Admit it. After tech companies issue those green-tinted press releases you start to wonder if they're really going far enough with their new products and/or initiatives.

BusinessWeek has a great opinion piece by Roger L. Kay of the research firm Endpoint Technologies Associates. Sure, AMD, Intel, HP, Dell, et al. deserve a pat on the back. But when faced with a still-booming global population and the need to grow their businesses, will slightly greener practices offset the monumental impact required to provide computers and gadgets to billions more people?

Here's an example that illustrates his logic:

John Frey, manager for corporate environmental strategies at HP, told of all the ways the company is being earth-friendly and stated that the company wants to "reduce the energy used by our products and operations 20% by 2010." It's an admirable goal, but Frey admitted that this 20% is really a per-product goal. That is, the amount of energy to make and sell a single product—say, a PC—will by 2010 be reduced to only 80% of its 2007 amount.

But consider how Frey's goals mesh with those of HP's product managers, who if given their druthers would sell twice as many products in 2010 as they did in 2007. Let's do some simple math: If one unit of product uses one unit of energy during its life cycle, and the company sells 10 units during 2007, it will consume 10 units of energy that year. If the company succeeds in reducing that consumption to 0.8 units, that's good, but if it sells 20 units in 2010, it will use 16 units of energy—more than the 10 units in 2007. The good intentions are lost in the growth curve. Now, 16 is better than 20, but have you seen the pace of polar ice-cap melt lately?

Kay advises tech firms to tread lightly when touting their eco "innovations". Mostly because some are the natural extension of efficiencies gained by improved engineering, design and manufacturing. That, and cynical, and presumably eco-conscious, buyers will be dissecting those claims. Bet on it.