digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming

globalwarming-facts.info — Ultimate List of Actions and Behaviors that can Save the World from Global Warming - Everybody Should Read It!!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 1greenthumb, on 11/10/2007, -17/+48It is good to create list like this... a lot of people just don't know what they can do to help. Nice work!
    • thisisnotsafeV2, on 10/12/2007, -29/+0Mirror: http://duggmirror.no.tc/
    • cvrefugee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+40Stop? Probably not. Reduce? Perhaps.
    • elk1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23"5.Choose energy efficient appliances when making new purchases
      Look for the Energy Star label on new appliances to choose the most efficient models available.

      6. Do not leave appliances on standby
      Use the "on/off" function on the machine itself. A TV set that's switched on for 3 hours a day (the average time Europeans spend watching TV) and in standby mode during the remaining 21 hours uses about 40% of its energy in standby mode."

      kinda funny to put those two next to each other because the energy star label applies only to standby power consumption.
    • dtd00d, on 10/12/2007, -13/+39Scientist: "Global Warming is going to strike... two days before the day after tomorrow."

      Stan: "Global warming isn't happening right now. It's, it's not what caused the Beaverton flood."
      Kyle: "How do you know that?"
      Stan: "Because, I know what did cause the flood."
      Kyle: "George Bush?"
      Stan: "No."
      Kyle: "Terrorists?"
      Stan: "No."
      Kyle: "Communists?"
      Stan: "No."
      Kyle: "Chinese radicals?"
      Stan: "No."
      Kyle: "...Cartman?"
      Stan: "...sort of."

      /comment abuse
    • ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -41/+23Most of these are stuff your parents yell at you when you are young - its mostly about wasting energy.

      22. Choose products that come with little packaging and buy refills when you can
      You will also cut down on waste production and energy use!

      wtf?^

      I dont know about y'all, but fluorescent lights give me headahces. I cant stand them.

      And also - Recycling uses up more energy than is saves (not counting alluminum) - - After watching Penn and Teller's ***** on Environmental Hysteria and Recycling, I am watch who gives me what information. If someone tells me how to change my life to help the planet, then they mention propoganda that doenst help (like most forms of recycling) then they lose credability in my book.


      32. Reduce the number of miles you drive... ...carpooling or taking mass transit...
      33. Start a carpool with your coworkers or classmates
      39. Try car sharing
    • BurtCokain, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@elk1

      > kinda funny to put those two next to each other because the energy star label applies only to standby power consumption.

      Sorry, that's not quite right. That is what it is widely known for, and it certainly does apply to standby power consumption. See here for more info:
      http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=home.index

      In computing - it also applies to the hard disk/monitor idle timeouts - this makes a system Energy Star compliant, but isn't entirely about standby power consumption. It applies to lots of aspects of lots of things, including light bulbs, houses and windows!
    • alostpacket, on 10/12/2007, -20/+25@thinkbox

      wow really? you get your info from pen & teller? that's um... I don't even know what to say.

      Anyways, the point of recycling isnt to save watts of electricity, it's to save plastics and other things from being dumped into landfills. And the efficiency of it is getting better and better, both with amount of energy used, and % of useful material recovered.. So please, laugh at Penn and teller, they are funny, you know haha? But dont come spewing thier jokes as facts.
    • anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -14/+29Landfills have no effect on global warming. Electricity use does. Therefore recycling is bad from a global warming perspective. DO recycle if you want to reduce landfill use, DO NOT recycle if you want to reduce energy consumption. Choose your issue.
    • alostpacket, on 10/12/2007, -10/+56actually I did a little more googling and realized thinkbox is utterly full of it:


      Energy Facts
      Aluminum

      * Recycled aluminum saves 95% energy vs. virgin aluminum; recycling of one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a TV for 3 hours (Reynolds Metal Company)
      * Recycled aluminum reduces pollution by 95% (Reynolds Metal Co.)
      * 4 lbs. of bauxite are saved for every pound of aluminum recycled (Reynolds Metal Co.)
      * Enough aluminum is thrown away to rebuild our commercial air fleet 4 times every year.

      Glass

      * Recycled glass saves 50% energy vs. virgin glass (Center for Ecological Technology); recycling of one glass container saves enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for 4 hours (EPA)
      * Recycled glass generates 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution (NASA)
      * 1 ton of glass made from 50% recycled materials saves 250 lbs. of mining waste (EPA)
      * Glass can be reused an infinite number of times; over 41 billion glass containers are made each year (EPA)

      Paper

      * Recycled paper saves 60% energy vs. virgin paper (Center for Ecological Technology)
      * Recycled paper generates 95% less air pollution: each ton saves 60 lbs. of air pollution (Center for Ecological Technology)
      * Recycling of each ton of paper saves 17 trees and 7000 gallons of water (EPA)
      * Every year enough paper is thrown away to make a 12' wall from New York to California

      Plastic

      * Plastic milk containers are now only half the weight that they were in 1960 (EPA)
      * If we recycled every plastic bottle we used, we would keep 2 billion tons of plastic out of landfills (Penn State)
      * According to the EPA, recycling a pound of PET saves approximately 12,000 BTU's.
      * We use enough plastic wrap to wrap all of Texas every year (EPA)

      Source: University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Produced and maintained by the Office of Waste Management

      more:
      http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/recycle/benefits.pdf
      http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/0108.html

      here is some info on cost too:
      http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm

      there is so much of this info on the web so i will cut it short here, it has been interesting reading some of it though :) I encourage anyone who is to give it a shot.
    • dacheetah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"* We use enough plastic wrap to wrap all of Texas every year (EPA)"
      Can we test this theory? Everyone bring a years worth of plastic wrap and we'll see how far we get.
    • bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -26/+3751. move to mars...

      oh wait, there's global warming going on there as well... i guess we must be at fault for that as well. i suggest renaming the title: 50 things to do to conserve energy. considering we can't actually make the sun cooler, there's no guarantee that if everyone did every step anything would happen to global warming at all. conserving energy is good, doing so thinking you're saving the earth is just loony.
    • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -17/+44@bluebonics...

      SSShhhhh! We are ignoring data that doesn't fit our pre-conceived notions.

      I've already told people I think HUMANS are behind global warming... so I'm ignoring anything that doesn't support that.

      It's hard enough to find something to believe in... don't make me have to start all over again.
    • srneu71, on 10/12/2007, -18/+37"30. Eat less meat
      Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath."

