What is Digg?112 Comments
- RadiantBeing, on 10/31/2007, -8/+48They can start by being environmental scientists instead of fear mongers and publicity whores.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -6/+43A true environmentalist walks the walk and doesn't need to talk the talk...
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -2/+38This is a start...
Seriously, there are severl bajillion different types of environmentalists. I consider myself one, but know of many others that would call me an earth-raping-energy-industry-stooge.
Still love earth. You can't stop me. - jeimus, on 10/29/2007, -1/+34Learn statistics and how to use them ethically
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -9/+316.) Stop flying around in lear jets, hoping from over-heated mansion to over-heated mansion.
7.) Stop charging $50k for speaking on a "Poverty Tour". - haiduz, on 10/31/2007, -2/+17"You are not a Rastafarian. You are a 15-25 year old white boy from the suburbs who likes smoking weed. Get a ***** haircut..."
I think the author was pretty dead on with that one. - unorginalityftw, on 10/29/2007, -4/+16Yes, because nagging changes things.
- pimpbot1979, on 10/29/2007, -9/+17That Al Gore altar surrounded by incense and prayer rug is a little creepy.
- NoStoppingUs, on 10/29/2007, -2/+9i've always wondered why the environmentalists would put up someone who 49% of this country can't stand (like me). What a stupid move. He just preached to the choir, and nothing gets accomplished. Smart move.
- unorginalityftw, on 10/29/2007, -3/+10Was it really necessary to twist this to hating religion? I mean come on, the original topic was environmentalism.
- Smight, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7That was the best part. You can tell he is exactly the kind of person that needed to look into number 5.
STOP ARGUING? WHAT DO YOU MEAN STOP ARGUING![3 paragraph rant] - Chestnutridge, on 10/31/2007, -7/+14I am not sure "environmentalism" is the main reason power plants tend to get blocked. More often than not, it is due to the NIMBY syndrome. People don't care a damn about someone else environment, they just don't want the pollution and/or danger near them.
- misterjangles, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7There is a difference between "annoying people into action" and "annoying people into thinking you and your cause are not legitimate."
- twigboy, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6I was thinking about this on the way to work today (before seeing this article)
We know global warming is bad already, theres no need to state that over and over
Most of the time that fact is mentioned or stated, but no information on how we can help reduce it.
In Australia, we occasionally hear ads which tell us "switch off light bulbs when you dont need them" and "a phone charger left plugged in on idle STILL uses energy"
Those sorts of advertisements are actually useful, as its things we can do to help reduce it.
It is these sort of things the environmentalists should focus on to get everyone thinking green.
Once the masses have that mindset, it is easier to introduce larger changes. - elnerdo, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6Yeah, but 1 isn't enough. We need dozens more.
- BOFH2, on 10/30/2007, -0/+5You first!
- AbyssV3, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5Was I the only one who noticed it said in the article that it was presenting 7 points, and it only gave 5?
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -9/+14Here's one way: Die.
- landmanatee, on 10/31/2007, -1/+5Hey everybody, I can be *really* ***** tough on the internet! What do I win?
- rootfiend, on 10/29/2007, -0/+4While I agree, this article seriously lacked depth.
- ggnictee, on 10/29/2007, -6/+10at least the author didn't rely on stereotypes and generalities.
ad hominem attacks: they just make you look like a jerk. - deadnelsons, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Now lets do it for the "anti smoker" crowd
- hammerattack, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Environmentalists have scientists as paid mouthpieces, just like industry does. Except, somehow, the paid mouthpieces of the environmental industry are to be believed and adored, whereas the paid mouthpieces of industry are just eco-mercenaries.
#6: Learn to be rational. - andrew1193, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4"Keep in mind that we would still be using coal energy, complete with the black, unmoving lung tissue that came with it if not for a strong environmentalist movement."
Actually, we're still using coal energy, and it's _because_ of a strong "environmentalist" movement. - FriedTurkey, on 10/31/2007, -5/+8Anybody notice that the one comment is by a really annoying douche?
- jackkerouac, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3Believe me - there's not.
- aduzik, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3The last point is the only important one: get off your damn high horse. Kids who proselytize environmentalism are every bit as annoying as street-corner preachers. It's your delivery, not necessarily your message, that drives people away.
- inactive, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Most are just dumb ass joiners that have little knowledge of real environmental issues and thus are insufferable bores........
- mtekk, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3The ultimate answer is the Sun, and or fusion and everyone one knows that. The problem is our current technologies are inefficient in the conversion of solar energy into electricity (arguably the most useful form of energy) and (cold) fusion is more of a scientist's pipe dream.
- earthceltic, on 10/31/2007, -9/+12Buried.
