What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
38 Comments
- alanocu, on 12/27/2008, -7/+22Funding for what? More studies indicating why we should eliminate our own movements because they're contaminating the Earth? How much more funding do we need to show that having children is selfish because it's all about maintaining our genetic line at the expense of the planet? Don't we already know that every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population?
Green funding, green journalism and green eggs and ham should be dust in the wind. - 0insane1, on 12/27/2008, -6/+19If global warming turns out to be junk science, as a lot of scientists are suspect it is, then it will become virtually impossible for serious enviro scientists to get funding or be taken seriously.
- jason4188, on 12/27/2008, -3/+13By this time next year you will all have green jobs and free health care and the tax cuts will be abolished and new tax cuts for the middle class and a tax raise on those making over an adjustable amount we will discuss later. Did I mention there will be fairies, Unicorns and the rivers will flow of mountain dew and the world will have given up on war and we will just have giant orgies day in and day out because STD's will be a thing of the past in this brave new world. hahaha liberals make me laugh
- kolop1, on 12/27/2008, -6/+15I wish people would stop believe this ridiculous green stuff. The world is fine you morons.
- angryfirelord, on 12/27/2008, -0/+8Environmentalists need to realize that you can't expect your ideas to be successful if you demand government funding for everything. I don't care how green you call it, you need to go get a couple of business majors and figure out a way to mass produce your product so that it does become cheaper. Just like everybody else.
- GrodyChamp, on 12/27/2008, -3/+10How the ***** did this crap make the front page? Is "green" spam the new huffpo spam now?
- maz2331, on 12/27/2008, -0/+6No - it's about back-door socialism and control in the NAME of "the earth".
- acmethunder, on 12/27/2008, -2/+8Green initiatives will be put on the back burner for now because they tend to be more expensive in the short term.
- cantaclaro, on 12/27/2008, -2/+8Yep, the "green movement" is dead in its tracks. Gas is at 1.50 right now nobody gives a ***** about "helping the planet" nor should they.
To quote Michael Crichton (it went something like this in State of Fear), trying to help generations that are 100 years in the future is like a kindergarten kid making a "present" for his parents. It's unnecessary, we couldn't possibly anticipate the problems that they will have to deal with just as 100 years ago they couldn't have possibly done anything to help us.
How would you like to receive a horse and buggy from some guy in 1908? What the hell could that guy ever do that would make your life easier? Nothing. - radiofrequency, on 12/27/2008, -3/+9If the taxpayer teat is drying up, I guess the treehuggers will have to find a better, more honest way to support themselves.
- chirt, on 12/27/2008, -2/+7so much stupid on digg this morning
- cantaclaro, on 12/27/2008, -0/+5Way to do a half assed job of quoting George Carlin, and taking his meaning completely out of context.
- megaton, on 12/27/2008, -2/+6These comments are... opposite.
- MrBussi, on 12/28/2008, -0/+4what? treehuggers are government funded?
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -0/+4Yes, funding for things that have no real benefit is going to be harder to come by when companies are struggling to just keep their doors open. When everyone is swimming in money its easy for the Goracle to trick them into pissing money into useless things like carbon credits to line his own pockets, but given how hard it is for companies to get money for things that are legit dont expect to see this green religion ***** get money thrown at it anymore.
- inactive, on 12/27/2008, -0/+4Like what? Are you one of those ***** idiots blaming hurricanes on global warming?
*****, my keyboard just broke, GOD DAMN GLOBAL WARMING! We all need to give the Goracle more money, to save keyboards everywhere! - radiofrequency, on 12/29/2008, -0/+3To the tune of 10s of billions of dollars. If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
SFO is planning to put up commercial kiosks so travellers can purchase carbon credits when they fly. Who's paying for these kiosks which sell third-party, for-profit carbon credits? The airport itself, not the company selling the carbon credits.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 ... - Richandler, on 12/27/2008, -0/+3Or you could do it now and get off the internet wasting so much energy.
- lovemorgul, on 12/27/2008, -1/+4I think that it indicates that business owners consider it a priority to take action based on their personal concerns.......and about changes in the world around them.
- rolf, on 12/27/2008, -0/+3Alanocu,
If humans disappeared, the planet would start "healing" immediately and within 100 years there would be no trace of us. But what then? It will still be doomed in several billion years when the sun becomes starved for hydrogen, expands, and first heats up the earth into a dry ball without water and then swallows it up eventually.
OTOH, I'm interested in having a society that progresses in technology. I think we can do that while maintaining the population size and the standard of living. Within 1000 years, we'll probably be colonizing space. The mainstream of the green movement always understood it was for ourselves mainly, doing what we do. - thebaron2, on 12/28/2008, -1/+4Sounds like "Global WARMING" was probably the wrong catch phrase to use then, eh?