      So if I don't eat them, they multiply resulting in more cows thus causing more methane. So we should realistically control the cow population to keep their emissions down. I'm going to do my part by eating those filthy methane, dinner and shoe producing bovines!
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -19/+19@alotpacket

      I'm all for saving energy, but I call shenanigans on some of those "facts and figures." For one, these figures come from industries with an agenda. Reynolds Aluminum makes huge profit margins off of recycling. The EPA are not giving information from an independent point-of-view. The only figures you listed that I would trust are the one supplied by Penn State and NASA. Notice they also don't tell you how much money is made and saved by the corporations, yet those saved dollars rarely reach the consumer, in fact the consumer usually pays more.

      Aluminum
      -"4 pounds of bauxite are saved" Who cares? It's a rock. That's like saying, "by building your house out of wood you save 3 tons of brick!"
      -Saying it reduces pollution by 95% is more than a bit nebulous. How are they rating such things? what kind of pollution is being reduced? CO2? Chemical? Noise?
      -The 3 hours of TV time...what kind of TV? A CRT or flat screen? a 12in screen or a 60 inch screen? It may sound like i'm picking nits but it matters. If they produced the figure with a small 20" screen in mind and most households have a 36" or better, that figure means nothing.

      Glass
      - Nothing bad can really be said, except for the mining waste one. When the silica is stripped from an area, the mining waste goes back into....the MINE. Right where it came from.

      Paper
      -What isnt said is how much waste is created from the rebleaching and re-manufacture of the base paper product. They also don't tell you that the 17 trees your saving are typically from a tree farm. Saving those 17 trees means little, more get planted immediately and they aren't effective in creating a forest-type environment ( typically all some form of pine tree ).

      Plastics
      -What does the weight of a milk carton 50 years ago or the amount of plastic we use have anything to do with recycling?
      -Saving BTU's? That is just pure obfuscation. Your saving heat? WHO CARES! Tell me how that heat was generated, tell me the effects of THAT. Do you know what it costs to produce 12,000 BTU? About $0.12.
    • mikeneilson, on 10/12/2007, -15/+38Did the article happen to mention not having a home that uses 20 times the electricity of the average U.S. home?

      http://www.fairviewobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382/1321/MTCN06

      Or does that not apply to Mr. Gore?

      Digg me down, I probably deserve it for pointing out the truth.
    • spoid_, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Bluebonics - There is global warming on Mars because we're driving cars on that planet too.
    • sowerp, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8addressing recycling: yes, please do not try and get your environmental info from penn and teller...Although there are benifits to throwing your recyclables into the garbage the negative aspects far outweigh them. Living here in Seattle, when i put something in the garbage, it travels nearly 300 miles on a train to Oregon before its finally disposed of.

      Aside from the ridiculous transportation of the garbage, when you throw out recyclables, theyre lost from the pool of resources that we have. Most recyclables(especially aluminum) cost less to produce but also have less environmental costs to produce.Most of these costs go unseen since they are difficult to quantify.

      If you really want to have an impact, reducing the amount of waste you produce is much more important. Municipal solid wast is only about 2% of the total solid waste produced. Producing the items that we buy often produces more waste then the product will produce after it reaches the end of its lifespan.

      This all is beneficial in terms of $$$ let alone global warming. Annually it has been saving seattle $1m+ since the early 90's, excluding environmental benifits
    • OreosRgood4me, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11@srneu

      That's just stupid, it's called supply and demand. If everyone starts to eat less meat, cows/chickens won't have that great of a demand and less will be produced. Just because you don't want to change your diet doesn't mean that it doesn't apply anymore.
    • Pedwidget, on 10/12/2007, -20/+13Global Warming is a made-up issue for people who have their heads too far up Al Gore's butt.

      Use your brains people and stop being sheep.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@sowerp

      You dont see the value of recycled cans because the company producing the aluminum is making a ***** of money. They charge what it costs to produce aluminum from raw materials. The recycling company will sucker you in telling you the environmental benefits of of recycling, but it's a bait and switch. They are still refining raw bauxite. That doesnt change. They are just selling more aluminum at much higher profit margins.


      It's EASY to see the monetary value of recycling, they just dont want YOU to see it.
    • elViesca, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10Almost every time there's an environmental topic on Recycling or Greenpeace or anything related to the environmental movement, somebody would say "Yeah... but Penn & Teller told me it's *****! "

      Last time I checked they were comedians, not experts on the field. They are not even journalist and they are highly biased.
      This is from the wikipedia:

      ..Chaz Miller, who was interviewed for the "Recycling" episode, said that *****! attempts to exclude certain information if it does not favor the show's position"

      And about the second hand smoke show:
      "...the duo was asked about the evidence for this episode being faulty. Penn Jillette, with Teller standing at his side, said regarding this episode they were "wrong" and the next season would add a notation. Penn went on to describe that new studies do show a correlation between health risks and secondhand smoke."

      Here's the complete entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/*****%21

      Just stop believing that everything they say is true. Do you need a couple of clowns to tell you what to do?

      Recycling is good for the environment, period.
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Its so sad that article forgot the #1 method of combating Global Warming.

      #1) Support Nuclear Power.

      If we replaced just our coal and oil burning power plants with Nuclear Power, we will have reduced Global Warming an amount 100 times more than every other item on the list, combined. An amount equivalent to never driving a vehicle in the US again. Yep, 10% of the world's carbon emissions come from U.S. based coal power plants.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14@evilesca

      Just because they are comedians doesn't mean they can't make a point. Some of the most poignant points-of-view come from todays comedians, they tend to look at society with the rose-colored glasses off.

      Penn and Teller are spin artists. They do the SAME thing the other side does. People call them hacks for the way they present the information, but do you think Green side gives you all the information? Hardly. The benefit of watching Penn&Teller is to see the flip side of the coin. Look at the information from both sides and THEN make up your mind.

    • sowerp, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@drmangrum
      The thing is, i'm not looking for personal profit. If the company makes money and this saves public utilities the cost of sending my waste away, i think its a good thing. It is a benefit to the economy in a sense, while reducing environmental problems. People generally try and say that going green implies that something else(the economy) must take on the costs. not true. Even if I the consumer dont see cheaper soda, it does relate to less environmental impacts. harvesting and mining is a big mess. Im not sure that what you were saying was that even though i recycle aluminum, it will not affect the amount of raw aluminum harvested. but it does have an affect on the aluminum market.
    • Zera, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12@ elviesca
      "Recycling is good for the environment, period."

      Since this is about global warming, I'll point out one way that this is wrong. Paper recycling is VERY bad for the environment. It requires multiple nasty chemicals to de-ink and then bleach the paper, and as far as Global warming is concerned then that paper gets put back into use. If that paper were to be buried in a landfill, that effectively removes that amount of carbon (greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere. See, trees are little carbon factories, and they are grown on farms, just like any other crop. If we stop recycling paper today, and put the paper in landfills, that is carbon that we have removed from the atmosphere!

