digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at inhabitat.com

World Wildlife Fund Builds Carbon Neutral Headquarters

inhabitat.com — The World Wildlife Fund has been making huge waves in the environmental movement since it was established five decades ago, and is now taking its mission yet another step further by applying it to architecture.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 6, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

29 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • chessthecat, on 06/06/2009, -6/+18What does the World Wrestling Federation care about carbon?
  • Greg2k, on 06/06/2009, -0/+9Made carnivores into proud carnivores.
  • sdcarter, on 06/06/2009, -0/+7Thrown red paint on people wearing fake fur.
  • GeorgeWKush, on 06/06/2009, -4/+9Not having a headquarters would be carbon neutral.
  • Nintendesert, on 06/06/2009, -0/+4No, private helicopters.
  • wolfpack727, on 06/06/2009, -1/+5killed 99% of the animals it saved in the last year and pocketed all the money that it received for them. And that too without any uproar-thats something to admire.
  • datastorageguy, on 06/06/2009, -2/+6Waste of time and effort on nothing more than a social and political fad.
  • cplusplus, on 06/06/2009, -0/+4Looks like the building is in the middle of the woods. How do workers get there? car?
  • Cl1mh4224rd, on 06/06/2009, -0/+3http://www.gunaxin.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ ...
  • inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2Carbon chairs, carbon steel cages, alot of use for carbon!
  • diggforworld, on 06/06/2009, -2/+4Dugg for awesome comment.
  • nroose, on 06/06/2009, -1/+3Yeah. Seems like they would have less impact if they rented office space in a large office building near public transportation. Density is the key to reducing impact.
  • BoredDigger, on 06/06/2009, -3/+5And what has PETA done?
  • MicrosoftBob, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=sear ...
  • askantik, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2You don't need batteries on all solar technologies. Glass and steel are already easily made and easily recyclable. Not to mention that solar panels have relatively zero moving parts and therefore are very reliable. (i.e. they have long lifespans).
  • raza7370, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2wow..............nice houm pic............
  • askantik, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1They revamped a building that already existed, if you read the article.
  • askantik, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1Why are you guys talking about PETA? It seems people not in PETA are just as retarded often times as the people in PETA. After all, folks like you's criticism is always that they never STFU.

    /end rant by a vegan who hates PETA just as much as you, but likewise hates people being dumb.
  • Greg2k, on 06/06/2009, -2/+3They probably just live there. After all, they're hippies.
  • wolfpack727, on 06/06/2009, -1/+1you do have a valid point but see it this way-you can never build or make or construct anything without changing, altering or even destroying something you already have. The term is just a fancy name to show the product is most environmentally friendly and also that it has little footprint.
    also the resources it needs it can self generate-which is a big thing.
  • askantik, on 06/07/2009, -1/+1As would you not having a computer. But, newsflash... we have to use SOME resources in order to get ***** done.
  • mattearle, on 06/06/2009, -3/+3Looks expensive. Aren't they supposed to be a charity? How can they justify spending charity dollars like that?
  • FLUX, on 06/06/2009, -5/+4yea they got all my respect with that fake Polar bear commercial about them drowning in the arctic with the pic of one sitting on a small chunk of ice.

    why not spend some of that cash there scamming off idiots on protecting the animals instead of a stupid building
  • ferrule, on 06/07/2009, -1/+0It seems that they have done a very good and practical job of utilizing local building materials however solar is just such a bad idea.

    The energy expended by creating the glass, steel, and batteries is almost unrecoupable in the lifespan of a solar array.
  • partrow, on 06/06/2009, -3/+1Carbon neutral?
  • Greg2k, on 06/06/2009, -3/+1WWF!
  • MatthewDuke, on 06/06/2009, -9/+6What about the carbon used to make the construction materials (beside river mud), solar panels, water pipes, etc.; the carbon for the worker's trucks to get to the building, the carbon for the worker's food, etc., etc. I hate the term "carbon neutral" because it just depends on where you draw the line for your carbon use.
  • thesmartpenguin, on 06/06/2009, -10/+5and? Companies like the Shaklee Corporation did this years ago. WWF is pretty behind on the times.
  • 2matrix, on 06/06/2009, -11/+6And Al Gore places his finger to the side of the mouth and proclaims: 'Another 1 million dollars suckers'

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...