Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Yahoo Puts Muscle Into Climate Campaign
news.com.com — Yahoo aims to wield its power as the biggest U.S. Internet media company to encourage millions of consumers to take basic steps to help the environment as part of its corporate push to confront global warming.
geekorati- 281 diggs
- digg it
- geekorati, on 10/11/2007, -4/+7the yahoo site: http://green.yahoo.com/
- jeremy66158, on 10/11/2007, -4/+5This site is not enough. There are many ways to act and this issue is more important that volunteerism and individuality. It needs our pooled resources to stop a catastrophe. Yahoo is just doing their job of making money. Green gets commodified is the main story in yahoo setting up this site. The oil industry's strangle hold on our government is the major issue to solve.
- tinker123, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5The Consumers Guide To Effective Environmental Choices:
Practical Advice From The Union Of Concerned Scientists
by Michael Brower, PH.D. and Warren Leon, PH.D.
ISBN:0-609-80281-X
( from the back cover )
“Paper or plastic? Bus or car? Old house or new? Cloth diapers or disposables? Some choices have a huge impact on the environment; others are of negligible importance. To those of us who care about our quality of life and what is happening to the earth, this is a vastly important issue. In these pages, the Union of Concerned Scientists help inform consumers about everyday decisions that significantly affect the environment. For example, a few major decisions such as the choice of a house or vehicle have such a disproportionately large affect on the environment that minor environmental infractions shrink by comparison. This book identifies the 4 Most Significant Consumer Related Environmental Problems, 7 Most Damaging Categories, 11 Priority Actions, and 7 Rules for Responsible Consumption”. Learn what you can do to have a truly significant impact on our world”
( from page 85 )
PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR AMERICAN CONSUMERS:
Transportation:
1. Choose a place to live that reduces the need to drive.
2. Think twice before purchasing another car.
3. Choose a fuel efficient, low polluting car.
4. Set concrete goals for reducing your travel.
5. Whenever practical, walk, bicycle, or take public transportation
Food:
6. Eat less meat.
7. Buy certified organic produce.
Household Operations:
8. Choose your home carefully.
9. Reduce the environmental costs of heating and hot water.
10. Install efficient lighting and appliances.
11. Choose an electricity supplier offering renewable energy. - tracker2xl, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2YAHOO is SO 1999
- civperc, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I seriously cannot remember the last time I purposely visited or even accidentally landed on any Yahoo page.
- DocHoliday22, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Yahoo doesn't bother to listen to it's userbase, it's just feeds Donald Fat Ass Trumps fat pockets. Google on the other hand actually listens to its userbase and does stuff about it. Long Live Google.
- srodolff, on 10/11/2007, -12/+5Well, Yahoo has certainly lost a lot of respect from me.
NOTHING, and let me repeat, NOTHING that any American can do can effect global warming.
Global warming is a planetary weather cycle that has occurred LONG before technology was around.
It even effects planets with that are uninhabited.- victorycig, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm still surprised people believe humans don't cause global warming. There are multitudes of studies and model simulations that demonstrate the effects humans have had on our climate. We are undeniably warming our planet.
And yes, everybody can make a difference, even if it is a small one. For starters, try to avoid flying more than you need to--the carbon you produce just by flying once or twice a year can equal all the rest of the carbon you produce with your car, and heating & cooling your home.
Here's an example of how one American family tried to cut their carbon emissions:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9979875 - OneHine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8@victorycig
You're dealing with people who think that the Earth is 6000 years old. It's unsurprising that they would deny yet another piece of science using the same tactics of cherry-picking data. - thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Hahahaha............
Undeniably... because some computer model says so?
Computer models reflect the bias of the person creating them. I'm not saying that the scientists consciously tweaked their models.... but if you go about using a computer model that can show global warming.... you end up with a model that shows global warming.
I've yet to see a computer model that can accurately predict next weeks weather.... much less the GLOBAL CLIMATE of the earth.
And no, I don't believe the earth is only 6000 years old... - Stevethegreat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@srodolff: Or according to 90% of scientists, US can do EVERYTHING, I repeat EVERYTHING -ok most of it to be honest- if it cuts down its emissions, of course this would not happen and the rest of the world would suffer as a result. China should do so too and Europe should actually make a step more than just talks but if the primary polluter would not act I don't think anyone can tell China to act, they can as well give the finger and for a reason but if USA step down from being the emission king then China would receive great pressure..
- spyd3rweb, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2@victorycig: Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. and it makes up something like 0.5% of the atmosphere. And some carbon tax isnt going to save the earth either. Why dont you stop breathing and reduce carbon emissions.
Watch this too: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle
- victorycig, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm still surprised people believe humans don't cause global warming. There are multitudes of studies and model simulations that demonstrate the effects humans have had on our climate. We are undeniably warming our planet.
- DetroitAdam, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2Before Yahoo, and back in the 70's folks were talking about climate change in Newsweek magazine and other places. Global Cooling and a pending Ice Age was the concern. The Climate Change agenda is nothing but a global tax to fatten the pockets of elites- yahoo is just trying to push it like most main stream media. Be friendly to the earth but don't ever think a tax or government/UN force is the way to solve things that are natural. We can't invade volcanoes or China for that matter.
Peace from Detroit,
A- victorycig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3No, we can't invade volcanoes--we can't stop natural planetary heating--but we can reduce the amount of carbon we produce. International agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, and more recent carbon reduction goals announced by the European Union are steps in the right direction.
