What is Digg?108 Comments
- syroncoda, on 10/28/2007, -4/+39like having a carbon-neutral Olympic torch for the short amount of time that it'll actually be in London will make a shred of difference to the large amounts of greenhouse gases that the city releases every minute. Doesn't seem like anything but a publicity stunt. if they wanted to make a serious try then make the whole ***** Olympic games in London carbon-neutral. all of it. not just one little thing. stupid brits are just like the stupid yanks thinking that some small little change is going to solve all the bad PR problems.
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -7/+35oh my gayness...
- zediker, on 10/28/2007, -2/+212H + O -> H2O
- inghamb87, on 10/28/2007, -11/+30How can a flame be carbon neutral. Paradox!
- Goodbyeworld, on 10/28/2007, -1/+19A flame has nothing to do with carbon. It is the fuel that is usually carbon.
- kgrandia, on 10/28/2007, -2/+20Glow worms!
- zyklon, on 10/28/2007, -1/+15The torch will be carbon neutral, while all the flights people will take just to get to the Olympics... yeah. That can't be helped.
I think the "carbon neutral torch" thing is just a "LOOK AT US!" ploy. - acrodev, on 10/28/2007, -0/+11Are they planning to offset the amount of carbon used by the people traveling there by car and plane (not every country is walkable distance), the supplies shipped there, and the electricity used, otherwise they might as well burn the friggin torch.
- felidaeus, on 10/28/2007, -2/+12"French company EDF, a major London 2012 sponsor, is assisting the games organizers in finding a low-carbon fuel for the torch"
I wonder if after ferrying organizers and researchers back and forth and performing research, which takes electricity, whether the net carbon emissions of not having carbon neutral will end up being higher. - tizz66, on 10/28/2007, -1/+10As I understand it, there's a difference between emitting no carbon, and carbon neutral. Carbon neutral just means that the carbon is offset somehow, e.g. by planting a tree. So in this case, I suspect they're going to use low carbon fuel, then offset the rest, hence making it 'carbon neutral'.
- cambob76, on 10/28/2007, -0/+9They should use a matrix of LEDs that simulate flame. The power could come from a L-ion battery charged by electricity collected by solar panels.
- Goodbyeworld, on 10/27/2007, -0/+9The reply button is great.
- Goodbyeworld, on 10/28/2007, -0/+9Maybe this will completely reverse global warming. 30 minutes of fireworks that not many people watch on television... sounds promising.
- ricksite, on 10/28/2007, -0/+8Is anyone going to purchase offsets for the fires in California?
- totorototoro, on 10/28/2007, -4/+12Will Al Gore light the torch? :p
- KMye, on 10/28/2007, -1/+9You thinking too hard. This, just like the LiveEarth concerts and the Crude Awakening event at Burning Man, isn't about actually making a difference, or encouraging rational thinking while avoiding hypocrisy, it's about making a statement that everyone on the planet *can* do something entirely insignificant and then pat themselves on the back for it because *they get it*
- springo, on 10/28/2007, -1/+8Actually, it's:
2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O - Logicexe, on 10/28/2007, -0/+7Anyone else getting sick of these kinds of irrelevant *****? I mean come on, climate change could be one of the biggest dangers looming in our future and there's a very probable chance that if it is just a natural cycle we're at least speeding it up and magnifying it with all the greenhouse gases we emit. It's all so stupid, who cares if the Olympic torch is carbon neutral? What about the power plant that generates the power for the stadiums? What about the planes the athletes and fans took to get to London? What about all the traffic the Olympic games will surely cause? All those cars sitting there idling for hours on end can't be very carbon neutral. I get that's a symbolic thing, but it's just encouraging cynicism when there really is a big danger with climate change and we really should be doing something more significant about it.
- QuorumCall, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6I wonder how much fuel was used to tell everyone that they are doing this.
- gentk, on 10/28/2007, -0/+6Now how about a puke neutral Logo?
- jeff303, on 10/28/2007, -0/+5Exactly - they'll have guys running along behind planting trees every kilometer
- KMye, on 10/28/2007, -2/+7Carbon offsets for "carbon-neutralizing are a mixture of scams and wishful thinking; even most environmental groups admit on their pg 16s that offsets are more about raising awareness than actually making a difference. What we really need to do to cancel the emissions is just cancel the whole ***** games! What's a centuries-old international tradition when the planet's in imminent peril of spontaneously combusting??
