In Win GreenMe 650W

62 Comments

View All Comments

• CharonPDX - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link

  That seems odd. Shouldn't a PSU marketed as being "eco" "green", etc, have better than the lowest certification.

• cyberguyz - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link

  You are echoing my thoughts exactly bro.
  
  To me a 'green' PSU should waste as little power as possible. Simply because they donate to an eco group (exactly how much of each dollar donated actually goes toward whatever it is that WWF actually does? How much ends up lining pockets?) does not buy them a 'green' monicker.
  
  These guys are just using this as a gimmick to foist off low-quality goods on an unsuspecting market.

• dtolios - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link

  The fact that global warming is used and abused by companies / orgs, does not make it irrelevant - being man made or not. Not all of the people taking action about reducing our "Carbon footprint" think immorally or try to boost an agenda.
  
  Just like the US or any other country fighting immoral wars for pure profit since and during WWII doesn't make the warriors fighting and dying for them immoral - not the vast majority of them at least.
  
  So let the "green" fighters do what they do, along with the "freedom fighters", the "holy crusaders" etc...Green is a new religion. Accept it, or get ready to be questioned about your "believes" and morality.
  
  Btw, funding WWF does not make a passable modern PSU much greener...meh marketing.

• TomatoTornado - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link

  ... but I beg of you, educate yourself about the WWF. It is nothing more than a marketing label.
  
  " WWF certified a palm oil plantation operated by Wilmar International, a Singaporean company, on the Indonesian island of Borneo, even though the establishment of the plantation led to the destruction of over 14,000 hectares of rainforest. Only 80 hectares were ultimately conserved."

• ggathagan - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link

  I don't disagree with you, but your point is made more strongly if you supply a reference for your quote.

• taltamir - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link

  "They got donations from the energy industry and tolerated genetically changed soy. "
  What is wrong with them receiving donations from energy industry?
  
  What is wrong with genetically modified soy? Would you rather people starve to death then use genetically modified crops that cause less pollution and produce greater yields?

• JarredWalton - Wednesday, June 6, 2012 - link

  It's not a question of whether or not we think that; it's that plenty of others have concerns with the WWF, so pointing out that they're not without controversy on a PSU that sticks a "we give $1 to WWF for every PSU sold" seems rather appropriate. And of course, there are others that dispute the accusations that they've done anything "wrong". So, choose your poison, but ultimately the PSU is just "okay" and that's probably where things ought to end.

• Lqdslvrz - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link

  "What is wrong with genetically modified soy? Would you rather people starve to death then use genetically modified crops that cause less pollution and produce greater yields?"
  
  So much wrong here, so much.
  
  If you think genetically modified food is anything beneficial you had better do some research.

• cyberguyz - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link

  Man, what do you say to something so asinine. (shakes head)
  
  Perhaps you should hit the books as well. Do you even understand all of what "genetic modification" means? You do realize that half 90% of the food you eat every day is genetically modified right? The wheat in your bread or flour. The meat you eat.
  
  (Hint: cross-breeding and cross pollination are simple 'genetic modifications' and have been taking place for decades)
  
  You assume this kind of thing is wrong. Perhaps instead of throwing the darts, you should put your own mind up on the dartboard and list out exactly why there is "so much wrong here". How about some of the reasons why crops are genetically manipulated:
  
  1. Produce hardier strains that can grow with little water.
  2. Produce strains that produce more food per plant (i.e. corn that will grow more than a couple ears per plant)
  3. Produce plants that do not attract to insects (reduces pesticide use).
  4. produce strains that yield larger fruit/vegetables.
  
  Why is this beneficial? How about:
  
  (1) Crops can grow in places normally suffering from frequent droughts which would kill 'normal' crops.
  
  (2) For a given field, a higher yield is obtained. This can feed more people than 'normal' crops.
  
  (3) I for one would rather eat food that has not been coated in toxins. With 'normal' crops you are forced to use pesticides to get a decent yield.
  
  (4) No brainer here. Larger potatoes mean you need less of them to feed a family.
  
  There are over 6 billion people in the world. Unmodified crops can not feed them all. When you see those 'staving kids in Africa' commercials, you are seeing only the end result of the use of that money provided. Sure some of the money goes to tactical support, but the largest part of the money donated goes to research into producing food in areas like that so those kids would not be starving in the first place.
  
  So, what would you prefer? Genetically altered crops that can grow in places where drought or insect infestations is common or hundreds of thousands of starving people? Or producing vegetable strains that can grow with 1/5th water and not be eaten by insects without using pesticides?
  
  I know what I would choose.

• taltamir - Thursday, June 7, 2012 - link

  well said.