What is Digg?203 Comments
- vault, on 05/20/2008, -38/+87The green movement is a marketing gimmick.
- yoritomo79, on 05/20/2008, -4/+31The article is a straw man argument. I actually think it was intended that way, and intended to be caught and discussed as a partially tongue-in-cheek deconstruction of current climate change propaganda. It makes the assumption that current environmentalists are using the spreading evangelical zealotry for global warming prevention in order to go about changing the cultural aspects that create human based global warming even at the exclusion of the bigger picture. The article seems to address it with a partially satirical rant of, "Oh so global warming is all important? Well here's how to fix it," while thumbing it's nose at the rest of the environmental movement that truly is counter-productive to reducing greenhouse gases.
Wired has already posted a great counter-point at
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/ ...
Alex Steffen's rebuttal is perfect and frames an environmental discussion in a much more logical manner. A manner that is free from the current religious zealotry of the anti CO2 movement. The argument should not just be about Global Warming hysteria but about achieving the smallest ecological footprint possible for everyone involved. The only other solution is to wipe the planet of humans. - TEHxINTERWEBS, on 05/20/2008, -26/+40I support Global Warming.
- Yarmin3, on 05/20/2008, -6/+20How come no one mentioned reducing world population levels. Just think how much we could reduce greenhouse gases if world population is half of what it is now in 100 years.
- smergs, on 05/20/2008, -1/+15Hmm My wife and I did buy the reusable grocery bags at Publix. That said, I would have anyway. They hold more groceries and don't have the chance of splitting on you causing you to drop groceries everywhere.
- spect3r, on 05/20/2008, -5/+1811. Pour oil on a Duck
- inactive, on 05/20/2008, -1/+12I can think of plenty of reason to go green that have nothing to do with global warming. Our dependence on oil is a problem - as evidenced by soaring oil prices and the fact that there's a limited supply, not to mention the little pickle known as OPEC. Not to mention, we need to do something about air pollution - not simply because of global warming, but because it's a health hazard. We really just need to invest heavily into nuclear/solar/wind power, and work on developing more efficient electric cars. We're not at the point yet that those technologies can eliminate our dependence on coal and oil, but there's no reason to think we can't reach that point with a little hard work.
- ottodog, on 05/20/2008, -16/+26BS story. I'm surprised at Wired!
- TalenGTP, on 05/20/2008, -3/+13I love the pic of the nuclear power plant cooling towers...Ironically, that's probably the best form of energy for the planet, but the tree huggers will have none of it.
- DrCrankenstein, on 05/20/2008, -3/+13I at least think that looking outside the standard "Green" box is good. Yeah, a lot of their points are way oversimplified, but it's beneficial to start thinking that maybe our accepted environmentally-friendly ideas aren't infallible.
- jetblackz4, on 05/20/2008, -3/+12We really need to revisit electricity supplied by nuclear energy it is safe and very efficient.
- jdowland, on 05/20/2008, -32/+39This article is crap and full of bogus, oversimplified information for the purpose of linkbait
I bet half the people who saw page on Digg didn't even read the crap in that article before "digging" it. - dpop416, on 05/20/2008, -3/+10"China Is the Solution"
uh no. last time i checked they were one of the most polluted countries in the world... - lolinyerface, on 05/20/2008, -2/+9Throw away those cans and plastic bottles!
I'm doing my part to fight the bugs, are you? - foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+7Hmmm no mention of REAL local farming? Rooftop or window sill gardens in cities make all the sense in the world. The residents of the building would have access to fresh produce all year round that doesn't have to be trucked miles and miles. And that's not including the health and economic benefits. Also, a green top of the building as opposed to the normal black tar would attract much less heat in the summer.
This is all space that is currently not being used anyway. Might as well put this spaces to use. And for anyone who doesn't think it's possible look up the "Victory Gardens" of WWI and WWII. - inactive, on 05/20/2008, -6/+12Environmentalists need to put and end to the largest atmospheric pollutor out there: volcanoes. I can see them now....diving into the eruption in an effort to snub it out.
THAT would be the ultimate sacrifice. - foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -0/+6Climate change is always happening. You're statement is the equivalent of saying "There's going to be weather outside today."
