Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Google to Outspend US Government on Environment
planetsave.com — A report is circulating regarding Google, that they are pledging themselves to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into big Alternative-Energy projects. They plan to focus on projects that have traditionally had a hard time getting financing. Thus, I would imagine the majority of such projects will get financing, considering Bush’s position.
Bukowsky- 2313 diggs
- digg it
- SVOboy, on 02/09/2008, -15/+102Well, I guess we're at a point where we're leaving our future in the hands of private industry. *sigh* Good for google though, :p
- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -2/+28You do realize that government budget is $3 Trillion right? $3 Trillion an nothing noticeable for the environment. Why on earth would you think the government would be better at something when private industry wipes the floor with it on a daily basis?
- l00s3r, on 02/09/2008, -2/+32The government hasn't done *****. The Enviromental Protection Agency doesn't protect the enviroment, they tell corporations how much they can destroy it without getting sued.
And you think we need more money for the government to spend on what exactly?- drouk1556, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4Oh, I know this one!
The war?
- drouk1556, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4Oh, I know this one!
- smurfsahoy, on 02/09/2008, -8/+3Look up the term "externalities." Google is only doing this so long as it is a profitable/popular fad. Software companies also don't have big sulfur emitting smokestacks to worry about.
- Dalrek, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6The two things that were mentioned that they're currently investing in are just other forms of clean energy, which would be an amazing resource for Google considering how much power its data centers have to draw on even an hourly basis.
- smurfsahoy, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1It is exceedingly unlikely that Google's investments into energy come anywhere close to equaling the savings they would get on their electric bill... That's ridiculous. If one company could fun research to replace the whole nation's power infrastructure, then it would have happened already, with the help of other companies that actually use up real amounts of power.
If all companies were giving a higher percentage than the government, then you might have a point. But not when Google is shouldering a huge amount of the load itself.
- smurfsahoy, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1It is exceedingly unlikely that Google's investments into energy come anywhere close to equaling the savings they would get on their electric bill... That's ridiculous. If one company could fun research to replace the whole nation's power infrastructure, then it would have happened already, with the help of other companies that actually use up real amounts of power.
- Dalrek, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6The two things that were mentioned that they're currently investing in are just other forms of clean energy, which would be an amazing resource for Google considering how much power its data centers have to draw on even an hourly basis.
- mbradbury, on 02/09/2008, -3/+16It seems to be a problem with the US government. Other countries seem to be able to do this stuff. Because the government works for the people and is the people.
Seems to me, as a foreigner, that all this discontent towards the government is because you can't seem to elect one that actually works for the people.
- theblooms, on 02/09/2008, -5/+4The government that governs least governs best.
Sadly, Socialists will never understand that. - Tebixan, on 02/09/2008, -3/+3@theblooms
So move to the Congo or some other nation with no government and near anarchy. Here in America we're going to try and use our collective strength to better the world, you can go be selfish someplace else.- 3tcp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1"Here in America we're going to try and use our collective strength to better the world,"
So you're one of those people who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years, eh?
"you can go be selfish someplace else"
Right, because everyone being free = I want everything for myself.
- 3tcp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1"Here in America we're going to try and use our collective strength to better the world,"
- 3tcp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Seems to me, as an American, that you don't understand what it is that makes so successful.
Besides, why the ***** would we want the government to run everything when we spend so much time criticizing it?
- theblooms, on 02/09/2008, -5/+4The government that governs least governs best.
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/09/2008, -6/+10I think this proves the Ron Paul's libertarian theory pretty well. If the government stays out of it long enough the private industries and individuals take responsibility into their own hands.
- njcarlos, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Not possible! Government is the #1 authority on morality. Well, Democratically run government. Those RePUBE-LIKINS are definitely more corrupt than my party! I will continue to forcefully donate my income to their righteous quests!
- Tebixan, on 02/09/2008, -5/+2Google isn't doing this to be responsible, they are doing it for PR
Leaving the fate of our world in the hands of corporations only interested in turning the biggest profit is suicide for our entire civilization- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Who cares why they are doing it? The point is they are doing it.
- 3tcp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Yeah, just like it's despicable just like the people investing in renewable energies because they think they can turn a profit off of it. Really, where do we get off setting up our economy and society so that everyone acting in their own self-interest ends up making the entire society better off?
- LeeSoong, on 02/12/2008, -0/+13. profit !!!
- njcarlos, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3SVOboy, don't waste your time on these people. Yeah, they're for Obama or Hillary, may be anti-war, but they are most certainly pro-big government. They are also the first to say "WOOHOO! TIME FOR THE DMV!" Err, wait, or do they bitch? No that can't be, government is the most efficient entity on Earth!