      And about the Recycling episode, Penn and Teller's biggest message was that recycling has ALWAYS happened, but spending 12 Billion tax dollars on it, has not helped anything, because remember, the government isn't good at anything. :/
    • srneu71, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@OreosRgood4me
      I think you missed the sarcasm. I'll spell it out next time for you.

      But let me play devil's advocate for the sake of argument.

      Lets say farmer A has a farm infrastructure that produces 1000 cows a year that he sells for $1000/head. We boycott meat and assume Farmer A cannot sell his cows for $1000/head since the market is saturated (supply/demand). What are some of the possible outcomes of this (feel free to add your own)?

      1. Farmer A sells his cows for $500/head to move them, accepts his fate that his cows are no longer required. Farmer A's land cannot support crops, so he gets out of farming and goes on welfare. (sarcasm ahead) He drinks alot now and is producing more beer farts, thus more methane.
      2. Farmer A invests to increase his production to 1500/year to make up for the losses and the reduced price (well *****, that's not helping global warming).
      3. Farmer A sells his stock to a large cow farming corporation who is able to produce them cheaper and guess what, more cows or the same amount of cows, but we just lined the pockets of an evil corporation who doesn't care about global warning.
      4. Farmer A starts selling to other markets (ie, Mexico), his costs increase because he's shipping longer distances (oops more greenhouse gases) so he produces more to cover the costs. Well crap, that's a double whammy.
      5. Farmer A accepts his fate, sells the farm and gets into the trucking business. That's not the right idea Farmer A. He should become a programmer or something.

      What I'm getting at is a simple supply/demand argument is not really that simple. You make the assumption that the farmer will just stop breeding cows. It doesn't take into account that the farmer needs to make a living and will do what it takes to feed his family. So sometimes ideas with the best intentions can cause unintended consequences.

      I'm all for helping reduce the greenhouse gases. I'm using CFL's, have an insulated WH, use energy star appliances, have a programmable thermostat, take showers, etc. Lets make sure we are not making the problem worse by making broad assumptions like reducing consumption of meat will reduce the cow population or pretending that the mercury in CFL's will not end up in the landfills.
    • drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@sowerp

      Well if your doing it for the economy, what happens when the miners are out of a job? The truckers? The geologists? All the trickle-down economics that are lost due to less bauxite extraction?

      You missed my point. The recycling companies are giving you a highly biased and facts that have all kinds of spin on them. The reason they want you to recycle is to save THEM money. The figures they give are highly suspect and more than likely rife with inconsistencies and biased measuring systems.
    • JES63, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20@mikeneilson,

      Gore has it figured out. Global warming lends itself to a lot of symbolism. It is a shortcut to let everyone know how much you care to spend a lot of time yammering about it but you don't have to actually do anything.

      I read an interesting article that originally came from the April 29, 2001 Chicago Tribune today.

      The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude.
      Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity that traditional heating and cooling systems utilize.

      A 25,000-gallon underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof runs; wastewater from sinks, toilets and showers goes into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is used to irrigate the landscaping surrounding the four-bedroom home. Plants and flowers native to the high prairie area blend the structure into the surrounding ecosystem.

      No, this is not the home of some eccentrically wealthy eco-freak trying to shame his fellow citizens into following the pristineness of his self-righteous example. And no, it is not the wilderness retreat of the Sierra Club or the Natural Resources Defense Council, a haven where tree-huggers plot political strategy.

      This is President George W. Bush's "Texas White House" outside the small town of Crawford.

      So Gore is an energy hog and Bush isn't. But Gore gets all sorts of praise because he yammers about energy conservation but does the opposite. Bush quietly walks the walk. Gore talks the talk. That, to me, is perfectly symbolic.

    • sowerp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@drmangrum
      I think we have to get away from feeling bad about putting people out of jobs that degrade the environment. Recycling provides jobs too as well as many other "green" implementations. As for letting recycling companies get reap all the benefits, i dont mind. The recycle company is virtually the city. The city builds the plants, and contracts out the transportation. I for one want to see my local government work efficiently, save money, and ultimately use it towards something else or for more beneficial recycling programs.
    • apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Drive an electric car. You can get one for $5000. I bought mine for $2000 off eBay. Yep, it does freeway speeds. Electricity to drive it costs about 1 cent per mile. It has a $1000 battery pack that lasts 25,000 miles, so add 4 cents to my 1 cent fuel cost, total cost per mile, 5 cents.

      Cheap electric car link: http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
    • joach, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Making small changes like suggested in this list will do great things to lessen the effects of Global Warming. What is needed is a drastic change of attitude! We need to realize that our daily actions matters. If you think like me, support: http://www.healingday.org
    • Arrhenius, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@bIuebonics
      "oh wait, there's global warming going on there[Mars] as well... i guess we must be at fault for that as well."
      @davecor
      "SSShhhhh! We are ignoring data that doesn't fit our pre-conceived notions."

      Yes you are.

      You are ignoring the facts 1) that we are near the low point in the 11 year Solar cycle, and the Sun's output has been _declining_ during the period in question and 2) other than the 11 year Solar cycle, the Sun's output has not changed much in 50 years. Thus the regional changes on Mars cannot be blamed on the Sun.

      Details can be found here ...
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
    • DiggLord, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3The cause to global warming is overpopulation, the only way we can fix that is to kill off billions, which wouldnt happen. Changing your dumb ass light bulbs isn't gonna make a difference, global warming is used as a political weapon - that's it, its not that serious people wake up!
    • slapshotdg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Seems to me global warming has been happening ever since the end of hte last ice age. It will continue unitl it self corrects and starts cooling down. It has happend before. Global warming will and has happened regardless of human intervention.
    • Netwatcher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@Thinkbox
      Penn & Tellers ***** episode on "Environmental Hysteria"? I call ***** on that!

      Weren't half the so called experts they used on that episode discredited frauds, like Bjørn Lomborg.

      ***** is a great show, but *if* there is a moral to the show its not to take anything anyone else tells you at face value, including Penn & Teller.


    • Scottamus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6It's missing a big one: Grow your own food:

      A step up from buying locally. Everyone should have some fruits and veggies growing in their yard.

      Plant a fruit tree
      *It will soak up carbon (#25)
      *You can just walk to your yard and get 'free' fruit.
      *Adds value to your home.
      *Healthier and tastier than store bought.
      *Saves you lots of money for a small investment.
      *Can sell extra fruit or give it to friends or the needy.
      *Low maintenance.
      *Find a fruit you like that grows well in your area. Ask your local cooperative extension for info or do some web research.
      *Less yard to mow=less pollution and maintenance.

      Blackberries
      *Easy to grow.
      *Small investment
      *Maintenance: just need to prune once a year.
      *Way cheaper and better than store choices.

