What is Digg?170 Comments
- C4Strife, on 07/17/2008, -23/+63Gore is all about the environment except every time he flies the relative distance from the east to the west coast of the U.S. his private plane releases more waste than any us do in a lifetime.
- ligyron, on 07/18/2008, -8/+46People give Gore a lot of crap. Regardless of your beliefs, don't you think Earth will be a lot better if we move in the direction of biotechnology instead of oil/gas consumption and carbon emissions? Imagine if in 100 years we eliminated all that for our grandchildren. Imagine how clear the skys would be and how clean the air would be. It doesn't stop there--better medicines, less bad foods resulting in less illnesses and diseases. We have the knowledge and technology to push the our planet in that direction. Earth is alive. We should treat it as a living organism to ensure its longevity.
- hiPpymIck, on 07/18/2008, -1/+31he should cycle everywhere
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -6/+31I expect Al Gore to not fly around using his private jet if he is really that concerned about carbon emissions. Let him fly commercial, take a train, or [gasp] drive.
- enronias, on 07/17/2008, -21/+43Maybe he should set a challenge for himself considering how much power his house property consumes . . .
- vproman, on 07/17/2008, -9/+30Gore isn't talking about giving up conveniences like air travel or reducing energy consumption. He's talking about tapping into the abundant amount of energy which exists in the form of sunlight and wind. What he is saying is that if we want to continue driving our cars and watching our televisions while living in a secure, sovereign country, then we NEED to tap into these clean energy sources. Hey may or may not be motivated purely by concerns about global warming, but the rising cost of oil has allowed him to make additional arguments in the form of benefit-cost ratios, energy independence and, consequentially, national security.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/19/2008, -2/+20Or he could use the internet he created and conduct web seminars.
- JenovaWitness77, on 07/19/2008, -6/+21Perhaps we should listen to him, after all, he does seem pretty cereal about it.
- inactive, on 07/18/2008, -11/+22Don't you know that the Goracle is exempt from his own proposals? He needs that big house to comfortably contain his own ego when at rest.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -2/+13Could you imagine if 500 people in Florida voted the other way what this decade would have looked like?
- Retrospekt, on 07/19/2008, -10/+20I'll cut down on my energy use, just as soon as he does the same.
- JHB800, on 07/19/2008, -11/+20$3 trillion dollars.
That's what his plan will cost taxpayers. That's your money and my money.
Its a third of the national debt, and more than the entire government's tax revenue each fiscal year.
Gore is proposing this, and yet he provides no examples of where the money is going to come from. - netneutrality, on 07/19/2008, -3/+11That's great and all Mr. Gore, but what do WE do about it? Cause our governments sure as hell aren't going to care.
- airwalkery2k, on 07/18/2008, -10/+17Heck, it would probably be 10 times cheaper than going to war for a limited supply of oil.
- Technohamster, on 07/19/2008, -0/+7Only a third of your national debt? Wait, that's amazing.
- TheSexyGeek, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7While they debate, why don't we just burn less oil JUST IN CASE!
Sheesh! How is relying on less oil a bad thing? You people act like they're asking you to stop *****. - inactive, on 07/19/2008, -1/+7A curious challenge from a fat slob whose carbon footprint is 1000x my own. Do as a say, not as I do, eh liberals?
- Murdats, on 07/19/2008, -2/+8what happened to the last couple of decades of demand for electric cars?
companies do not do the right thing when left to their own devices, that is why a pure free market economy is not a good thing, extremism of any form is not good.
It took a major war and destabilisation of a major part of the world for change to happen. the free market waits till when it needs to, then some to change, not when it should. - mmmmmbiscuits, on 07/19/2008, -6/+12Oh, so you mean he's finally on his way to achieving the level of environmental friendliness that Bush's home in Texas has had since the day it was built?
- BigW, on 07/19/2008, -3/+9I'm all for his challenge, if nuclear is included in the mix. I don't think this can be achieved with just solar and wind. Certainly not with todays technology. And while I'm a big proponent of wind power, to do what he's asking with current generator technology would force us to cover most of the midwest with wind turbines.
Nuclear needs to be an option for future power, if they really want to succeed in getting off of fossil fuels. Of course if they just want to tax the use of fossil fuels with Gore's "Carbon Credits", then keeping nuclear at bay is a great idea.... - TheSexyGeek, on 07/19/2008, -3/+8That attitude is part of the problem.
- TalenGTP, on 07/19/2008, -3/+8Has he really thought this all the way through? Will wind and solar power really be enough to power his Gulf Stream II and the insane power bill on his house?
- elvenseven, on 07/19/2008, -1/+6Webcam.
- 0biKwiet, on 07/19/2008, -2/+7Does any body have any idea what kind of environmental impact running and maintain that many windmills, and solar panels would be? I mean, ignoring the fact that building them alone isn't even doable in that amount of time with our economy, it would wreck our nations natural beauty. You thought oil pipe line were bad, were talking about a from of energy that is directly related to how much surface area it takes up.
I say we start building nucelar reactors. Cheap clean, and safe. - CobaltBlue, on 07/19/2008, -5/+10Jet-A Fuel is not leaded. Stop LYING.
- pbs1914, on 07/19/2008, -2/+6I thought about this while watching the When We Left Earth programs about the space program in the 60's. It was unbelievable what they were able to learn and accomplish in 5 years. Today we talk about increasing car efficiency standards by 2020 (maybe, if we feel like it). Or "one day free ourselves from foreign oil". Our government doesn't demand the same type of progress or results any lasting company or non-profit would, because 1. the government will stick around even if they do a crappy job and 2. it's safer in politics to promise little and deliver nothing than reach for something big and come up short.