- l00s3r, on 02/09/2008, -2/+32The government hasn't done *****. The Enviromental Protection Agency doesn't protect the enviroment, they tell corporations how much they can destroy it without getting sued.
- Sarevok9, on 02/09/2008, -1/+24Amazingly enough I'm not surprised. Google (although giant), seems to be a 'friendly' giant. I've never had to pay for anything from google, I've used most of their apps, and as far as email goes, their second to none...Now their pumping money where the U.S. Govt is failing, overall, it seems more than just a little. noble.
- thermus, on 02/09/2008, -3/+4You haven't paid MONEY to them, but you've given away your information in return for their services. Maybe you don't care, but this is very valuable to Google and their advertisers.
- Vorin, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3just what information do they know that their competitors don't?
since they are my favorite search engine, don't they deserve to see what I am searching for?
the funny thing about that is, we are allowed similar information via Google Trends. If you're making a search online, does it need to be kept a secret from everyone?- thermus, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Use Google? They know what you're searching for.
Use G-mail or Google chat? They know who you talk to and what you talk about.
Use Google Groups? They know what topics interest you and your opinions.
Use Froogle? They know what you want to buy.
Use Google Checkout? They know what you bought, where you shop, how much you paid, and who you bank with.
Use Google Maps? They know where you go.
Use Google News? They know what news sources are relevant to you.
Use Google Blogs? They know what you think.
Would you be so cavalier with your privacy if Google was government-run service? - Deathrideshorse, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0IF YOU BANK AND SHOP ONLINE YOU ARE ASKING FOR IT, SO STOP WHINGEING!
- thermus, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Use Google? They know what you're searching for.
- Vorin, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3just what information do they know that their competitors don't?
- thermus, on 02/09/2008, -3/+4You haven't paid MONEY to them, but you've given away your information in return for their services. Maybe you don't care, but this is very valuable to Google and their advertisers.
- Majhem, on 02/09/2008, -2/+7Yah, but some seem to be doing a better job than those who 'represent' the people... =/
- arjung, on 02/09/2008, -1/+9comment abuse... site is getting slow
-----------------------------------
It is always a good day for me when I get to write about Google. But the day gets even better when I get to combine Google with the environment; something that happens more often than you would imagine. With my ongoing report on the US 09 Budget, I’m well aware of just how little the US Government is going to be putting in to the environment.
Let’s just make a note here – Green Options could invest more in the environment than the US Federal Government is planning.
A report is circulating regarding my favorite tech company, that they are pledging themselves to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in to big alternative-energy projects started by commercial businesses. They plan to focus on projects that have traditionally had a hard time getting financing. Thus, I would imagine the majority of such projects will get financing, considering Bush’s position on such things.
The executive in charge of their environmental push, Dan Reicher, said Wednesday that “There are a lot of technologies that get to the pilot scale and look promising, but the first few large commercial projects deploying those technologies, financing those can be extremely difficult.”
“Often the usual equity and debt players will say come back to us when you’ve demonstrated this at scale,” said Reicher, director of climate and energy initiatives for Google’s philanthropic arm, Google.org.
Reicher referred to the “Valley of Death,” a term used in the technology industry to describe the difference between successfully developing a new technology and amassing scale. This is something that Google is aware of, and their pledge to invest such moneys as they can in to projects is hoped to alleviate this problem.
“When you get to building a commercial-scale project in the energy world, you can be looking easily at hundreds of millions or even across the billion dollar threshold,” Reicher said. “Over years we’ll be looking at hundreds of millions of dollars. So we’re very mindful of the Valley of Death.”
Google has already committed large amounts of finances to various green projects, both within their own company and without. They’ve committed $20 million to funding start-up firms researching solar-thermal and high-altitude wind power, and another $10 million to Pasadena, California-based eSolar Inc to support research and development on solar thermal power. - tehxen3, on 02/09/2008, -4/+5Are you suggesting we should leave our future in the hands of government bureaucrats instead of competitive enterprise?
- smackhero, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6we live in a democracy. the government is there to carry out the will of the people. as an individual, i can't make powerful corporations be environmentally responsible or protect the environment from corporation exploitation. but as a member of a democratic society, i can organize with others and effect positive changes in public policy/legislation to protect the environment. that is the whole purpose of a democratic government.
and the problems of bureaucracy are irrelevant, and a completely separate matter. a bureaucracy in a large private enterprise will experience the same problems as a similar sized bureaucracy in government. and any large organization is a bureaucracy, whether it's a public organization or private. the difference is, the public has control over government, whereas we cannot control corporate america, and we certainly can't rely on them to protect the environment. if we could, then we wouldn't be facing the environmental issues we're facing today.- Uggamugg, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Since when can you not force corporations to be responsible for the environment we share and own? If a factory pollutes my air, my ground or my water, I would sue them and force them to have higher standards of protection...
