfect green consumers would still only be tinkering at the edges. Change has to happen at the international and national level to stop those industries responsible for the problems.

Very few of those big industries are going to voluntarily give up their profits just to do the right thing. They need to be coerced by their governments.

Choice does it’s bit, as others have already said. The policies that determine what happens in regard to the environment comes from our governments, both Federal and State. So I hope that you also are educating people about electing Goverments in Australia that do not minimise, turn a blind eye, or at worst deny the changes to our climate. That way, the guilt for climate change can be moved away from consumers, and onto the industries that actually cause the damage.

6 Likes