Sitting here in Silicon Valley, it’s easy to get caught up in all the tech talk. Yesterday’s newspaper had a major story about how the semiconductor industry is sounding the alarm bells because Moore’s Law will come to an end in 2020. The article goes on to tell us that we should all be concerned because, without Moore’s Law continuing, we (presumably Silicon Valley and the U.S. at large) will not be able to be first with the latest in HDTVs and other electronics gear that will be all the rage in 2020 and beyond.

I can remember the day when issues like that seemed important to me. It wasn’t that long ago. But seriously, is that really cause for alarm? If I can’t get the 120 inch HDTV and must force myself to be satisfied with my 110 incher for an extra year or two, is that really cause for alarm? Many of us are beginning to realize that the answer to that question is obvious.

But the responsible capitalist in me wants a say as well. The issues go beyond whether or not I need a bigger TV. For instance, what happens to the jobs of those people who don’t get to build the 120 incher? And what happens to the companies - not just the producer, but all of the upstream suppliers and downstream wholesalers, distributors, and retailers? The answer is that there’s just as much economy - just as much of an opportunity for the motivations and efficiencies of capitalism - in the green economy as in the old economy.

Because the “next generation HDTV” that consumers want is *not* the 120 incher. It’s the 110 incher that is designed by eco-engineers (educated in new technologies) with eco-friendly materials (based on new research) that uses renewable energy sources (solar panels installed by local laborers) and is 100% recycleable into the next generation of HDTVs. In other words, the “next generation” is not necessarily bigger, but it *is* greener. And making things greener means a total re-tooling of our economy…and when you re-tool, you create jobs and opportunities throughout the economy.

So no, I’m not worried about Moore’s Law coming to an end. We already have the “green law” which represents a huge engine for growth while also improving everyone’s quality of life.

Kent
Visit us at www.ecounit.com

I spend a lot of hours every day interacting with companies who serve the “green” market. It’s a heartening site, and certainly it’s a trend with more positive attributes than many that I’ve seen over the years (think legwarmers).

Like any trend there are negative aspects, and the one that’s bothering me today is ad-sponsored “tips for greening your life”. No doubt there are useful tips for greening our lives. And it’s definitely true that the vast majority of us need to change how we live in various ways in order to get on a sustainable footing. But as I see these tips & tricks come through daily, I can’t help but draw the conclusion that 80% of them are driven by the need for advertising dollars. They’re simply not useful or practical…but they do represent real estate for ads.

My biggest concern with this is actually not that I think the publishers of the tips are immoral. I respect the desire to make money and the need to keep one’s business running in order to serve some higher purpose. But the sheer volume of tips, and the questionable usefulness of many of them, threatens to turn readers off…the net result being that the truly useful, impactful tips that can help us move in the right direction will be lost.

It seems almost daily that the news reports of a study or survey showing that x% of people - usually a large % - wants their products to be more environmentally friendly. And those same studies often state that y% - again, usually a pretty high number - are willing to pay more for the same product if it’s more eco-friendly. If you’re really interested, you can find this information from sources like LOHAS and the Natural Marketing Institute.

While I’m willing to believe these statistics, the market really needs some hard evidence before we see mainstream producers react in a significant way. We need to see case studies of products that are equivalent in nearly all attributes other than their eco-friendliness and price, yet they sell in greater quantities within an identifiable segment of the population. Until this kind of hard evidence is available, I’m afraid the naysayers and claims of greenwashing will continue to hold a strong position.

We are building a group of consumers who want to facilitate this corporate transformation by providing constructive feedback. We invite companies who are interested in understanding the true costs and benefits of greening themselves and their products to visit www.ecounit.com and think about how they can utilize our member base to accelerate their transformation.

Sure, 2008 is the year that all of America goes green. But I think there is a related undercurrent that is less celebrated - Americans want to be part of a cause. It may be driven by the aging of the baby boomers, and surely it’s enabled by the internet, but never in the last 30 years has a significant segment of the population felt so compelled to “do something”.

You can see evidence of it in sites like www.freerice.com, which allows individuals to easily embrace the cause of stamping out hunger, and similarly by the growth of www.ecounit.com, which allows consumers to easily give back to the environment by earning rewards that are redeemable for carbon offsets.

I anticipate that this desire to get involved and make a difference will continue to help drive the eco-movement. But I hope that even as the eco-issues go mainstream and even become part of our every day culture, the compunction of people to do something and give back will spill over into other aspects of our culture and economy.

As we build the EcoUnit system, I’m struck by the multitude of companies offering to offset this or that based on a click. There may be some legitimate offers, but for the most part they look to me like blatant attempts to capitalize on the green trend and grow a list of unsuspecting email addresses in the process.

Our challenge is to rise above this fray, and I think we can do it. First, we are offering rewards to capture peoples’ attention and keep them coming back. Second, the rewards are not only free, they’re significant - it only takes 5 EcoUnit credits to offset a ton of carbon dioxide. That means that the average participant, who emits about 1.5 tons of CO2 each year, can completely offset their carbon footprint by earning only 7-8 EcoUnit credits per month. Third, and this will take a little bit more time to develop, we’re going to put the individual in control of how their EcoUnits are “spent”. So, with a relatively small investment of time, EcoUnit participants can earn free rewards, and they can use them to help the environment in significant ways.

You can see all this at www.ecounit.com. If you go, and if you like what you read, I hope you will sign up.