At least this would be true if property and individual rights were enacted. Sadly, many believe these rights don't exist and look around for a bigger entity to take charge. Big gov't anyone?
- Uggamugg, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Since when can you not force corporations to be responsible for the environment we share and own? If a factory pollutes my air, my ground or my water, I would sue them and force them to have higher standards of protection...
- XZanatos, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1We are suggesting that the government should point out the direction that competitive enterprise should go THEN let them go that way on their own.
- smackhero, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6we live in a democracy. the government is there to carry out the will of the people. as an individual, i can't make powerful corporations be environmentally responsible or protect the environment from corporation exploitation. but as a member of a democratic society, i can organize with others and effect positive changes in public policy/legislation to protect the environment. that is the whole purpose of a democratic government.
- Vigilo, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1What is it now? It was Global warming but its colder everywhere so that isn't working is it Climate change now? I thought climates always changed. I don't know i just want to know if me changing my lightbulbs is helping and has the military stopped using depleted uranium? oh sorry i brought up stuff that shouldn't be talked about with global warming/'change/adjustment/crisis.
- jdepp, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Bill Gates trust spends more researching AIDS than Canada...!
- NanoStuff, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Tragedy. Private industry will never love you as much as the government does.
- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -2/+28You do realize that government budget is $3 Trillion right? $3 Trillion an nothing noticeable for the environment. Why on earth would you think the government would be better at something when private industry wipes the floor with it on a daily basis?
- medalian1, on 02/09/2008, -17/+40We should embrace oil! It's good for Amerika! Here, we will send you $600 USD in a few months. Use it toward the purchase of a new GM or FORD super gas guzzler. It'll help the economy. lol
- Ajajadude, on 02/09/2008, -1/+18$600 won't get you very far in the purchase of a new car.
- bphicke, on 02/09/2008, -1/+24I am going to spend my $600 on booze and hookers.
- YoctoYotta, on 02/09/2008, -0/+13***** booze, that's taxed. Buy illegal drugs.
- mateo60, on 02/09/2008, -5/+3actually i believe that $600 can get you a car that guzzles lots and lots of gas. ;)
- bphicke, on 02/09/2008, -1/+24I am going to spend my $600 on booze and hookers.
- Ajajadude, on 02/09/2008, -1/+18$600 won't get you very far in the purchase of a new car.
- davidryal, on 02/09/2008, -3/+74I'd rather have google running things than other ginormous corporations that average people know nothing about, like ADM and AEP.
- theysayjump, on 02/09/2008, -2/+18Who? ;)
- mpineiro, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Heh i'm doing my Senior research project on ADM's ownership of the government. It's scary :(
- garfonzo, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Google IS a ginormous corporation
- Timbertron3000, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1...that the average person knows something about. Thoughts are completed by a period.
- Grohl, on 02/09/2008, -4/+21why does this not surprise me?!?
- prashantpawar, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Because Google's money is their OWN MONEY.
American Govt's money is OUR MONEY.
- prashantpawar, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Because Google's money is their OWN MONEY.
- Groovemaster, on 02/09/2008, -5/+201In other, related news: US government to outspend everyone, ever, on war.
- rikwakefield, on 02/09/2008, -1/+16Funny because it's true
- xlneoMAXlx, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3Fake war
- dacjames, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0We outspend... All of Europe combined. Take that terror!
- Akronos, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2We actually outspend the entire world on "defense".
- FearLess77, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Its not a war, its a "police action"!
Else, god forbid, he(bush) would have to get congressional consent.
- julianwan, on 02/09/2008, -4/+56I wish they would fund Los Angeles' subway construction. You want to help the environment? Finish the damn LA subway system for WestLA then you'll take (theoretically) a million cars off the streets. Lower traffic and commute times which would help economic growth. Clean the smog, and lower CO2.
It's ONLY 6Billion dollars.- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -11/+4State Project, it has nothing to do with the feds. I bet if the government let a private company do it it would have been built years ago.
- julianwan, on 02/09/2008, -1/+10it's actually not even state, only los angeles county, and mayor villaraigosa (never knew how to spell his name) has been hoping for a private company to do it. unfortunately, a private company would charge a lot, and funding is the only problem right now.
- igeoffi, on 02/09/2008, -2/+6It's a great idea but one thing I can't figure out is how the designers plan to deal with the earthquakes in the area? Could someone more knowledgeable then me explain that to me?
