What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
37 Comments
- Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So pay for them, instead of receiving my tax dollars in your cattle's corn subsidies.
- geekee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Is it better for Brazil to cut down rain forests so they can grow sugar cane for biofuel instead of burning fossil fuels?
- Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6If every American were to cut thier meat consumption by only half, it would reduce carbon emmisions more than if every American switched to a hybrid car. Imagine if we did both.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3They burn a lot of it for farmland.
- Calcularius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, they do burn a lot of it, I guess...
- manfrin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That first most emission, fossil fuel, is the major part of these alternatives to wood. Plastic and many types of the 'eco friendly' alternatives are primarily made from oil. The founder of Greenpeace now backs the use of wood over plastic based substitutes because wood is not only replaceable, but it doesn't come from oil.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5How about stop the recycling fraud?
I'd trade some extra land for landfills for reduced carbon emission over cutting my meat consumption; because it is fact that recyling uses a lot of extra energy than using raw materials (except for a few materials like aluminum) - Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hear, hear. That would help! Hell, I'm wearing a hemp sweatshirt right now; it's common in Europe.
- Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The recycling fraud? Come now, it's a lot more efficient to recycle than to throw things away. The attacks on recycling have come from those who compare raw (already claimed) materials and post-consumer materials; they don't take into account the impact of mining/cutting the virgin material.
Check out the book "Cradle to cradle" - a lot of it is about designing for recycling rather than just trying to recycle things that don't recycle well. - FrameShift, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Does anybody else not care about their carbon output? For my part, I believe that when we become a real threat to the planet, the planet will kill us off. That's what happens in a self-correcting system.
Maybe it'll be some kind of a virus. Something transmitted sexually could discourage us from breeding. If it hit our immune systems, we'd be unable to fight off infections. Hmm. Maybe a Human Immunodeficiency Virus...
We are so *****. - drakethegreat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Too bad I can't tell the credit card companies to stop sending me offers. I sign up for paperless billing on the ones I got and they still send me occasional reminders and advertisements for stupid crap.
- danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2cavemen didn't have millions of people to feed with wasteful consumer goods and huge industries moron.
- danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2hemmmmmmmmmp
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I cut down alot of old growth trees, but I get to feel good about it because I buy tree offsets.
- Ekdog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4How about using hemp to make paper? Too bad the Republicans won't allow that.
- Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Actually, that's a pathetic attempt at misinformation in itself. *If* there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago, a dubious claim considering how much land has been converted from forest to farm in the last 100 years and how little has gone the other way, they are smaller and generally more monocultured (what we plant after a clearcut is not good for the ecosystem's recovery, in general).
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10***** CARBON FOOTPRINTS. ILL EMIT AS MUCH AS I LIKE. BURIED
- suxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm not even going to click a link from a story about the environment to something the the comedy videos section. Egads.
- dualboy24, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2[A Very good quote]
When they say, "There are more trees today, than there were 200 years ago", they're trying to fool people into believing there is no need to protect trees.
The fact is that 200 years ago, most of this country was covered by old growth forests. An area of forest land about the size of a 7-11 parking lot might have only had ten or fifteen trees on it, when the old growth trees grew there. Of course, those trees had 3-4 foot diameter trunks, and they rose 200 feet high.
Cut down those fifteen old growth trees, and several hundred small trees will grow in their place. That's why we probably DO have more trees today, than we did 200 years ago.
I've seen old growth forests, and I've seen the hideous brush covered forests that struggle to recover, after they've been raped by the lumber barons.
I'll take the ten old growth trees anyday.
[/quote] - danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1they should find a better way of growing surgar cane. canopy surgar cane?
- Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Every year, the emissions of various activities are absorbed by plant growth in the warmer seasons. Cutting down a tree prevents that growth.
- jpowell180, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This whole "Carbon Footprint" and "Carbon Credits" deal is a bunch of subjective *****.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe, I do know that there are many studies that conclude biofuels will make little significant impact on carbon emmisions since they are hydrocarbons themselves, although it is an interesting avenue for solving petroleum dependency.
- AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Yes, yes you are.
- danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you can't renew something that lived for 2 thousand years then put a coffee plantation on it.
- danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1eat meat, just eat more vegitables.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2WTF is a carbon footprint? Is that what you get when you walk through charcoal?
Personally, I'm more concerned with carbon dioxide emission, than carbon emission. - AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I do pay for them, and I'll keep paying for them. Talk to Publix if you don't like the price.
- danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not too mention the vast areas that are sweeped of wildlife, the rivers that are polluted, the emmisions burned from the machinery. it's not just about a tree count.
- danarama, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1yeah we'll die after we kill the earth. makes sense, gotta love nature's logic....err, uh, human logic.
- AntBing, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Sorry, I'm a meat eater. You can keep your veggies. I'll keep eating my steaks.
- Bensch, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Making oil into plastic doesn't contribute greenhouse gases in the way you're suggesting - you're not burning it. Granted, processing certainly does, but some wood is a lot more replaceable than other wood.
- ogremidget, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2There was an ice age 40 million years ago. Did all the ice melt away because cavemen learned how to start fires? No. This is inaccurate.
- FreakyD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1http://digg.com/videos/comedy/200_Square_Foot_mura ...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I'd like to leave my carbon footprint on some treehuggers ass!
Trees are a renewable resource, buried as inaccurate. - KevenM, on 10/10/2007, -7/+5Since when is cutting down trees adding to global warming EMISSIONS? I know they both have to do with the environment and all, but I missed this little leap in logic somewhere.
- yoda17, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. Forestation is increasing. This is a very pathetic attempt at information.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is