Depending on the specifics of the exchange, I'd consider it.
That said, I'm wondering about the net benefit. I don't think my MBP sucks much energy with an LED display and very efficient sleep mode. I would think that even an older flatscreen iMac like mine would suck much less energy than the CRT machines that were prevalent not too long ago.
And any "green exchange" program would include a lot of people driving 75 miles in their 15 mpg SUVs to the brightly lit Apple store where the new machines have been schlepped in by gas guzzling Fed Ex trucks and the old schlepped out by Fed Ex trucks and then dumped in a landfill somewhere.
Computers seem to have a life expectancy of around five years--much less than a car--and the people that use them a lot tend to replace them more, so more efficient machines get cycled into use pretty regularly without such a program.
I think that a campaign that, say, converted every Apple store from halogens to compact florescent bulbs, and maybe even included three free CF bulbs with every consumer computer purchase, would have more impact.
What about Apple boxes--are they 100 percent post-consumer? If not, why not? That probably has more of an impact than the 20 sheets of paper I run through my computer every month.
I'm not even going to get into the question of the impact of overseas factories that make Apple products and components (including these "green exchange" machines), which are subject to much less stringent environmental laws than in the US.
When I look at "carbon inventory" websites, I realize that a lot of the things they're suggesting--turning off lights and lowering the thermostat and walking instead of driving--are things that my mother (who grew up in the Depression) advocated because they saved money and generally kept waste to a minimum.
I'm all for green, but the question is at once simpler and more complex than many people think.
best
Allen
