My piece is a recap of an international survey which I found very interesting. The title (which, I believe, came from the original) is one I’d have chosen anyway even if someone else did not — it accurately summarizes the survey’s findings and tells the reader what to expect in the piece, so it’s a “good title.” No where does the original (or my) piece state that “green” products are more costly or that “”‘green’ living means doing without, or being uncomfortable.”

My take — and I’d imagine the take of many who read the survey or my piece — is that this survey shows the strength of commitment to things green since people say they’d be willing (key word) to pay more. This piece (and survey) is less about price, than about the strength of “green” consciousness/commitment among people of various nations.

It’s also about green’s “brand” strength. Analogy would be me saying I’d be willing to pay more for my favorite brand of watch, not that my favorite watch actually costs more (than similar alternatives).

Additionally, a biz owner (or someone considering starting a biz) might look at this survey and, based upon it, decide to sell “green” services or products even *IF* they cost a bit more. That’s a positive (!) — because people can only buy (certain) green products and services IF someone is selling them. (”Certain” because certain aspects of green “living” can be accomplished for free by recycling and other means which don’t involve buying new products or services.)

Though since you brought up costs, let’s go there…. I totally agree — it IS possible to go green and save money at the same time, as I just stated. However, that’s for many — though (let’s tell it as it is) NOT all — things green. Solar energy is a good example. Some states have generous state subsidies and enough sun that the payback for converting to solar power makes sense on a purely economic basis. However, in some literally-dark (as in little sunshine) and figuratively-dark states (as in their legislators haven’t seen the green “light”) one would have to be, as you phrased it, “noble” to go solar because the payback is such that solar doesn’t make sense on a purely economic basis (to the individual).

Headlines like yours perpetuate the idea that “green” living means doing without, or being uncomfortable. That’s just wrong.

sj