- StPauliGirlsBoy, on 05/20/2008, -1/+7So that's your solution? Assume some deus ex machina will save us from our environmental woes soon? That's what seems horrendous to me.
- Charlotte_Web, on 05/20/2008, -11/+17"Screw the Spotted Owl."
Best. Wired. Cover. Ever. - StealthPersona, on 05/20/2008, -3/+9NUKES ARE THE ANSWER! No one lives in the desert, put the waste there and tell the protesters to stuff it, this is an issue of national survival. Then start upgrading the power grid along with phasing out gas-powered ground vehicles with exceptions for trucks and farm equipment. Then build a national high-speed electric rail network; if they can have it in Europe we can have it here. Air transit would be for trips > 1500 miles. We can make enough oil here for tractors and airplanes, so we can tell the middle eastern powers to stuff it and stop funding terrorists (Iran) and repressive monarchies (Saudi Arabia). We solve the oil problem and take a big whack at CO2 at the same time, and as a bonus we can pull our troops out of the middle east; if Iran, Iraq, and Saudi want to fight, let them at it. All it takes is belief and the will to do it.
- chinaman1212, on 05/20/2008, -3/+8Al sure is making a lot of money ain't he? you have to give the man credit. a global hoax! How does the saying go: you can hoax some of the people some of the time, but you cant hoax all the people all the time? In one hundred years from now people will actual see the truth, but by then he'll have died a very rich man. I'm jealous.
hold on wait I'm going to start my own. any ideas? anyone? - inactive, on 05/20/2008, -0/+5I was ready to bury it, but saw they supported nuclear, so I didn't.
- PinkFloydFan, on 05/20/2008, -4/+8Kermit said it best: It's not easy being green...
- inactive, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4I think its a knee jerk reaction to the legislative aspect of global warming, not to mention the profiteering of folks like Al Gore who push selling carbon credits when the just happen to be invested in companies that sell carbon credits.
It also doesn't help that people like Gore live have huge footprints, fly to private islands with billionaires (google boys, Branson of Virgin) and then come back and tell us to ride our bikes.
But like you said, I'm all for private companies creating and improving products, just don't make a law forcing me to use it. - NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4No, not really. It's just inconvenient information for the latest fads in green brainwashing.
Go Nuclear! - NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/21/2008, -0/+4I just read it, no it doesn't, it just rationalizes a few of wired's points until they match current fads, then has no comment for, or agrees, with the rest.
Just because hip metropolitian green-bots don't want old cars doesn't make that item any lest true. - dinostabOMG, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4Abortion was around way before the Left.
- HonestAbe, on 05/20/2008, -0/+4I like your "other solution" better.
- foofightrs777, on 05/20/2008, -5/+9Yeah, I'm sure toxic chemicals in the air, ground, and water are great for our health. Welcome to capitalism my friend. You see in this system people try to make money on anything they can, environmental causes included. And if they can do things cleaner and more efficiently than before and turn a buch while doing so then more (err less? gotta conserve) power to them.
And really isn't that the cardinal rule of profitability in capitalism: minimize production costs by eliminating waste and inefficiencies to maximize profit. - inactive, on 05/20/2008, -9/+13actually, not only that but a new religion to help gov'ts convince us (BUT NOT THEM) to give up things "for our own good"
- Jibberish, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3It goes into a very deep hole inside a mountain where it kills the little leprechauns that make those annoyingly cute gold buckled shoes. You probably didn't realize that this waste was actually a very efficient way of killing off those damn leprechauns. it will sit there for millions of years after significantly reducing the leprechaun population while never having harmed a human. Good luck finding another non renewable energy source that can kill leprechauns that effectively.
I would tend to believe that your health has and forever will have been affected by the emissions of coal fired powered plants. Good luck making a case for the adverse health effects on your daily life of nuclear energy seeing as how it's zero emission except for it's transportation and river water heating. - axiomflash, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3I call *****. These people don't know what the ***** they're talking about. Like always, Wired is talking out of their asses so they can seem hip.
Most of these ideas are throwing the baby out with the bath-water. We should farm old-growth forest (undisturbed wildlife sanctuaries) to reduce CO2? This is retarded. How is trading all ecological values to reduce CO2 going green? These kind of mistakes are how we got in this position in the first place. It's about moderation and mediation.