- fkr3, on 02/09/2008, -0/+13They're going to make the inside one big giant jumping-castle so if there is an earthquake it'll be fun.
/sarcasm
Factoring in natural disasters is part of what they spend 4+ years at university studying. - julianwan, on 02/09/2008, -0/+11it's a big set back, but a lot of technologies (which i cannot name but know exist) are used right now.
there already IS a subway in LA, it's just completely unfinished, for example, look at this pathetic map (which looks small, but covers a large large area)
http://www.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/rail_map.pd ... - BayonetStrumpet, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Well, the designers could probably learn a thing or two if they checked out how Japan has put together their subway systems. I hear they get quakes every now and again there.
- fkr3, on 02/09/2008, -0/+13They're going to make the inside one big giant jumping-castle so if there is an earthquake it'll be fun.
- legoalert33, on 02/09/2008, -12/+5To bad 95% of the country doesn't care about the LA subway.
- julianwan, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1395% of the country doesn't care about a lot of important things.
- UNL1M1T3D, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Well said.
- julianwan, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1395% of the country doesn't care about a lot of important things.
- Richandler, on 02/09/2008, -11/+4State Project, it has nothing to do with the feds. I bet if the government let a private company do it it would have been built years ago.
- natsmythe, on 02/09/2008, -2/+15This is a good thing. The bureaucracy has gotten so complex and so political that very little government money is spent on anything effective. . The Denver Airport and the Big Digg (joke) came in WAY over budget. http://www.scragged.com/articles/government-dont-k ... wonders if we will ever be able to build anything of significance in America, ever again.
- limitGov, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Agreed.
- pw378, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2and then people complain when the Government tries to hire non-union workers for a project to keep costs under control...
- redrock34, on 02/09/2008, -11/+50This may be a surprise to some but there was a day when the people weren't so dependent on government. Once upon a time there was this thing called free market.
- kenplaysviola, on 02/09/2008, -4/+16I remember watching a Ron Paul video recently where he was doing debates on CNN. He emphasized the whole idea of free market and how people need to take control and responsibility for themselves and not rely so much on the government. All the audience members cringed and looked disgusted that Ron Paul could suggest something like that. I'm not saying Ron Paul is right or wrong, but ultimately it comes down to the individual to really take care of themselves. The government isn't going to really help as we have seen with hurricane Katrina and Louisiana.
- smackhero, on 02/09/2008, -3/+7and that's going to stop multi-million-dollar corporations from exploiting the environment how?
thinking the "invisible hand" will make everything alright is as delusional as thinking that everything will be fine in the end because god has a plan for us all.
environmental activism, and participating in the democratic process to pass environmental legislation is more pro-active than sitting back and hoping that the market will sort everything out.- jlharrity, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Agreed.
The problem with the wholly free market is that it is not bound to act on foresight. Those looking to make a quick buck for themselves in an environmentally unsound way and then pull out with massive profits have no incentive to be sure that their practices are sustainable. The invisible hand is guided by egotism, not by concern for the well-being of others down the road. If, however, players in the market consider (or are forced to consider = government) how their actions will affect the future well-being of others, then it can be successful.
The market must be regulated to some extent.
"In every deliberation we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
- Gayanashagowa, or the Great Law of Peace, established to govern the 6 nations of the Iroquois Confederacy (pre-Columbian).
- jlharrity, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Agreed.
- theysayjump, on 02/09/2008, -7/+16I'm not seeing anything showing that Google are out-spending the Government, other than the title.
Is there a source for this?- boxybrzown, on 02/09/2008, -6/+6Not sure why people are burying you. It's complete speculation by some guy's blog. There are no numbers given or citations, it's just a rip-off of a Reuters article with the "may outspend the govt." line tacked onto the front of it.
- MajorJJH, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6Actually, this site is not "some guys blog" so you know, do your research. And secondly, stop making me do all the work for you, but, since you are lazy, go check out the authors note at the bottom referring to the budget articles from the SAME SITE! Ack!
- boxybrzown, on 02/09/2008, -6/+6Not sure why people are burying you. It's complete speculation by some guy's blog. There are no numbers given or citations, it's just a rip-off of a Reuters article with the "may outspend the govt." line tacked onto the front of it.
- mooseontheloose, on 02/09/2008, -18/+12Buried as inaccurate. Everyone knows private companies never do stuff like this, guys like Ron Paul are crazy to even suggest that a non-government entity would fund any kind of research. The Google X-Prize and Virgin Galactic are also elaborate shenanigans.
- BigBallistix, on 02/09/2008, -2/+4Can't...type...air thick with...sarcas- *death by having brain strangled by own lower intestine*.