      Plant herbs and veggies
      *Similar benefits but more work required.

      Personally I'm converting my backyard to be almost entirely edible. I've got 14 fruit trees I'm putting in along with almost 2 dozen berry plants, a 100 ft^2 herb garden and a 300 ft^2 veggie garden. All in a space less that 1/14 of an acre. It is quite an undertaking but I believe it will benefit me on so many levels it doesn't make sense not to do it.
    • iii9ix3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3KILL THE COWS!! KEEP THEM DAMNED THINGS FROM HEATING UP OUR EARTH.

      on a lighter note, isn't water vapor the most significant greenhouse gas, not CO2 as the article says?
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@iii9ix3

      Water is the primary greenhouse gas. However, it is only a feedback agent - not a forcing agent like CO2. Water is a feedback agent because when it reaches high concentrations in the atmosphere it condenses and falls out of the sky; usually after being in the forms of clouds which reflect solar radiation. Water's residence time in the atmosphere ranges from 2 weeks to 3 months. CO2 has a residence in the atmosphere ranging from decades to centuries. That is what makes it a forcing agent.

      The natural greenhouse effect totals 33°C (15°C instead of -18°C). Only a small amount of enhancement is neccesary.
      http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html
    • muchachoburacho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@anonym
      Actually landfills are one of the largest producers of methane, which is 20% more effective as a green house gas than CO2.
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@muchachoburacho

      Wrong on both points. Methane is 24.5x (2350% not 20%) more effective as a GHG than CO2. However, global (anthropogenic & natural) methane emissions have a CO2 equivalent less than half of Humanity's annual CO2 emissions.

      Current total methane sources total ~450-500 Tg, being primarily (~70%) anthropogenic.

      Landfills rank 5th (out of 7) in terms of anthropogenic methane producers with ~25 Tg / year.

      500 Tg methane * 24.5x CO2 = 12,250 Tg CO2 equivalent

      Humanity emitted 27,000 Tg of CO2 in 2004 - over twice the CO2 equivalent of all methane sources and 44x that of landfills.

      http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html
      http://www.eia.doe.gov/iea/carbon.html (Table H.1co2)
      =>http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls
    • designer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Global warming is not real.
  • pwallroth, on 11/10/2007, -13/+28Step One - Turn down the Sun.
    Step Two - Build large conveyor belt in atlantic ocean.
    Step Three - Move calender ahead three months.
    • mrbobo34, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Step 4: ???
    • Imus, on 11/10/2007, -28/+14Step 4:

      Whine about Al Gore's energy consumption, stick your fingers in your ears, then bleat repeatedly that humans could never alter the earth's climate.
    • JTtheXIII, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Step 4: make her open the box.
    • dtd00d, on 11/10/2007, -6/+9Step Five: Remember the laws of Conservation of Energy. Nature conserves everything for you.
    • DeflatorMouse, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Step Four - PROFIT!!!
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -8/+21Step Four - whine about what a hypocritical prick Al Gore is for living in a mansion that uses as much electricity in in a week as the average home does in a month while insisting that it's the profligate use of energy that's giving him some reason not to slip gracefully into oblivion that's a serious problem.
    • catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Step Five: Repeat a step that has already been attributed to something.
    • MrOrange49, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Global Warming stole my puppy.
    • dealsdealer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2quick solution >>>>

      STOP FARTING !!!!
    • avoutthere, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Step 6: Plug all of the world's volcanoes
    • vikingcoder, on 11/10/2007, -3/+7Because volcanoes are putting out as much CO2 every year as Humanity does every couple days.
    • slammyd, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3@arpad:
      You need to read the full story on Gore's energy consumption:
      http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382
      Gore pays extra money to get his power from Green Energy sources. Plus, from the article:
      "Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe, she said."

      Whatever the case, however Gore chooses to live doesn't have anything to do with the reality that humans are causing climate change.
  • Auerbeck, on 10/12/2007, -13/+351. Recalibrate your thermometer to read two degrees cooler than it actually is.
    52. Move to the North Pole until you gain an appreciation for a warmer planet.
    • bcsmith2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Auerbeck BLASPHEMER! how dare thee question Al Gore, his sacred propaganda film, or his carbon offsets (sound like Catholic Church circa middle ages to anyone? If so I wanna be Luther damnit, he gets all the chicks).

      Seriously... these are the same people who tried to scare me into recycling when I was 5 (1989) because they estimated that all of the World's rainforests would be gone by the year 2000. Well just in case you've never been to one... they are still there.

      Should we try to be Earth friendly? Yes
      Should we recycle? Yes
      Should we try to reduce carbon dioxide and other harmful emissions? Naw I love the smell of car exhaust in the morning.... sarcasm
      Is the Earth warming? Yes, just as the temperature has changed since the Earth's inception it still is dynamic.
      Are humans responsible? Nope...
      Is the majority of Global Warming talk politically motivated? Yes, on both sides.
      What would Regan do? I dunno but it would work.
      Will there be some catastrophic event in the near future as a result of GW? No, totally a scare tactic (see rain forest myth). Scaring people into doing what you want is one of the oldest manipulation methods around, but attempts may not have the desired result.

      Should we still do the things suggest by Al Gore and others? Hell yeah, he may be full of it on why but they will definitely work to our benefit.

  • gniess, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22This could just as easily be titled, 50 Way to Reduce Pollution or 50 Ways to Reduce your Dependence on Foreign Fossil Fuels.
    • Ignignokt01, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Yeah... considering you can't just literally "STOP GLOBAL WARMING" as this title suggests...
      oh well.
    • mojoe1185, on 10/12/2007, -21/+4050 ways to make you feel that you are better than everyone else.
    • guinness3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1650 ways to save money.
  • SaxxonPike, on 10/12/2007, -11/+46Too bad some of these things require effort. That pretty much turns off about half of the American interest right there...
    • Bobaliki, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Thats exactly the problem, thats why not enough is being done now
    • GodKiller, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Seriously, recycling some paper/cans is not going to save the world. The only effect of recycling is that it makes the people who recycle feel that they are "better" than people who don't.
    • citizen782, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1"Requires effort" or unless there's a check in it...
    • OreosRgood4me, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually Godkiller, we're learning about this in my enviro class right now. Recycling helps reduce tons of fuel emissions, saves money, saves valuable resources (such as oil), and saves ALOT of energy, along with helping preserve biodiversity.
    • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No its not that require effort - its just that there is no incentive to do so in most cases except that sappy feel-good holier-than-thou attitude which many conservationists like to boast about.