Now that things aren't just warming up as originally claimed it's become "global climate change" instead - a much more ambiguous and thereby safe term. - Ferretman, on 12/28/2008, -0/+3This is definitely a difficult issue. On the one hand (as an engineer) I'm all in favor of increased efficiency and cleaner energy sources, and on the other there are practical limits to what one can do--it doesn't really help to give ALL of one's income to charity, for example.
So we split the difference--continue to invest SOME in cleaner and so-called "green" technologies while paying down our debt and getting ourselves into a position that we're growing the economy. - Ymeg, on 12/27/2008, -1/+3No.
If you are honestly afraid that the government will stop spending our money on green initiatives, then you can still invest or donate to companies and organizations that will. - inactive, on 12/29/2008, -0/+2I burry ALL Michael Crichton quotes!
- Richandler, on 12/27/2008, -1/+3And the long term. These things break and lose efficiency over time. There is a reason why all green energy has been government funded.
- DennisPwnsj00, on 12/27/2008, -3/+4Maybe once people get interested in buying "green" products that will always cost more than their more efficient, traditional counterparts, VC money will be more readily available. Just a thought. Of course if there's no private investment we can always count on Barack.
- stillaq, on 12/28/2008, -1/+2There is a market for products and services that consume less. However, market forces today pay best for consuming more. Leadership is going to be required to make the transition to new economies that do more with less. These are the economies of the future (best possible outcome). I think that our current leadership is sandbagging - getting your money now, encouraging more consumption - because they are preparing for a different kind of future (worst outcome). The future we live in is based on the choices we make today.
I'm hoping that there are real breakthroughs in green technologies and our choice for the future becomes obvious. The only way we get there is by making investments. - MrBussi, on 12/28/2008, -2/+3excellent refutation of climate science there. i missed the point where you used evidence / logic tho
- kolop1, on 12/28/2008, -1/+2You want evidence? I keep hearing about global warming, but the last five Summers for me have been mild and the winters have been down rite cold. I live in New Jersey where we usually have very hot summers and winters that are not so bad.
I don't know how global waring can be making my area colder, or making it snow in Nevada maybe I'm missing something. - vikingcoder, on 12/28/2008, -1/+2Both terms are accurate.
It's called "global warming" because using the 30 year mean, the hottest 28 years of the record are the past 28 in exact sequential order. In terms of the single years, the hottest 23 have been in the past 28 & the hottest 12 have been the past 12. A period of 30 years was chosen because that is the span of the reference period that HadCRU (1961-1990) is based on. The HadCRUT3v temperature record covers 1850 - current.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17 ...
It's called "climate change" because the increased energy (i.e. temperature) will not affect all locales equally.
By the way - it's the IPCC, not IPGW. The first assessment report was released in 1990. - Richandler, on 12/27/2008, -2/+3Oh ye of little faith. It only takes a two or three years for people to forget recent events.
- lead2thehead, on 12/27/2008, -6/+6The green movement isn't about saving the planet. It's about saving ourselves. The earth has survived a lot worse things than humans and it will continue to survive long after we're gone. Believe me, friend... the planet isn't going anywhere. We are.
- netant, on 12/27/2008, -3/+2Its not junk science. You can't keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and expect NOTHING to happen. What's junk is predicting exactly what will happen because of it. And credible environmental scientists are NOT making concrete, specific predictions. Its environmental activists who don't have doctorates and papers in scientific journals that are making the doom & gloom predictions. The problem is that a sizeable percentage of Americans are greedy, stupid, and narcissistic Rush Limbaugh bots, and prefer to live in the party and leave the devastation to the children. You just can't get this population of wildebeasts to prepare for something that will take decades to come about, and they're too stupid to realize you can't just "make up for it" twenty years into the process.
- vikingcoder, on 12/28/2008, -2/+1Or they should just ask for a bail-out, like all those business majors are doing right now.
- vikingcoder, on 12/28/2008, -3/+2You are missing something; the difference between weather and climate.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/c ... - vikingcoder, on 12/28/2008, -3/+1"lots of scientists"?
Care to reference that statement? - cyberrain, on 12/27/2008, -14/+4It would be sad indeed if "green" funding is cut dramatically. We can hope that innovation being what it is, more technologies will be readily available, and at lower prices, for more to enjoy. That's something we're certainly working on, anyway!
http://www.cyber-rain.com
http://blog.cyber-rain.com - suxmonkey, on 12/27/2008, -14/+4I have a feeling if anything green funding will increase with Obama in the hot seat. Here's hoping.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is