- jpwhitmore, on 10/28/2007, -4/+9So this makes up for what... all the smokers in a moderately sized city?
- crapmatic, on 10/28/2007, -0/+5This reeks of political correctness. Why don't we just reconstruct the Pyramids of Giza out of 80% post-consumer styrofoam blocks while we're at it?
- pintomp3, on 10/28/2007, -1/+6lesbian glow worms!
- Angostura, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5It's SYMBOLIC, OK?
- linksus, on 10/28/2007, -1/+5Surely, its going to use more carbon to come up with the low carbon version. All the computers using power ti research the low carbon version etc etc etc.
I cant seen the point in researching small wins like this. Try and make the bigger emitters more carbon friendly.
What about bonfirenight in the UK. Surely thats more of a problem than a damn torch. - crazywarthog, on 10/28/2007, -1/+5Symbolic gestures are great for the liberal feel good types who think they will save the earth but are meaningless for those who use their God given brain.
If you really think the earth is on the brink of catastrophe from global warming like the Al Gore lemmings do then just cancel the games altogether.
That will be more than a simple symbolic gesture ! - synthsrkl, on 10/28/2007, -3/+7Although the carbon-neutral flame may not do that much, it does set an example and promote the need to curb emissions
- 2L84ME, on 10/28/2007, -0/+4@WaveyRavey:
You can't get 1 O on it's on, oxygen "travels" in pairs. That is, O2. - pitdog, on 10/28/2007, -1/+5BS! the competitors should not run too quickly in order to reduce their emissions.
the whole carbon neutral propaganda is getting ridiculous - weregeek, on 10/28/2007, -2/+5I wish I could get together a bunch of fuel experts and copywriters to publicize the earth-shattering move of fueling a single torch with vegetable oil instead of kerosene....
What a waste of time. - workharderscum, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3This is the Olympics - hot air will be a far more abundant fuel source
- artoisval, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3That just a silly marketing plow, If they really want to reduce bad emission, they should put a big sign saying "Turn off your car engine while idle"
- Campog, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3More like, all the smokers in a moderately sized Texas bar.
- Angostura, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4Boris, is that you?
Wow, someone's got a bit of anger to vent. Just to put that little rant into a bit of context. I'm really looking forward to the games, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take my kids to see one of the most spectacular sports events ever held, as far as I am concerned. Ken Livingstone is doing a reasonable job. He was right about the PFI fiasco in terms of tube maintenance and he has basically turned around public transport in the capital.
If you don't like the bus-stop ticket machine, get an Oyster card.
Bendy busses though - those were a pretty bad idea. - Progression, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3L.E.D.
- nphase, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3Honestly. Who the ***** cares.
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3This comment is carbon neutral
- triskele, on 10/28/2007, -1/+4Correction. The planet is not in peril. It's we who are in peril. In the even that we have ***** ourselves, it serves us right. And for the record, anthropogenic global warming is *****. Frankly this whole carbon neutral torch nonsense is just another PR joke like Live Earth.
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3Smug Alert!!!!!!!!!
- ShaneMcDeath, on 10/28/2007, -0/+3Agreed. This is just headline grabbing nonsense. Which unfortunately goes along way in this world.
- stillrealvicz, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Political hot air and Labour ***** should do it
- bobbknight, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2One tiny little iddy biddy torch used once every four years, LOL. That's funny! Yet some how frightening and sad.
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2The only thing that this symbolizes to me is the total idiocy that this whole carbon neutrality movement. All I can think about are carbon credits and how much of a sham that whole program is.
- Bulldogge16, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2this is just simply too much! These people are *****!
- Rocketgeek, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Of course it's political correctness. Whether it is the Olympic organising committee in London, Mayor Ken Livingstone or Nu Labia, they are all the same; pig ignorant, and unwilling to consider changes that would make a real difference. Now, if they spent the money on the Olympics on massively subsidising solar roofs for people in London, and setting up charging points for the next generation of electric cars, "That" would make a real impact on a cleaner, greener city.
But of course they won't, because they are driven by their politically correct, scientifically ignorant agendas, so as usual, it will be little token gestures rather than making real change. - crazywarthog, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Cancel the games !
- govsucks, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2thousands of tons of carbon will be expended in the search to make this one little torch carbon neutral. Lucky we have these thinkers to make the planet better.
- tomasII, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2Next? Fart bags for cows. Everyone knows cow farts are a major contributor to global warming.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 105 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