      That said I'm trying to limit my energy use solely so we can stop paying the Middle East. That's all that needs to happen to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. They already have 30% inflation and 20% unemployment. It's like another Cold War in which a large nation's economy will collapse. Once they aren't getting as much oil revenue they're screwed.
    • jdh2b, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@ Oreos

      "ALOT of energy"...really is it a whole lot or just a lot? Is it a metric lot or is it closer to a pile? Maybe even bunches of energy.
  • Ngai, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Top 50 Things To Do To Stop Global Warming.... and about only 10 i'll remember...
  • Sirshimin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2I salute you
  • surrealitytl, on 11/10/2007, -20/+2Global warming is one of those government conspiracies!












  • addninja, on 10/12/2007, -12/+101. Your body, when alive, generates a lot of heat -- kill yourself!
    • KyjL, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5That gave me a good hearty laugh. I could use that during finals week.

      I wish I could digg more than once :D
  • growlzor, on 11/10/2007, -10/+7"Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb (cfl)
    CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year."

    Not to mention they look better, are brighter and save you tons of money over time. Honestly this is the only one I would actually do
    • BenZacharia, on 10/12/2007, -13/+14Conventional flouros & CFLs poison the earth with mercury, nice trade off.
    • GreyICE, on 10/12/2007, -12/+9Yes, because obviously that mercury was in outer space before we harvested it and used it in light bulbs. The mercury was already contaminating the earth, its really not that big of a deal, whatever the mythbusters might say.
    • anonym41414, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15That mercury wasn't in the groundwater, dumbass. Using fluorescent bulbs takes mercury out of the rocks (where it doesn't hurt anybody) and puts it into the water (where it does).
    • OreosRgood4me, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yep, we just need to research and develop a way to safely dispose of (or even recycle) those CFLs.
    • aliasmgk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The light bulbs don't inevitably pollute. What pollutes is the idiot human who thinks there isn't a proper way to dispose of the light bulb...or battery.... or motor oil. Three words r-tards: Hazardous Waste Management.
    • joe122370, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3yes, just like the batteries from Hollywood's electric cars. They will have to be disposed of after 5 years and are hazardous waste. But they're "doing the right thing" for now
  • joshua5, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14Small things like this have less of an impact than the value of your vote in a national election. I'm all for battling global warming, but if any real difference is going to be made its going to be through the governments and industry practices. So I think people should focus their attention on getting their governments to take action rather than silly things around the house that do little more than make you feel better.

    After all,
    "Only 13 Percent Of Congressional Republicans Believe In Man-Made Global Warming"
    http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/05/warming-13-percent/
    • OreosRgood4me, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This may be true but surely it doesn't hurt to take these actions, help reduce fuel emissions even a tiny bit, and save money.

      If everyone, or even just a small percentage of our population, read this article and decided to try some of these actions it would actually reduce a significant amount of fuel emissions given off by power plants that burn fossil fuels.
    • joshua5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thats such a load of crock. "If everybody does a little" is a failing ideology because it doesn't understand people. People are lazy. They're going to do these stupid things, think "hey i've done my part" and that will be it. Its better to try and get them to focus their attention on the stuff that matters. If everybody let their representatives know that global warming was a concern for them, then we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with because the laws would reflect the population's concern. But you'd rather have them change a light bulb.
  • jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"38: When it is time for a new car, choose a more fuel efficient vehicle
    You can save 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide every year if your new car gets only 3 miles per gallon more than your current one. You can get up to 60 miles per gallon with a hybrid! You can find information on fuel efficiency on FuelEconomy and on GreenCars websites."

    just 60miles/gallon? wtf?
    the car of my mom already goes 50miles/gallon diesel. (admittedly diesel burns a little "dirtier" than gasoline, but hybrids still are WAY more expensive then the the renault clio of my mom)
    can anyone of you US guys fill me in how much miles/gallon are average in the US?
    • jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2btw, i think my energy balance is pretty good for a western european.
      inside vienna, i walk alot of the distances and when going outside, i use public transportation almost all the time (i don't even own a car). and eventhough i have a heater in my bathroom, i never even used it in the almost 4 years i live here. i don't even know if it even works.
      combined with a media center that has only 2 fans (psu and cpu) to watch movies/tv and play games and do some work, i think i am a little ahead of the mainstream.

      but i am still cooking on metal plates instead of gas. i still travel alot (30 to 120 miles to and back almost each weekend) ... but i am working on improving that.
    • quentinp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I thought diesel tended to burn cleaner (higher temps etc)?
    • sacherjj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Diesel burns more completely, but generally has more particulates than gas combustion. The US finally introduced low sulphur diesel, which may allow companies with great diesel vehicles import more without penalty because of emissions. It is very hard to find a TDI (turbo diesel injection) VW in the US, because their entire fleet has to meet a certain emissions standard. This doesn't take into count the efficiency of emissions per mile when relating to CO2.

      It is hard to say what the average MPG is in the US. Most cars are around 20-30s. There are people driving 50-60 MPG hybrids, but they get balanced out by the single person who buys a Chevy Subdivision for commuting. Or the H2. I personally feel that a good, modern, clean diesel is a much better option than a hybrid, because we don't have to fool ourselves in thinking that manuf. and disposal of the toxic batteries is completely free of energy use and negative consequences. Get a good mix of biodiesel and we help a little more with our foreign fuel dependence as well.
    • ccrook, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, continue using your diesel and you'll reverse global warming. I believe i remember reading that sulfur in the atmosphere actually contributes to global cooling. I'm not kidding.
  • cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7don't fart.....
  • Alisic, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24It says to eat less meat because cows produce methane. That seems like faulty logic. We should eat MORE meat, thus ridding the world of the filthy polluting cows!
    • cinnix, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2I was just going to say that myself, everyone loves a sirloin steak :)

      also..

      "Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath."
      I thought it was meant to go out the other end, which leads to the greater question - do cows fart?
    • sacherjj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I loved the signs in a steak house in Jackson, WY: "Of course we serve vegetarians, what do you think cows are?" "There are 5 cows for every person in Wyoming. We are just trying to even the score."
    • OreosRgood4me, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Actually that means more cows will be raised, it's not like a cow is slaughtered as soon as it is born just for you.

      If you don't eat meat, if will mean the demand for cows will go down. Supply will then go down (basic economics) and less methane will be added to the atmosphere.
    • jercraigs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Cows are not wild animals, if there is a smaller market for them people will breed less of them despite some of the idiotic comments in this thread.