I only hope a challenge like this will come from our President and Representatives (and see them make an effort to lead by example). - audiologic, on 07/19/2008, -8/+12I agree with the overall concept, but as stated above I don't think the government should be the one to mandate such things.
The free market is already starting to prove its self with many alternative fuel car manufacturers. Even before such campaign - I forget which company - Porsche? - stated no petroleum vehicles after 2015 for their production. - DyceFreak, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5all the more reason to peruse it, if we could find a way to achieve these goals both on a business end environmental end, then even more people will be for it. At least this time it actually helps everyone, instead of ***** everyone. Besides, there would be much much less profits to be had with a non-extinguishable, non-polluting energy source that requires very little manpower to operate.
Seriously, give me a pro-fossil fuel anti-solar/wind/water argument, lets see if it looks like bs or not. - Zaxcomp, on 07/19/2008, -3/+7If the whole world worked that way, nothing would get done. This is a clear cut situation of "do as I say, not as I do".
- sturmgiest, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5He tried to reduce the amount his home uses and it ended up using even more energy.
- Isidore, on 07/19/2008, -1/+5The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement:
"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news-1/resolveuid/88fcf2 ...
The NASA website is a good place to start to understand the science of how humans are now changing the climate
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/ - MatildaMiller, on 07/19/2008, -4/+8I'd don't see why people can't get beyond Gore's own personal hypocrisy and see the larger point.
Say you weigh 347 pounds. Your doctor tells you to lose weight or you'll die. But he weighs 300 pounds, so why should you listen to that hypocrite? - angryfirelord, on 07/19/2008, -4/+8I'm all for renewable energy, but we can't push these technologies prematurely. (otherwise we get the Vista of windmills) The problem I have with environmentalists is that they insist on mass producing pushing hydrogen cars and solar panels when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to do it yet. That's why a free market solution is always better: when people demand it, companies produce it. When the government demands it, they tend to slow it down with paperwork and end up funding the whole thing on the taxpayer expense.
So yes, we do need cleaner energy, but it has to be ready first. - FairDinkumMate, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5Free market solution?
Example:
The price of gasoline in the US has effectively been tax free(arguably subsidised) since the 70's oil shock.
The price of gasoline in Europe(& other places) has been heavily taxed since the 70's oil shock.
Result: The European vehicle fleet achieves TWICE the MPG of the US vehicle fleet!
The free market is great until the 'costs' of that market aren't passed on to consumers. There is no 'cost' of pollution passed on to consumers of oversized, innefficient vehicles in the US. The gas taxes in Europe & the like discourage the use of such vehicles. Will there be a long term 'cost' of pollution? All the evidence says YES, but because it hasn't yet been quantified, the US government is happy to pass the buck & leave it for their grandchildren to sort out!
The current 'clean' technology will become price competitive with coal, oil & gas, but this will happen much faster if coal, oil & gas are forced to pay for the pollution they cause. - GrimHeathen, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5I think you spelled profit wrong.
- XTX7X, on 07/19/2008, -7/+10Really? So listening to the overwhelming majority of scientists and becoming an activist on their conclusions MUST be motivated by money?
- bphicke, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3It was Mercedes.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4When I look at critics of Gore who say this speech was stupid and then I look at Gore I think to myself, who's going to get us off foreign oil and into clean energy, those guys or Gore? Come on, if you don't like Gore at least put forth some other plan or something don't just whine and cast doubt. Be a part of the solution. Glenn Beck comes to mind.
- audiologic, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3Thanks for the correction.
- Yookji, on 07/19/2008, -3/+6@omarst
Not greater than the % of taxes going to social programs. - L0C0loco, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3The free market certainly needs to guide our transition to alternative forms of non-fossil energy. The Cap and Trade system is not the free market. It is government mandated quotas and, yes, some folks will get extremely rich under this system. What is needed is a carbon tax that prices fossil fuel to account for all of the indirect costs of using it. With fossil fuels properly priced (via taxes) the free market will embrace alternative energy sources with speed and vigor.
- macwac, on 07/19/2008, -1/+4His goal could have been achieved if U.S spent the war money in green tech - too late. I still believe he is a hypocrite and opportunist.
I wouldn't mind being carbon neutral - only that you have to have a few hundred thousand dollars available to afford it - lets be honest: the average joe with a student loan, house loan/mortgage, kids to pay for, kids education, regular living expenses just doesn't have the available cash to do this themselves. If it was government driven the money has to come from somewhere.. that would mean higher taxes.. on top of a fragile economy, a government spending money they don't have and printing money like its straight from a monopoly game; is this really viable? - Zaxcomp, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5He invented/popularized the term information superhighway and internet, at no time did he say he invented the internet. Quit perpetuating this.
- inactive, on 07/19/2008, -2/+5Better yet, he would pay someone with a personality teleconference for him.
- Genghis1, on 07/19/2008, -0/+3A lot of ignorant deniers on digg. If we had waited for the free market to send a man to the moon, who's flag would be there now?
- init100, on 07/19/2008, -1/+3Those emissions are not an issue, since their net addition to the atmosphere is zero.
- L0C0loco, on 07/19/2008, -0/+2The proper tax on products would allow for a reduction/elimination of the taxes on income. You'd have more money to spend and the choice of whether to spend it on fossil fuels or their replacements. Don't like the price? Then buy something else. If you want to talk about waste just look at the folks oiling down the road at 80MPH in their SUVs. Now that is waste.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 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