And then, who the hell ever said that living in cities was "Green Heresy"?
Additionally, many of the people who are experts in this field say that a carbon based economy is the best political solution. Wired decides to just ignore facts and talk TOTAL ***** in order to prove how smart they are. It is like this every friggin month - they have some new topic they are experts in where they are smarter than everyone. - ouzome, on 05/20/2008, -2/+5That would involve being like China and allowing only one child per family - a socialist dictatorship at it's finest.
- ouzome, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Word to you
- greenfyre, on 05/20/2008, -26/+29EcoGeek sets Wired straight on environmentalism http://digg.com/environment/EcoGeek_sets_Wired_str ...
- inactive, on 05/20/2008, -14/+17now these are the most satisfactory suggestions I ever heard out of the hippies... I'm actually digging this.
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 05/21/2008, -0/+3Then when it doesn't cool down just say "Oh ***** that was expensive, well we had good intentions"
- Beanbones, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5You know, I have a problem with the whole "consume less" thing. Maybe it's just me, but if I consume less, isn't someone else going to make less money? And if that person makes less money, won't he consume less, in turn causing someone else to make less money, and so forth, until I end up making less money... and in turn, consume less?
In other words, and please don't take this as an insult or anything, but by ordering people to consume less, aren't you telling them to in fact live less, since you can't really DO anything without consuming SOMETHING? Like the electricity we're both consuming on Digg, for example? - stubear, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3*****. Ales Steffen gave us the intellectual equivalent of "Uh uh...*sticks tongue out*". His argument against removing old forest growth required far too many "perfect storm" scenarios to play out meaning his argument is largely *****. As for nuclear power, I'm sick and tired of hearing this one too. There is NO evidence or guarantee that in 10 years we will have the prefect green equivalent nuclear power, PERIOD, FUL STOP. Nuclear Power is working NOW and will improve in 10 years time as well so any comparisons will have to take that in to account. You can't argue that one form of energy production will not be standing still while the other will so mine's better since it's the one progressing forward. Green energy 10 years from now, like wind or solar, will need to compete with nuclear energy 10 years from now. Who's to say that advancements in nuclear energy won't outpace green energy development such as wind or solar in that 10 years? You actually proved the Wired article's point; green's will fight tooth and nail to ensure only their policies are implemented, the rest be damned.
- peestandingup, on 05/20/2008, -3/+6So, when did Wired jump the shark??
- sarixe, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3But we don't have any Publices in New Jersey, do we?
- inactive, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3Parties respond to incentives. http://is.gd/8WH
People should put their money where their mouth is. Not enlist gov't to force everyone else to do things their way. - salinemist, on 05/21/2008, -2/+5Yes, my buying a cloth shopping bag makes a big difference while Romanian Gold Mines spew cyanide into rivers and China opens a new coal power plant every week.
Environmentalism is just feel good pablum. - djdementia, on 05/20/2008, -1/+4So true. It's never mentioned because that can't be mentioned. It's just not politically feasible, especially with some religion's dogma against contraception. The smartest people in society tend to have less children, while lesser breed like crazy.
Idiocracy here we come!
No worries though Mother Nature always fights back against overpopulation (see Bubonic Plague). Honestly I think AIDS & Cancer were Mother Nature's latest attempts at controlling human population - but they were too slow. Don't worry I'm sure she'll get it right soon. - ouzome, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2icepick you couldn't be more wrong. Now these same "experts" are now saying there is a 10 year hold on global warming, even though they said 10 years ago we would be in trouble around 2008. Wait, it's not warming up, ***** it's cooling down? Tell them it's on hold for a while, ha. Look it up - Nature Magazine. This really has turned into a religion that supporters feel the argument is over, and will not logically debate.
- Tinkered, on 05/21/2008, -1/+3The green movement can be a marketing gimmick, but that is not all it is. Yes, products that are "eco-friendly" are sold for profit. Still, many aspects of the green movement are not economically driven, and people are participating in the green movement because of genuine concern for the environment.
- ouzome, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2I agree with everything you said, but you forgot to mention we need to DIG OUR OWN OIL!!! we have billions and billions of gallons of it, and no other technology (besides nuclear) will be ready anytime soon to replace oil.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 206 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is