      Ignoring the cow farts argument, from a climate change or energy perspective, the amount of energy that goes into beef production is insane. Grass fed beef is marginally better since its at least taking grass (not people food) and turning it into high grade protein (people food). Grain fed cattle basically takes all the energy you put into growing the grain, losing the part it takes to grow a cow, and getting the same amount of protein. Plus, you are now feeding people food to people food. It is inefficient. The same holds true for most other factory farmed animals. Most livestock is not meant to eat that stuff.
    • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OreosRgood4me, you obviously are not familiar with sarcasm.
    • szembek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jercraigs: If we limited eating beef, wouldn't the eating of pork just increase? What kind of meat do you suggest eating? Don't give me any of that vegan ***** either.
    • jercraigs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1szembek:
      1) Feeding cows grass rather than grain would be a good first step. The main reason this is not done is because grain gets them fatter faster and saves the factory farm companies a $X cents a kilogram.
      2) Reducing total meat consumption would be a good idea. I'm not a vegetarian, but reducing total meat consumption would be a really good idea from an environmental perspective. The average North American consumes a lot more protein than they need. Which type of meat is "better" depends a lot on how it was raised and how it got to your plate.
  • tacklebox, on 11/10/2007, -16/+14#1: Stop the sun from fluctuating temperature
    #2: Be a self-righteous idiot that ignores science and facts and believe in global warming.
    • jcm267, on 11/10/2007, -14/+13U had me at #1...

      Global warming exists. Too bad for the retards on the left that global warming is a cyclical issue that we have next to no control of
    • wrestlingnrj, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5This is some pretty sound and common sense advice, just two problems.
      1. How am I supposed to get all 6 people of my family around in a vehicle without purchasing an SUV.
      2. Termites produce 3 times as much atmospheric CO2 as humans do. (Not much we can do to change that)
  • MrSunshine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Stop keeping your computer switched on over night to download movies.
  • maddla, on 11/10/2007, -5/+21Don't mean to sound like an *****, but population control is the way to go, each human being produces something around a half million pounds of CO2 in a lifetime. (Well that's an American).

    Condoms shouldn't be ***** 16 dollars for a damn box, the health clinic has off-brand condoms most of the time.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Sorry, you do sound like an *****.

      The population bomb didn't explode, a higher percentage of the human race goes to bed with a full belly then at any time in human history and, oh by the way, that occurred while the population was in the process of doubling.

      So maybe that means that all that zero population hysteria, along with being implicitly racist, was just, plain wrong.
    • jercraigs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Well you are right and wrong: Less people only helps if they don't increase their consumption levels, offsetting the reduced population.
    • prajnaseek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not an *****, just misinformed. 20% of the world's population - that'd be us - consumes 80% of the world's resources and produces 60% of the waste. We are off the scale in North America and Europe for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. A family in Nepal of Guatemala produces only a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gases we produce in the "leading industrial nations". The problem is at home. When you look at the figures, you cannot continue to blame the poor, or to avoid responsibility by using the red herring of population.

      The overpopulation statements not only misperceive or misrepresent the facts of the matter, but furthermore strike one as neo-Malthusian: there's not enough, so let them starve. I'm sure you're not saying that, but that is the implication given, and taken, most of the time. We in the affluent 20% of the world's population might find that comforting, perversely, since it alleviates our sense of responsibility both for environmental concerns, as well as for human suffering due to systemic injustice, deep and growing inequality, and grotesque levels of poverty. However, the view is neither based in reality, nor is it conscionable even if it were.

      Yes, population is and will be a major contributing factor to most environmental issues, but any honest look at the numbers shows that it is overconsumption, not overpopulation, that is far and away the primary cause of the problems we face.

      I'd re-think this one. And look at the facts.

      Take a look at per capita energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, for starters. It's basic math once you investigate. The affluent gorge and destroy the planet through overconsumption, then want to blame the poor - "there's too many of them." People who cite overpopulation are either ignorant of the facts, or desire not to look at them (or worse).

      Getting back to reality, here is another article that gives excellent information on how to take responsibility for our part in global warming: greener cars (and alternatives to private autos).

      http://jtoddring.blogspot.com/2007/02/baby-steps-and-big-leaps-greener-cars_07.html

  • JohnPunish, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16don't reproduce. should solve a lot of problems.
    • Ngai, on 10/12/2007, -14/+0your an idiot...
    • spidoman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I'm doing my part! :D


      ...... :(
    • guinness3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Yea lets all stick our head in the oven and be done with it.
    • Scottamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Anyone know how much carbon emissions would be reduced on average if you didn't have a kid? Not counting the kids that kid will have.
  • scncenotcnsnsus, on 10/12/2007, -11/+5A stupid list for stupid people. Put out by those who won't make the sacrifices they want others to make. Walk the walk, Gorebots!
    • specialknfnd, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Why walk when you can take your private jet!
  • dennisbier, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12One thing we can do that isnt mentioned is start to talk to China about their immense damage to the environment. Sure, we have to start with ourselves, but when that leaves out the majority of the world's population then what good does it do?!

    Check out this article which shows that nearly 400,000 pollution related deaths per year exist in China! http://weekendeconomist.blogspot.com/2007/01/24-cough-too-far.html
    • hamstahue, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2USA still produces 45% of the worlds air polution and also the most nuclear waste of any country in the world.
      usa would be a great place to start
    • jercraigs, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3The funny thing is that China is commiting to a lot of environmentall friendly initiatives that Canada and the US are hesitating on.
  • Kakkun, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Will turning on the air conditioner on it's coldest setting full blast help?
    • MasterSmatty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@Kakkun

      YES!!!!
    • guinness3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4No No that would create global cooling which would be much worse!
  • pangea, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Buy less. The product you purchase creates so much waste when the materials are being harvested, processed, transported and sold.
    I like that it put a great emphasis on carpooling and flying less. Many North Americans believe it would be impossible to live without a car. It's just more difficult and a little less convenient. Most major cities in the US have mass transportation. Many cities in Europe are easy to travel by foot or bicycle. Another option would be to move somewhere that didn't allow cars:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_carfree_places

    The sad part is that it'll take more than putting a lid on boiling water. It takes a paradigm shift of our global lifestyle to change our effect on the globe. Sadly a "top 50 things to do" list on Digg probably won't change enough minds. But every little bit hurts less!
    • clclark33, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Does stealing music and movies via torrent help out too!? ;)
    • bozack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@clclark

      probably, you can't recycle cd's :-P

      pirate music - save the environment!!
  • etechonline2002, on 11/10/2007, -13/+3F@cken tree huggers
  • AceTracer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I live in Portland. Our emissions are actually going down, not up.
  • deathhand, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yeah and GE dumped 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the Hudson river.

    But for some reason people tell me to re-use the plastic bags at grocery stores, go figure.

    figurellies!
  • MasterSmatty, on 11/10/2007, -17/+26Repost: Human created global warming is BS. Consensus is all it has going for it. I've read many posts on digg stating that scientists who don't agree or disagree with the concept are "afraid of the masses". Really?

