Talk:Climate Counts

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)

Possible Criticism

I attempted to make this article more neutral, but the changes were reversed. This entire section: "The Climate Counts Company Scorecard -- launched in June 2007 -- helps people vote with their dollars by making climate-conscious purchasing and investing choices that put pressure on the world's most well-known companies to take the issue of climate change seriously. Climate Counts aims to mobilize everyday consumers -- not just the traditional environmental community -- as the most important activists in the fight against global warming." is subjective, and clearly written by a member of Climate Counts (the wording is almost identical to this guest authored article.

If it could be balanced with a critical article, such as this then the original text could reasonably stay. Farnishk (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

On, Climate Counts, Microsoft gets in the top category "Striding", with 66 points. Then, in comparison, I think it is notable that greenpeace ranks it as 1.9 / 10, at the very bottom:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/toxics/electronics/Guide-to-Greener-Electronics/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.0.110 (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)