- GoneGreen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0You might need a plexi-glass navel with that comment there moose...
- RaysinX, on 02/09/2008, -14/+3i for one embrace our google overlords
i soviet russia google spends you
... etc- phenry50BMG, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5That overlords thing has gotten so old....or is it just me that's sick of seeing it?
- Asidic, on 02/09/2008, -3/+1Definitely just you.
- MajorJJH, on 02/09/2008, -2/+2without a doubt, just you... see, we have to hedge our bets, we don't know who our overlords will be?
- phenry50BMG, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5That overlords thing has gotten so old....or is it just me that's sick of seeing it?
- schneid4323, on 02/09/2008, -2/+61"How Google took control of earth"
1. Internet
2. Maps
3. Environment
4. World Hunger?- canyoodiggit, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8I read this article and the first thing that came to mind was google will eventually control the earth. And I thought about it and started to wonder would it be that bad? I'm no expert on googs but if they don't have a hidden agenda wouldn't the world be lovely. Gourmet cooking for everyone, work when you want as long as you get your work done, the environment will be better and cleaner. Things would always be improving. Just a thought but it'd be nice. No more of the nonsensical ***** that's going on today. I for one am tired of all the stupid ***** people do to the environment, themselves and ***** that affects others so negatively. Vague, but take a second to think how unknowingly destructive people are in a general sense.
- UNL1M1T3D, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2I would have no problem having Google as my government.
- mateo60, on 02/09/2008, -0/+14Google Hunger
(beta)- Timbertron3000, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Sadly, by invite only at this point.
- fluffythekitten, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6hmmm...google feeds already.
- jondo85, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2I read an interview a few years ago with someone high up in Google (can't remember who), they were talking about how instead of using supercomputers, they were using huge numbers of desktop computers networked together, the person said they had more power than they needed and it was interesting to see what they could do with that extra power... that was the point i knew google was planning on taking over the world
- jlharrity, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1www.earthle.com
- canyoodiggit, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8I read this article and the first thing that came to mind was google will eventually control the earth. And I thought about it and started to wonder would it be that bad? I'm no expert on googs but if they don't have a hidden agenda wouldn't the world be lovely. Gourmet cooking for everyone, work when you want as long as you get your work done, the environment will be better and cleaner. Things would always be improving. Just a thought but it'd be nice. No more of the nonsensical ***** that's going on today. I for one am tired of all the stupid ***** people do to the environment, themselves and ***** that affects others so negatively. Vague, but take a second to think how unknowingly destructive people are in a general sense.
- phenry50BMG, on 02/09/2008, -8/+9super for google. The federal government has no Constitutional authority to spend a dime on the environment. Any dime it spends is unConstitutional and therefore illegal. You may not like it but that's the way it is. There is an amendment process if you'd like to amend the Constitution to allow for this sort of thing.
- LightSpeed4, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0agreed, the government doesnt have much budget towards environmental practices since this isn't the constitutional obligation. next, the government does have efforts such as the energy act of 2007. Google.org is a pos organization designed to be a tax break
- omnibahumut, on 02/09/2008, -0/+9I don't think thats correct. The United States Government has no legal /obligation/ to the environment. That doesn't mean they can't help it at all. The constitution would have to specifically outlaw spending money on the environment for it to be unconstitutional, and that'll never happen.
- thompa1717, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0yea making things better for people to live in sounds completely irrational and unconstitutional...
- wojtyk, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1>> I don't think thats correct. The United States Government has no legal /obligation/ to the environment. That doesn't mean they can't help it at all. The constitution would have to specifically outlaw spending money on the environment for it to be unconstitutional, and that'll never happen.
*sigh* I'm saddened, genuinely saddened when I hear uninformed comments like those.
American people have either grown accustomed or been brainwashed into having the 10th Amendment blissfully ignored (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_th ...
If the power is not _explicitly_ granted in the Constitution, it is ILLEGAL for the federal government to do something. "Unmentioned topics" are rightfully reserved to the States and the people they represent.
There's a process by which the people give their federal government more legal powers, and that's called constitutional amendments.
- apb1991, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Why do you care if they get a tax break its their money
- njcarlos, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Broke people are often very jealous. Jealousy manifests itself as hatred.
- smashingmonkey, on 02/09/2008, -7/+8The environment is fine. The people are *****.
- canyoodiggit, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10 50% of your statement is fine.
- boxybrzown, on 02/09/2008, -4/+4No, it's all correct. You can't, by definition, harm the environment. You can harm your chances for being able to survive within it.
- carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2no, the environment is composed of everything out there, people, plants, animals, geological systems, etc... It wouldn't cause such a big problem for the rest of the environment if humanity poofed away, but with the way we're taking out a lot of things like the rain forests, offbalancing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and all the other changes to the environment we've made in the last 200 years, the environment will take a long time to recover. Life may continue, but we're impacting the environment in ways that affect more than just us.
If you wanna say the planet will be fine, that's different.
- carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2no, the environment is composed of everything out there, people, plants, animals, geological systems, etc... It wouldn't cause such a big problem for the rest of the environment if humanity poofed away, but with the way we're taking out a lot of things like the rain forests, offbalancing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and all the other changes to the environment we've made in the last 200 years, the environment will take a long time to recover. Life may continue, but we're impacting the environment in ways that affect more than just us.
- boxybrzown, on 02/09/2008, -4/+4No, it's all correct. You can't, by definition, harm the environment. You can harm your chances for being able to survive within it.
- Azerael, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3The people ***** the environment.
- ICSU, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3"The planet is fine" is the original citation from Carlin.
- canyoodiggit, on 02/09/2008, -0/+10 50% of your statement is fine.
- bgolds99, on 02/09/2008, -12/+4In all due respect, I think we spend enough on the environment. That's great Google spends more. It proves corporations are interested in the environment and want to help. They can do whatever they want with the money they earn for the environment. I just don't want my tax dollars being spent any more on it...
- sdellboy, on 02/09/2008, -3/+5Yes...god forbid your tax dollars be spent on protecting the environment for future generations. Much better that it's spent on war....
- GoneGreen, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Where the hell do people like bgolds99 come from? completely clueless... amazing
- rhodydog, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Sure, and I don't want my tax money spent on the military, now almost 700 billion a year. And if the constitution says we should spend so much money on the military then I suggest we change the constitution.
- Gndoab, on 02/09/2008, -2/+18Why would the federal government spend money on alternative-energy? that is the sort of thing private individuals do, looking to have a chance to exploit a soon to be lucrative industry.
- carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -4/+1exactly the point. Why would a for-profit company spend large amounts of money on something that's untested and may wind up being a technological dead end? It's not lucrative now, and often times, the way a scientific breakthrough gets turned into something you can sell people is through government funded university studies and government run research labs like NASA and the CDC.
- Gndoab, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2really? Why would someone buy stock in a company that is untested and may end up failing? For the chance to make money if they do succeed.
- rhodydog, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1You're right, why should our tax money be spent to support the oil industry and the nuclear industry? If you're going to support one then you should support all, otherwise support none of them.
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Exactly. I feel the same way about our auto industry, the dumbasses just keep building gas guzzlers waiting for the federal government to give them incentives to produce hybrid and other types of vehicles powered by alternative fuels. Thats why American automotive companies are getting their ass handed to them by foreign companies.
- carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -4/+1exactly the point. Why would a for-profit company spend large amounts of money on something that's untested and may wind up being a technological dead end? It's not lucrative now, and often times, the way a scientific breakthrough gets turned into something you can sell people is through government funded university studies and government run research labs like NASA and the CDC.
- wolferz, on 02/09/2008, -5/+13Sometimes it seems like people think government money appears out of thin air... it doesnt.
How much money have YOU spent on the environment? If you are like most people who go on and on and on about the environment it accounts for 0% of your budget. How about this. How many of you would hand over extra money to uncle sam when filing your taxes this year? What's the problem? Suddenly you want to give the government less money but you want them to spend more?- mateo60, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6I'd rather them spend the money that I give them on the environment than a "bridge to nowhere" or a "national doll museum". Spend less on pork and more on the environment.
I know, that's a pipe dream and a bit of an oversimplification, but there's truth to it. - thompa1717, on 02/09/2008, -2/+3how about not destroying the iraq environment (they can do that on their own) and improve ours... would actually save us money in the long run to take care of the environment now and not later... but everyone is too corrupt to pass up some dollars.
- thescimitar, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2I donate money to responsible environmental organizations and volunteer in green efforts, like tree planting, etc. AND I believe in the effectiveness of the free market. I wish more people would take your comment to heart, wolferz, you can't have it both ways (less taxes, more programs). That is, unless you want to operate your federal budget in a massive debtoooooooohhhh I see the problem now.
- rhodydog, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Well actually they do create some of the money out of thin air, it is called printing. The reason why I don't give extra money at IRS time is because I know it will just go to the military and Iraq.
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1It seems like it to people who dont work and pay taxes. .
- mateo60, on 02/09/2008, -1/+6I'd rather them spend the money that I give them on the environment than a "bridge to nowhere" or a "national doll museum". Spend less on pork and more on the environment.