    To understand that it is fashionable to align yourself with global warming, "going carbon neutral" and reducing your carbon footprint one needs look no further than best selling DVDs, celebrities shooting off their mouth about the changes everyone needs to make to do their part and shows devoted entirely to climate change.((and the 10,000 daily global warming related posts on digg)) (some of the hosts of these shows are calling for climatologists that are "global warming deniers"(sounds a lot like holocaust deniers doesn't it? classy) to be stripped of their licenses. There are also government grants(free money) to study global warming but the money is much harder to attain if you are an avowed skeptic. Now there are some incentives to definitely be on the agree side.

    However, no one has truly proven that global warming(as defined by the entire planet rising in temperature) is actually occurring.(though I believe it is, if slightly) Though it has been said enough that it has been accepted as scientific fact. If we accept that notion we have to move on to the next step. What is causing the planet to warm? The popular answer is man made carbon emissions. This takes an even greater leap of >faith< as their is little to no evidence to support this. It has been proven that never before have carbon emissions been related to heating cycles in the atmosphere(volcanoes, cow flatulence ;) ). Heating and cooling slices have existed for as long as the earth has been here where is the support that what has happened over and over isn't just happening again?

    Pacts like Kyoto treaty which would accomplish virtually nothing in terms of global warming but would lay the brakes on technology and industry are cited as necessities to save us all. But when those same terms are applied to the nations of china and India they are seen as unfair as it would not give them a chance to catch up economically. What the hell do economies matter if not signing up for these treaties means doom for us all?

    It is interesting that the touted global warming solutions are ever present political and environmental wish list of those people most people are now shouting the loudest. Stop deforestation, raise taxes to help with the cost of repairing the present damage, create new taxes to curb further.

    It should also be noted that many of the same groups (public and private) and individuals who now hold "the end is nigh" banners of global warming are the same people who brought you the global cooling panic 70's and the more popular overpopulation hype(accompanied by the Club of Rome) that would bring about the mass starvation's of the 80's...none of which occur ed obviously. Perhaps these people have just realized that creating a timeline that outlives them is the only realistic chance they have of manipulating the masses for their own gain.
    • ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -17/+8Do you have at least 1 reputable source?
    • jacenat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5you may (because, i really can tell if money for sceptic studies is virtually not availible) be right with stating that reducing co² emissions may not help a possible global warming issue.
      still the argument to NOT waste ressources and to use them to the full extent possible is a good idea in general.

      when programming, you too look for sollutions that take as little as possible cpu time/memory footprint/bus load/whatever as possible, no? because if you would advise your customer to just by better hardware, you will end up beeing replaced by a uneducated "code-monkey" that patches together standard sollutions that then run on powerful hardware. the costs CAN be the same for the client, but you are rid of your work.

      and by thinking this way, you have done the first step in using ressources wisely. and after all, its all about this matter. global warming is just the "scare tactics" for the people that need an artificial drive because they can't grasp the fundamental statements of thermodynamics and biology.
    • blogagog, on 10/12/2007, -8/+25"Do you have at least 1 reputable source?"

      Here are 17,200 of them: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
      Here's some of the science: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/01/look-at-global-warming.html
      Here's an MIT professor: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

      The list is very long, but you probably won't hear from them since dissent is crushed on Digg.
    • dfuess, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Check the image at http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg and you will see that the Earth average temperature has varied from 12C to 22C many times over the past 520 million years. I'm rather certain we were not responsible for them. Nor are we for this one. Thank you for bringing sanity to all these chicken littles running around in Gore costumes.
    • arpad, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jacenet wrote:

      > when programming, you too look for sollutions that take as little
      > as possible cpu time/memory footprint/bus load/whatever as possible, no?

      No. I look for the solution that makes the most sense in the given situation. If you're coding for an embedded system with severe restraints on available power you code to save power. If the severe restraints are on budget then I code to save the time of the people involved in creating the system.

      Next time an ambulance goes shrieking by you might want to reflect on when it is and isn't appropriate to put energy efficiency at the top of the priority list.
    • CTRaider, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7@jacenat
      "still the argument to NOT waste resources"

      NO, that is NOT the argument. The argument is "There is Global Warming, humans are to blame". PERIOD.

      We are being told to reduce our use of resources because that is one way we are creating the problem.

      If this was a campaign to reduce use of resources because they are in limited supply that would be a different argument.
    • William01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The Oregon Petition is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is a petition that can be signed by anyone with a college degree. Many of the names have been found to be completely fraudulent. Very few are actual climate scientists of any kind.

      "Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition�one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers--a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community."
      http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

      Here are eleven professional scientists actually working in the field of climate science:
      http://www.realclimate.org/
    • slammyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ blogagog:
      Piggy-backing on William01's comment, here is another article discrediting that study from OISM:
      http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

      Please know your sources.
  • goofsterfunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2STOP, DROP AND ROLL!
    • MasterSmatty, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@jacenat
      "still the argument to NOT waste ressources and to use them to the full extent possible is a good idea in general."
      I agree with you 100% on this point. Not only will I be using the resources that I have purchased(gasoline, etc.) more efficiently and therefore saving myself money but I will also keep the price down by demanding less of it in the future(since I'm using less of it now) plus I will be creating less pollution.

      However, I believe it is immoral for the government to make demands on my purchasing habits, the production means of businesses and the power to raise taxes over an issue like this, especially when they have cried wolf so many times in the past.

      "and after all, its all about this matter. global warming is just the "scare tactics" for the people that need an artificial drive because they can't grasp the fundamental statements of thermodynamics and biology."

      I am sure that I do not understand what you have said. Are you saying that you believe global warming is a lie used to bring people around to a general(and eco-conscious I assume) point of view the finer points of which they are incapable of otherwise understanding?
  • erll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My impression is that #41 (Fly less) should be #1. It's important to be intelligent and know what makes the biggest differences.

    Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter reported on studying a Swedish family's (2 adults, 2 children) greenhouse emissions. Half the family's emissions were from one holiday trip to Thailand (7 tons), followed by 5 tons for food (mainly for transportation of food). These together made up 12 tons of the total 15 tons. Even heating for their apartment in our cold climate was negligible compared to the other emissions.

    The lesson from this data is that flying less and avoiding food that has been flown fresh (in favor of locally produced, or food shipped by sea) are the most important saving factors.

    Of course, this is in Stockholm, where we have a good public transport infrastructure. Driving must be a much bigger source in the U.S. Figure it out yourself, 2.6 kg CO2 for 1 liter of gasoline (=9.8 kg / gallon).

    I've heard that a sustainable level of global CO2 emissions is about 1 ton / person & year.

