What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Meet Antoine: Best Buy Chicago meets Best Buy New York. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - One Chicago employee makes Best Buy’s holiday campaign cut.
86 Comments
- Gadren, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30Meh... it's just making the Capitol building carbon-neutral. Let me know when those in authority actually sacrifice their private jets and then we'll talk.
- thomas, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Good news but the title didn't need to be in all caps.
- thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16My guess is they're going to spend tax payer money on carbon credits and call it a day.
- abitarecatania, on 10/11/2007, -3/+15Carbon neutral what a total scam. Anything to justify new spending, although it is better then invading countries and bring them democracy at the point of a gun.
- catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13It's nice that they are raising awareness, but carbon offseting is just a scam. You can't buy the right to pollute.
- Hergio, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11I bet they scrap the whole using renewal resources idea and just raise taxes enough to cover them purchasing carbon offset credits.
- dabears1218, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9What? Progress from our government? nah...
- thegreatgazoo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10well, they have enough hot air and manure to power 10,000 homes. And that is just the senate :-)
- noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11Wonderful, using our money no doubt. Nevermind that they could pay for it themselves. Such a ***** scam... one day I hope I can scare the gullible people in the world into giving me money.
- elk1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Didn't you read the article, they are also spending our tax payer money on more expensive energy from renewable sources. The sacrifice must be crushing for them.
although I do think it's a good idea to overhall the lighting and heating of the buildings to save energy because that actually saves money in the long term. - arenz003, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8another waste of taxpayers' money. go ahead, digg me down
- psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Oh give the man a break, he's using a telegraph, they don't have lowercase.
- buffalodan, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6its a start. A long way to go, but at least they are on the right track.
- manitoba98xp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3You mean carbon _dioxide_. People rarely exhale poisonous gases.
- DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Key word is "another'
- cair0, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Even if they did expand it to all those in authority, no one would be able to police it anyway.
- YZBot, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3They will probably all give themselves a pat on the back and raise to go with it.
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Congress.
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Bureaucracy?
- JohnGalt01, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4And there would never be any false information located within the hallowed pages of Wikipedia.
- wdoyle0447, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Its like if someone could buy murder-credits. As long as I buy those murder-credits I can kill people. Reality is pollution is polution and murder is murder regardless of these imaginary credits.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3all is lost if people are referring to our REPRESENTATIVES as 'authorities.' Dont you people understand who has the power in this country.
- supermanred, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This story is old, there hasnt been a carbon-based life form in the US congress in years!
- spyd3rweb, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"A credit gives the owner the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide." -- The government doesnt grant rights to people in this country, you are born with them. So yes this is a scam.
- andyd273, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think he means that this whole global warming thing is practically becoming a religion, and I can see his point.
Anyone that believes in man made global warming has to:
A. Believe in something that is unseen and not readably provable using scientific methods. (faith)
B. Listen only to those that teach global warming and denounce all others. (dogma)
C. Trust that those that are preaching it are really telling you the truth and not just in it for their own gain.
And I know that there is science involved, its just that the evidence can cut both ways, and they only listen to the way that suits them, and not looking for other explanations.
That being said, any business that polutes should be heavily fined, and their management should go to jail. - DivisibleByZero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I guess they can't eat any organic vegetables either.
- friday1970, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Carbon Neutral = Buy enough carbon "offsets" to allow you to pollute the planet as much as you want to.
Somebody is getting really rich off of this scam, and I doubt that ex VP is donating those riches back to the poor either. - mal1964, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The inaccurate/ misleading title sold the story, I'm not sure what to think about that.
- LoveWidescreen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Buried because someone needs to go out and buy a new keyboard. Apparently, his Caps Lock is jammed.
- Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Carbon Neutral....does this mean they'll shut their dumb mouths and quit spewing Carbon Monoxide all over the place?
- schwit, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3More of congress doing there usual grandstanding. As if carbon has anything to do with global warming.
This reminds me of the french fries/freedom fries joke a few years ago. - aresef, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2But all that hot air is still a pollutant.
- infra172, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4What happened to the separation of church and state?
Global warming is caused by fluctuations in solar weather. Anybody who says otherwise is a religious fanatic. - wdoyle0447, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1So Gore is a religious fanatic? Hardly. He is a environmental propagandist.
- DrDragun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I can imagine Harry Reid in a pedal-powered hanglider truckin from Cali to DC, copilot Nany Pelosi brings the granola trail mix for fuel.
- veruus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2"Carbon Neutral" - It's the new "free range," "organic," "fair trade" feelgood douchebaggery that we'll have to hear for the next 5-8 years until it becomes [more] diluted and meaningless. Huzzah!
- wdoyle0447, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3She's exempt from the environmental restraints her and her cronies want to force on us. Political elite are always exempt from the model they impose us to live by. Lets keep ourselves in reality. Same with Gore he should be flying commercial, always.... Stop the hypocrisy.
- simplejoe79, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Easy to say
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Buried as moronic political theater.....
- roamzero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2In this day and age I dont understand why congressmen/women need to fly to DC to meet. Why not do a video conference and keep the politicians in their own states?
- psygnisfive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Regress.
Dictionary.com. Use it. - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Did you know that a plant can only use so much CO2? Once it has its fill of CO2 it closes the stomata on its leaves. Extra CO2 saturation does nothing for the plant except keep it from opening the holes on its leaves. This is important because when those holes are open the plant releases water vapor. Water vapor, even though it is a greenhouse gas, is important because it creates rain. If you were to keep upping the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere your would find plants would do well but humans would have less rain. This concerns me because I am a human.
- rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Because social networking is difficult over the phone.
- wvernon1981, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Should put this at the top of the Capitol Building in bold neon letters:
Congress: Finding New Ways to Waste YOUR Money =) - Splitt3rxx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2holy ***** that is going to cost a fortune.
- magicjava, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's probably the "thousands of scientists" who are wrong, as we've had ice ages when CO2 was 10 and 8 times higher than today's levels.
- kh99, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0leszek: I agree - it's downright depressing to see so many people who believe that non-scientists cherry-picking suspect data and non peer-reviewed papers can "disprove" a theory (AGW) they don't even understand in the first place. Look at the three replies above - 1) info is false merely because it's Wikipedia, 2) disagrees with word choice therefore proves it's a scam, 3) other industries have scams, therefore this is also a scam. But of course I'm wasting my time pointing this out because none of them can even understand why this is so depressing.
- XxERMxX, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0In the OP's defense the actual article is also in caps.
He just copy and pasted the headline.
Can't complain. - kh99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Hmmm...either thousands of scientists are so ignorant that they never thought of that, or there's something *you* don't understand. Hmmm....
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is