I am an environmentalist who fits none of these idiot stereotypes. No, I don't have dreadlocks (not that they really mean anything when it comes to environmentalism, it's just the college stereotype of the weed-heads who are a very small percentage of us). Yah, I read books, and I can run hoops around this guy because of it. And I will continue to argue until the corporations and politicians stop doing harmful things. Keep in mind that we would still be using coal energy, complete with the black, unmoving lung tissue that came with it if not for a strong environmentalist movement. So yah, keep your stereotypes to yourself, blogger. - Nougat, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3In that picture ... do environmentalists really drive 1983 Chevy Suburbans? You know those things get like eight miles to the gallon, right?
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3That's a great start, but here's a good one: stop using fascism to get what you want, and imposing your will onto everyone. People don't have to change, and you should respect that.
- kindrobot, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3I remember about 10 years ago, I was walking along a former military base on my way to a job interview. I looked down and there was an aluminum can in a storm drain. I picked it up, examined it, and thought to myself "wow.. even if they have cash value, people still act like pigs and toss them out of cars into storm drains". I tossed it back down, since there was no trash can nearby and I didn't want to walk into my interview with a soda can in my hand.
Just then, some asshat stops his car and proceeds to lay into me about how disgusting littering is without giving me a single word to defend myself and explain what had happened. That I, in fact, was not the human waste that discarded the thing in the first place. I'm not sure I've ever felt more frustrated with another human being.
Whenever a "cause" becomes so ever-present in your mind that it clouds your ability to be reasonable, it's time to step back and re-think the whole thing. For the most part, environmentalists are doing one significantly annoying thing, reminding us that we're treating our planet like a giant trash can. If that bothers you, you need to look at yourself as much as the guy that stopped to rip me a new one needed to look at himself. The world is full of annoying, unreasonable people that love nothing more than to villify others in order to feel superior. If this fact leads to you living in denial, you're no better than they are. Put everything in context, sure, but be sure to include yourself. - bugsy187, on 10/31/2007, -0/+3Are environmentalists sending you junk mail? I doubt it. Why don't you get in touch with the post office about removing your name from the junk mail list?
- CorporateSlave, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3yeah, that was the most ironic part. i couldn't agree more, smight and friedturkey. if ever there was a completely clueless douchebag, it's him. seriously, he's gotta be like thirteen to not have heard the word douchebag. and if so, what the f is he doing commenting on webarticles in his spare time? jeez
- swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4Your argument would be more convincing if you used the phrase "Dopey Liberal Moonbats"
- Andysan, on 10/31/2007, -1/+3Just not true. We could build nuclear plants all over the Dakotas for example, and nobody could even see them. But nooo ... We will soon regret this mindless opposition stuff.
- kerzhaw, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2A glaring example of the monkeysphere in action...
- dartmanx, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Yes, but this is Digg.
- Yeago, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2This was the least creative article I've read in a while. Author picked a neat topic, and flubbed it badly by just repeating cliches (true as they may be).
- warragul, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2The annoying ones are not environmentalists. They are crusaders. They just want to join a holier-than-thou cause so they can beef up their self-esteem by disparaging their peers. The environment movement would do a lot better if these went somewhere else. Preferably to a lost cause, like Greenpeace.
- gtluke, on 10/29/2007, -2/+4bush's policies got a new nuke plant being built in texas right now, it "broke ground" like a month ago.
- nick111, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2So you don't actually know who it is, but you're attempting to smear WWF or Greenpeace anyway?
Find out who it is. If it's one of the major environmental groups let them know... these people aren't stupid. They're not in the business of pissing people off... well unless they're dumping raw sewage into the harbour.
You're not dumping raw sewage into the harbour are you? - swrostmore, on 10/29/2007, -1/+3"Once the masses have that mindset, it is easier to introduce larger changes."
Considering the concerted effort by the Bush administration to cast doubt on the environmentalist mindset, and the reality of global warming specifically (for example editing scientific reports), isn't it reasonable for the advocates of scientific truth as opposed to political spin to also have a voice? - hammerattack, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2I didn't call your rationality into question before. But, I am doing so now. Drop the persecution complex and try being rational.
- RoscoPColetrane, on 10/31/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately, electricity does not travel well. Until we perfect and implement superconductivity, a certain percentage is lost to resistance for every mile it travels. It is best to have the generation plants as close as possible to consumption centers. That means generation plants have to overcome the NIMBY syndrome.
- nick111, on 10/31/2007, -5/+7I think this is a microcosm for a fairly major problem or "why America is trailing behind the rest of the world".
The rationale for pissing-in-your-own-nest is hatred for an imaginary species of people.
Yea, I'm going to ***** the planet up as much as I can because I hate liberals and white people with dreadlocks who don't practice what they preach.
Hey people. I'm a 43 year old company directory. I have short hair and don't have a beard. And I'm a Liberal and I'm an Evironmentalist. - jackkerouac, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2GDS - Gore Does Suck
- andrew1193, on 10/30/2007, -0/+1The percentage of power generated by nuclear would be much higher had it not been for anti-nuclear "environmentalists".
-
Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is