    References:
    In Swedish, Newspaper article about family's greenhouse gas emissions:
    http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=2708&a=597305

    Bar chart of the family's CO2 emissions. In Swedish, but the columns are from left:
    * Holidays/recreation (6757 kg CO2)
    * food (4975 kg CO2)
    * furniture/household articles (968 kg CO2)
    * housing (805 kg CO2)
    * clothes/shoes (681 kg CO2)
    * consumables (358 kg CO2)
    * household services (88 kg CO2)
    * transports (85 kg CO2)
    * health/hospital care (31 kg CO2)

    http://www.dn.se/DNet/road/Classic/article/12/jsp/flframeset.jsp?a=597308&d=2708&redirectTo=/content/1/c6/59/73/08/familjslapp.swf&mediaType=flash&mediaFile=familjslapp.swf
  • KMye, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2These were actually more reasonable than I expected, and good for the environment in general and living in high pop density areas. But if we tried to grow all our corn and soybeans organically, the world would starve. Less consumers...maybe it would save 580 b tons of emissions, when I think about it.
    • jercraigs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Really? We'd all starve by having more food because we aren't feeding a buttload of grains to animals anymore? The idea that we cannot achieve the same yields of crops without using a ton of pesticides is BS. The only reason it "makes sense" now is because pesticides and fossil fuels are artificially cheap.
  • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"51) Say that Global Warming doesn't exist / people have no control of it, to excuse your social inertia."

    I actually think that last one -if ever existed- would only grab the attention of the average American. The other 50 things to do are flower-logic anyways ..... NOT
  • sunburnt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"7. Wrap your water heater in an insulation blanket. You’ll save 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide a year with this simple action. You can save another 550 pounds per year by setting the thermostat no higher than 50°C.
    "
    A note should be made that doing this may create a fire hazard. The safest way to do this is to buy an efficient water heater which already has insulation designed not to be a fire hazard, but recommending this would make it a 49-point list because item 5 already covers more efficient appliances. Failing that, The Google is your friend! Read DIY articles like this one:

    http://www.creativehomeowner.com/index.php?pane=project&projectid=chplm051
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There is a significant difference between a wool / cotton / etc... blanket and an insulation blanket. It is incredibly ironic that you caution against a "fire hazard" while linking to a site that describes how to properly install one.
  • samdotorg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13Where's my "Top 50 Things To Do To Stop ManBearPig" website?!?
    • bozack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0right next to the monkeyfishfrog site
  • ralphie81, on 10/12/2007, -9/+651. Put aluminum foil around the earth
    52. Don't let Al Gore eat so much...hmm...put aluminum foil around Al Gore?
  • blogagog, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Why do Global Warming doctrineers hate eskimos so much that they want them to remain cold?
  • nacharya, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"Eat less meat.
    Methane is the second most significant greenhouse gas and cows are one of the greatest methane emitters. Their grassy diet and multiple stomachs cause them to produce methane, which they exhale with every breath."

    is that not an argument to eat more meat? its a shame im Hindu i wanted to help out on that one, being a veggie and all!
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Hooray for willful ignorance.

      Eating more meat shows demand for more meat to be produced.
      More demand for meat means more cattle raised.
      More cattle raised means more enteric fermentation (big words meaning cow farts).

      It works the same in reverse.
  • blogagog, on 10/12/2007, -10/+953. Don't own a car or ride a bike, CO2 is created during the production of these things.
    54. Don't use mass transit, they spew out CO2 as well.
    55. Harvest/kill your own food to lower the CO2 generated in transportation of food to the supermarket.
    56. Wear the skins of the animals you kill for food. Clothing production generates CO2.
    57. Ground all aircraft forever.
    58. Disconnect electricity from your house.
    59. Don't exhale or pass wind as much. Try to bring your breathing rate down to 1 inhale/exhale per minute or two.
    60. Get your water from a well or a local river/lake to end the wasteful CO2 production involved in purifying water.
    61. Plant weeds all over your yard. They grow faster than other stuff and will suck up some of that evil pollutant known as carbon dioxide.
    62. Don't shower or cook your food.
  • tuzziel, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5Today is -12'C outside, global warming may be somewhere, but is definitely not reaching us here. I secretly wish for global warming. I prey global warming will hit us and came upon us soon. Oh god, let the warmth come.
  • ROYALWITHCHEESE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6just stop driving those big cars
  • anomalya, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1reverse all technology and become Omish!!
  • Elloydo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Hey I'm all for energy efficiency and recycling and being kind to animals and grandparents (by the way, I've been proudly helping my grandparents out by getting them a really good brand of dog food for their dinner at night) but the dear old earth here has been going through warm and cold cycles for a long time now. NEVERTHELESS, I'm for energy efficiency and recycling (which I think I just stated somewhere). But here's my really good idea--consider it my contribution to the Debate--well, you know that duct tape and tranquilizers they carry on the space shuttle in case astronauts go insane and start chasing people through the weightlessness with a sword, well, I think they should consider that for Hollywood environemtalists who use their "green" cars to get to their private jets and then tell us--i.e., the common folk with SUVs--to shape up and drive bicycles.
  • fernandooneda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0stop big cars..

    http://blog.fenon.com.br
  • alain34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Recycle more
    Use http://www.i-recycle.info
    Help us to start in the US....
  • antoniojvr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+951. Stop using private jets (ahem, Mr Gore?)
  • clique, on 11/10/2007, -12/+14The sky is falling the sky is falling - the cry of liberals!

    Wow - if anyone thinks that the earth and it's ecosystem is that fragile that man can affect it either way --> that safest way to guarantee that you minimze your effect on it would be to kill yourself - I'm pretty sure that would work.

    They should make that #1 in the list and do away with the other 50.
    • bozack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2who's digging this guy up? are you all insane?

      i'm pretty sure we could ***** up the earth bad enough to ruin it for humans. we've already ruined it for hundreds of species. check out the rate of extinction over the past 200 years.

      go kill _your_self smug retarded squirrel baby
  • Envx, on 11/10/2007, -6/+4Its funny because nature if at all is the one that causes most of the global warming.
  • thcobbs, on 11/10/2007, -12/+161.) Stop believing in the new religion of global warming.
    • bozack, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12. go buy a hummer with a bucket of sand in the passenger seat. that way you can stick your head in it while you're driving to get your groceries. don't forget the sunny d!
  • mo0nrider, on 11/10/2007, -7/+4Too late 2 stop the global warning...
  • id34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This is a great list.

    http://www.live-earth-concert.com
  • ironpirate, on 11/10/2007, -9/+5Global warming propaganda ! You think if everyone in the world did this that the climate wouldn't change? I forgot those cavemen fought the ice age by building big factories.
  • MadN, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Helter Skelter
    Soylent Green
    Nuclear Winter
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.