- forgiste, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4Yay google! Now set up your new internet alternative and free us all from money and slavery with intelligent robots! Then let us all have equal power in government with a digg-style site! I said it a million times already. I guess if I just keep it up someone at Google will pick up the idea and figure out how to make it work. Wouldn't that rule?
- carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2nah, a digg style democracy for government would suck. Once you get democracy going out from the masses then you get people gaming the system.
- forgiste, on 02/29/2008, -0/+1But maybe google is smart enough, combined with MIT, to make it work anyway.
- carpespasm, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2nah, a digg style democracy for government would suck. Once you get democracy going out from the masses then you get people gaming the system.
- Hypernation, on 02/09/2008, -6/+1Wow, this is very old news. Well, more exposure is good.
- UNL1M1T3D, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Your comment is old. I saw it back in 97'.
- Papajohn56, on 02/09/2008, -2/+14Good. This is how the free market should work
- jlharrity, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Should.
- doyoulikeworms, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Where is your bureaucratic god now?
- LightSpeed4, on 02/09/2008, -4/+3seriously doubt this, first off the government doesnt have much budget towards environmental practices since this isn't the constitutional obligation of the government. next, the government does have efforts such as the energy act of 2007. Google.org is a pos organization designed to be a tax break
- GoneGreen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0Another genius speaks here on digg... lol
- superfirex80, on 02/09/2008, -0/+8Google for president!
- duality, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2I'll join this small group and express my thumbs-up for Google at this point. In fact, I think that Google definitely has a clever idea working for them.
In any technologically advanced society, the first problem that should be solved is one of reliable energy production, because solutions to all other problems are on unstable ground without this. Google is obviously planning to spend its big bucks to find some fresh genie bottles and then uncork them in front of the world, much to the horror of OPEC and other such organizations.
The current energy industry could use some major disruption, and it helps that it will be good for the environment too. - edebolt, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4The U.S. budget for Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is 7 billion for 2009. There are many other parts of government such as NASA, NOAA etc that research and protect the environment. So on the face of it the article is BS.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/6427a6b75 ...- mos6507, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3The EPA spends most of its effort trying to avoid regulation these days. (see CA lawsuit)
- edebolt, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3no source and so what? a lawsuit? Do you think all of Googles money will be used to protect the environment? lots will get soaked up into administration and waste also. The EPA funds dwarf the Google funds...
- Cyberen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2EPA! EPA! EEEEEEEEPAAAAAAAAA!
- mos6507, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3The EPA spends most of its effort trying to avoid regulation these days. (see CA lawsuit)
- Fartag, on 02/09/2008, -6/+1For every good force like Google (for the most part), an unspeakably evil force can be found... Microsoft would just spend this money on atmospheric destruction to push MS-compatible biohazard suits and housing, for example, and force upgrades through atmospheric change. Fortunately, OSS (open source suits?) would eventually make going outside fun again. Years would be lost repairing the atmosphere back to a blue color though.
- cristianl, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Error ocurred: too much sci-fi. Retry? Y/N
- mal1964, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3Is it that Advertisers are getting their message across to Google, and American taxpayers are not getting their message across to the Government?
- nobody7, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4Well they're spending it on corn ethanol http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2007/04/04/l ...
Something horrible for the environment.
http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=121614 ... - widgetmaker, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1http://www.reuters.com/article/ousivMolt/idUSN0630 ... the original article this one is referring to. Why can't people link to the proper sources not just regurgitated blog spam.
- Winoria, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1if you search for it, I did submit the original reuters article. Just didn't become popular I guess. *shrug*
- hammerattack, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4A - It's natural that the private sector outspend the government. An right.
B - There's a certain retardation that exists in people that have to tie everything to a Bush Bashing comment. Get a life people. - redneo, on 02/09/2008, -0/+5Google bank account- billions and billions and billions of dollars
U.S. Government bank account- billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of IOU's - necrocannibal, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2http://www.news.com/Google,-Intel-target-efficient ...
Still waiting on a 12volt server room so I don't have to have a lossy power converter perr every motherboard.- HonestAbe, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1They don't have those?? Can't you make your own?
- cristianl, on 02/09/2008, -1/+1Google motto for Dummies: Don't be like the government.
- ShootTheCore, on 02/09/2008, -1/+41. Invest in the environment
2. ????
3. PROFIT!!- thompa1717, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0or have some investors buy into one of these ideas and then profit... not that hard. People are crying out for alternative energy sources. I would spend my money on any U.S. energy source rather than buying overseas oil. As for your post... good get high and watch south park a lil more
- GoneGreen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+0If you want to do something helpful and productive... and you happen to make a profit at it all the better for everyone involved. If they were paying 100 bucks an hour for people to clean up roadside garbage guess what, everyone would be making lots of money and the roadsides would be clean.
