First you need to define what are the non-green technologies you are planing to use. I would say that they all are acceptable once circumstances and results are discussed and compared to the options available (for example nuclear energy in highly populated areas with elevated energy requirements). What we need to avoid is to become bias and create our own "truth". Since nowadays everyone included the corrupted and ignorant has a voice. Results are the factors that can affect the perception of something traditionally considered non-acceptable.
The issue of technology evolution from non-green to green technology is a major theme in a just-published article of mine (with co-authors). The article attributes much adoption of green technology to synergies between scientific advocates recruiting religious institutions in possession of large followings (and funds) to implement such green strategies. The article actually deems such science/religion synergy potentially planet-saving. I hope the following is useful: Michaels, Robert A.; Richard A. Hammerman, and Heslley Machado Silva. Emerging green synergy in the science/religion relationship: from conflict to potentially planet-saving cooperation. Environmental Claims Journal, 30(4), doi 10.1080/10406026.2018.1504381, 23 pages, published online 3 October 2018.
For example there is always a rating from A to G on eco labels of electronic appliances, A is least environmental impact whereas G is more environmental impact. But there are functionality related actions that can contribute to save the resources even if the product is rated as G. I would like you to identify what factors can lead a person to take such decision that without paying a high amount for A rated technology one can save their physical and financial resources e.g. cost, life longevity of product etc.
Most of the previous studied found that the relationships between green brand awareness, green brand trust, green perceived value and customers’ intention to use green products were significant