Talk:Climate Counts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate Counts is a well-established non-profit that has been a notable part of the conversation about Climate Change. See these articles on TreeHugger.com (the most popular environmental blog):

[1] [2] [3]

and on Huffington Post: [4] [5]

They are providing a valuable service, namely to show what companies are doing in their manufacturing sector, i.e. not just greenwashing products that are made by horrible polluters in China before assemblage here, and thus should not be deleted from Wikipedia. Thanks! MaxMarginal (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Criticism

The idea behind Climate Counts is definitely a good one, to give consumers a digest of a company's environmental impact. It is therefore a pity that the methodology appears to be somewhat lazy, as they only appear to look for easily publicly available documents and statements from each company. The problem with that approach is that, unless a company makes publicity effort to promote it's green credentials, it doesn't matter how much actual action they take, it won't get counted. I consider this approach lazy, as it would be much more useful for consumers to know environmental info about a company that isn't easily available, and requires some time-consuming digging around.

Additionally, many points are awarded for good intentions, which don't necessarily convert into actions. It's easy these days to come up with a list of "To Do" things, because everyone knows what needs to be done; the real weighting of points should only be awarded when action is actually taken. Rolf Schmidt (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Seeing how new this is (June 2007) should this be used in other articles to provide information on whether or not a company is "green"? Especially since they appear to be taking the lazy way out as Rolf pointed out. It seems like I would need more sources than an environmental blog, even if it is supposedly the biggest one out there, and a couple of articles in the Huffington Post to show that they are relevant. I don't say this is a bad idea, just wondering if we should be citing this report yet. Kaid (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)