- FAT_PIGGY, on 02/09/2008, -7/+2Damn liberals want everything from the government.
- GoneGreen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Liberals want the government (who works for us) to give a ***** about what we give a ***** about.
- Akronos, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Government works for us? Really? That's why we give the fruits of our labor to them? That's why we pay nearly half our income to them and if we don't we get punished?
- GoneGreen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Liberals want the government (who works for us) to give a ***** about what we give a ***** about.
- SQLserver, on 02/09/2008, -0/+6I love you google. :)
It's annoying how everyone thinks Democrats are big spenders. Well, when we do spend money, at least it goes somewhere besides War.- DefWorker, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0The Democrats control the Legislative Branch of goverment. They control the federal purse strings.
- AnimZero, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Not like it's hard to do that.
- dylangaine, on 02/09/2008, -0/+3yay Google!
- Sgurdcrimp, on 02/09/2008, -1/+4it's about time.... it seems like google must save us from all the corruption in the world...
Google for president!!!!!!!!!!!!! - HonestAbe, on 02/09/2008, -1/+3Yay Google, but please spend your money wisely. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the "environmental" solution may not be the cliche solution. Wind and solar power produce very small amounts of electricity, and do a relatively great amount of environmental and human harm in the process, nuclear is safer than ever and produces no greenhouse gases, etc. Just investigate all the options.
- Cyberen, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1I'm assuming "etc" doesn't include toxic waste?
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1What about the waste left over? What the hell do we do with that? Bury it? Also what do we do when a nuclear power plant is threatened by a natural disaster like an earthquake?
- thejokker, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1this is the way it should happen. People and private companies should be allowed to spend on things they feel strongly about and not have their income taxed for the government to spend. Government should collect only enough money to provide the stability to allow individuals to prosper. Our elected officials should not be in the business of deciding what causes our money should be spent on.
- rhodydog, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0I'm with you if it also means cutting the 700,000,000,000 bill for the military to say 20 billion, that would give back to every person over 3500 dollars per year.
- thejokker, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Sure, as long as we can defend ourself. What that dollar amount actually is i dont know. I think it depends on whether we believe that having a strong military presence around the world helps or hurts us. Did having the great white fleet of navy ships help expand American markets or just build the contempt among the Japs that led to WW2? Did a strong military presence in the middle east help Kuwait survive the Iraq invasion and prevent an attack by Iraq on Saudi Arabia; or is it the fodder for terrorists.
- rhodydog, on 02/10/2008, -0/+0I'm with you if it also means cutting the 700,000,000,000 bill for the military to say 20 billion, that would give back to every person over 3500 dollars per year.
- Chahrlie5, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2Good for them. It should be the private industry that invests in such things. Don't leave everything up to the government.
Too bad environmental energy and other "Makes me feel good" environmental efforts are horse *****. Better hope their business keeps growing to pay for this waste of money. - SilverBlade2k, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2That's because Google isn't a ***** puppet to Big Oil like the U.S Government is...
- Scheissen, on 02/09/2008, -6/+1Go Libtards!
- ShaneMcDeath, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2I would like to say a simultaneous "you da man" to google and a "hang your heads in shame US government".
- spriggig, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Glad to hear geothermal made the cut, it's the *only* power source that really has a chance of saving our asses. It's always "on", virtually inexhaustible, available to everyone, virtually 100% clean and more than abundant enough to meet our needs for the distant foreseeable future. All we gotta do is develop the technology, which is doable. Nuclear fission is the only other power source that comes close, unfortunately, billions have been spent in that direction with no real results. Geothermal FTW!
From the source article: "It is also looking closely at several companies with enhanced geothermal systems, Reicher said. Enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, create power by pumping water into hot rocks in the ground rather than harvesting hot water already there." - jamesmudgett, on 02/09/2008, -0/+4It's a shame that the lot of us expect the government to come up with a magic solution for the environment crisis. We expect it so much that we are happy when hear this news. A damn shame. If you drive a car you should understand that the bigger part of all of this problem is you. Reading this title made me think about the shameless farts who expect others to clean up after themselves.
But thanks Google - vinuninans, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1God Bless Google
- FlynnRocks, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1Google is the greatest thing ever, unlike that ***** Bush who is destroying the earth.
- SamPollock, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Bush is doing the right thing you ***** hippie
- CaffeinePowered, on 02/09/2008, -1/+2Can we just make google our government instead?
-
Show 51 - 59 of 59 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by