What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
A Conversation with Russell Simmons view!
openforum.com - Hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons built a multi-faceted empire from the ground up.
30 Comments
- VulpusVulpus, on 06/15/2009, -0/+5While I'll agree with you about the cop-out nature of buying energy credits, and some of the examples in this article, to dismiss green energy in general is wrong. In the long run it will save money, and be more efficient. Fossil fuels are a finite resource with an ever increasing demand, cost has nowhere to go but up. Turbines and solar panels on the other hand will only come down in energy costs from where they currently are as the technology improves. You're also wrong on assuming they have to shut down at night or when the wind stops blowing. First off, thats what batteries are for, and second off, the point of a wind farm being spread over a wide area and the turbines being propped up to high altitudes is they are always generating something somewhere, the average wind speeds that can be expected in a given area is calculated and the projects are built accordingly.
- visionaryIX, on 06/15/2009, -0/+5*****.
Crafty bastards. - weeFred, on 06/15/2009, -0/+3Am I missing something? Where is Google?
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -0/+3i.e. "Top 25 Companies Disguising Cheapness as Being Green". So sick of the "green" buzzword.
I've taken many a factor tour in my day, and it's incredible how many companies claim they are being green because they've "started collecting and reusing their waste". No company would be "green" if it meant increased costs. The only "green" initiatives that will take hold are those that are more economically efficient. - deathfix, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2That just links back to the original multi-paged article when clicked, not the print-view version.
- gdha, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2Great to see that those on this list are making a change. It is very surprising that some of these were on there.
- Barackalypse, on 06/15/2009, -0/+2What is amusing is that you can only buy energy credits from an existing source of alternative energy, which means you haven't actually helped any because those systems already existed and were dumping power into the grid. All you did was overpay for the privelege of saying you are green. Now, had you actually coughed up the cash to build a solar array or wind farm, then you actually offset something.
- joemofo214, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1it was a joke...
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1That's right... green with envy, a very likely greenhorn or green as a jade... Oh, Texas, come'on now...
/s
http://www.jadejade.com/ - DrJG, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1Part of the reason many are doing it is good thought but they are commercial after all and saving money is a part of their primary obligation - and it can't be news after all that saving money by reducing waste of money or power is good green virtue. If everyone could do only that much it would help a lot too.
But it is not clear why there isn't a major push to have solar panels on every home and building. Also, TX sould be going solar, not wasting all that baking desert, the whole south for that matter, while north with its cold winters needs more wind farms. - DrJG, on 06/16/2009, -0/+1Yes, and it is possible to do this on a personal and household level as well - saving money while saving a planet and all life on it is a good thing, and not worthy of using bad words or bad connotations like the world cheap has come to acquire. If green and cheap are concurring more power to green; it is more of a virtue being cheap in effort to be green and vice versa. Anyone wants to show he is not cheap and can throw away money, feed some of the starving children in Africa or even around - there are plenty unwanted ones in US too - or use the money to do something green. And using your waste to power your facilities rather than polluting the ground and water around is a good thing too, it is very virtuous. Or would you rather have corporations giving cancer to your children to excite your admiration by dumping landfills and polluting water sources?
- lydiasky, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1It's nice to see companies starting to be aware of their impact in the environment and the few that are trying to push for being green.
- Masterful1, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2with the relative short turn around time on cost of units to cash savings, (5-10 years on wind, and 10-20 years on solar) I don't understand why government entities do not dump some serious cash into these things. I mean we can drop 700B for no good reason, lets drop say maybe 100B on renewable energy source manufacturing (solar panels, wind turbines) and get something real out of it.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Don't say that, the Mormons and the Catholics won't be happy with you...
- Bananaboy8000, on 06/19/2009, -0/+1I volunteer at least one day a week in my community to help people become more green...what's up with these companies....they aren't that green.
- ShiftyBizniss, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1I like that Pepsi is on there twice before the EPA...
- protodon, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Wow I've actually heard of these. I was surprised PA was on that and I live there.
- Rmo4, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1The article doesn't say these companies are using green power. The credits they buy are vital for the survival and development of the green power industry.
- djm19, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1hardly. Ignoring the fact that California is a much larger state, with stricter environmental policies, and better alternative transportation, there is a lot more to being green than a few cities buying a third of their energy from wind. California is currently investing in large green energy projects like solar which take more time to get on line than wind turbines. It also undoubtedly beats texas in recycling programs and transit programs.
- joemofo214, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Take that California, Texas is greener!!
Buried in 3, 2, 1..... - kuyamon, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1I'm surprised Houston is even on that list.
- Eichenator, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Carbon credits != green company
- inactive, on 06/15/2009, -2/+2Green: The New Age Religion
- mjovic, on 06/15/2009, -0/+0Starbucks uses as much energy as the City of Chicago?.....WTF!?
- xGORDOx, on 06/15/2009, -1/+1Good to see that the article didn't pander to the Obama/GE initiative "healthymagination" which is a money making propaganda scam.
- kspanks04, on 06/15/2009, -1/+1GREEEEEEEN
- Barackalypse, on 06/15/2009, -2/+1What is creative about throwing money at offset credits exactly? "Look, we paid more for power that we didn't generate ourselves and would have been purchased by someone else had we not!"
- visionaryIX, on 06/15/2009, -3/+21 page: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=t ...
- bilbus, on 06/15/2009, -6/+3They are not using "green power" unless they are using a nuclear/hydro power plant.
Unless they use no power at night, or shut down when its not windy.
Power goes over grids .. so the power your getting is generated by many sources. Saying you bought green power is a copout .. unless your generating it by your self.
We will look back one day at this green crap and laugh. Unless green power saves money, or is more efficient .. its completely useless.
And energy credits, what a scam ... thats like paying someone else to be good, while you commit crimes ... it does not make you crime neutral. - dugpat, on 06/15/2009, -3/+0undoubtedly they r top commercially successful nd consider it their duty to show their bit toward the environment