A little thought experiment:
Today, we can't imagine invading a country because it produces too much carbon. But imagine the possibility that 50 years from now, sea levels and temperatures have risen, and human-influenced global warming is widely accepted as a fact by the global community. Under those circumstances, would the UN or NATO be willing to wage war against a large industrialized nation (like the US or China) that refuses to reduce its carbon production? If ever there was a threat to the global community, climate change is it. - LordSalisbury, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I understand where you are coming from, but step back for a moment.
The people who sold most of us that war without justifying their claims, are the same people that are encouraging this idea, and they are doing it a very similar way.
There was some passive skepticism for a little while, but after that it was just accepted that isolated bits of info like the hottest days in the most recent 100 year period occurred during the last 10 years. However the biggest thing that every one keeps insisting is that 99% of scientists in this area agree about the idea of global warming. I am studying physics right now, and while I'm still an undergraduate, I know enough to know that you NEVER get complete acceptance of ANY theory as quickly as global warming has supposedly come to be accepted. Experimental physicists are still doing experiments to try to support Ernestine's relativity theory because they think some areas are vulnerable to alternative theory explanations.
Look around at ANY other field of research, you will NEVER find 99% support for a theory at the forefront. Plus, the fact that researchers and their schools get a lot more government money if they do research that supports what the government would like to hear, doesn't exactly permit a completely open minded environment. - DetroitAdam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Don't get me wrong here, I know global warming is real and I love the environment and I most certainly do what I can at all possible times to protect my home(our earth.) I quarrel with how this is being pushed and the lack of debate. We should honestly do everything we can individually to help our Mother Earth and spread the word far and wide but we should not blindly accept the propaganda being pushed by the UN or the BBC or what the major media outlets consider worthy of public consumption. I remember back in early 2006, some commentator on the BBC announced as if it were fact(and apparently it was) that 2007 would be the year climate change is accepted- excellent prediction! When people are bashed for simply looking into inconvenient truths that don't hit us right away through movies or media propaganda outlets, something tells me, personally, there is an agenda. China will be exempt no matter the pressure, there's too much money to be made from slave labor and they are very powerful as a nation. Who will prosper will most likely be those chosen by the "leaders" and power brokers of the EU, US, China, Russia, etc. There may very well be a billion people displaced and WW5 for that matter but don't think for a minute Exxon Mobile won't be in on the Climate Change boom either, they are, and will profit nicely. Taxing, or integrating into some kind of false global economy, or even encouraging hindrances upon the common man will result in more war and displacement even if the seas swamp half of the planet. When elites do things like this independent of the people's will and trust, it will ultimately result in failure in both temperature reduction and the control mechanism that it is. The same people you see talking tough about terror, Iran, restrictions on liberty, etc. are the people talking tough about Climate Change. It's the perfect merger for power hungry humans- The War on Terror and the War on Global Warming- Add Bird Flu into the mix and you have yourself enslavement. Believe it now or in ten years, but believe it. This was written in about thirty seconds so sorry if an extra comma or two appears.
Peace to you and Peace to this earth,
Adam from Detroit - vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0@LordSalisbury
How old do you think the theory of anthropogenic global warming is?
Here's a hint: It is older than AIT.
> Ernestine's relativity theory
Don't you mean Einstein? That's a rather interesting mistake for a physics undergrad to make.
- victorycig, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3No, we can't invade volcanoes--we can't stop natural planetary heating--but we can reduce the amount of carbon we produce. International agreements like the Kyoto Protocol, and more recent carbon reduction goals announced by the European Union are steps in the right direction.
- mkw87, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4srodolff - you're an idiot. What you say about global warming may or may not be true, but thats not the point. I don't care how Yahoo puts a spin on things, if they are encouraging taking care of the place we live, I support it. What is the point in giving them less respect?
- sodomojo533, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Man Mad Global Warming is a religion. Bye the way I am an atheist I think the universe is 11 billion years old.
- OneHine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Funny, you act exactly like every young-Earth creationist I know, right down to dishonestly claiming that the thing you're opposing is a religion.
- vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Ignorance knows no bounds.
Why refer to "man made" when the descriptive term used in the scientific community is anthropogenic?
Have you ever seen a scientific journal, much less read a research report?
- thcobbs, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Hrrrm... and how much electricity is used by Yahoo? How much it is from "green" sources... and not the carbon-credit scam.
- LordSalisbury, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Yahoo has no business saying anything to it's users. It's users say what they want, Yahoo gets it, that's the end of it's usefulness. What is with the collecting of popular networking and information sites?
Google bought YouTube (eventhough it already had Google Video). Rupert Murdock (owner of FOX and thousands of local news sources, television and print) just bought PhotoBucket and even bought MYSPACE! Then myspace suddenly started censoring under the guise of combatting phishing, which was true but it went far beyond that.
Stopping phishing = fighting a disruptive entity that looks just like undisruptive entities by letting those in charge decide which ones are bad. That sounds kind of familiar. I almost sounds like myspace is starting a "War on Spamism". Unfortunately for myspace users, you can't do that in a broad sweeping way, as is being done, without sweeping away a lot of of legitimate things. It's especially interruptive when a topic has an explosion of popularity. For example, a lot of people were suspended from being able to post abut Ron Paul for a while after the GOP debate, because myspace somehow determined it should block posting about Ron Paul.
IF YOU OWN A SOCIAL NETWORK, DON'T SELL IT TO FREAKIN' CORPORATIONS WITH CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. You're just putting what you've created at risk. - bbass74, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I'm all for taking care of our planet and finding ways to release ourselves of using fossil fuels such as oil and coal but to scare people into buying and replacing products actually does as much harm. Going out and replacing products such as cars and refrigerators and other products to make your home more "green" friendly works against you. How do you think those products get made?? Manufacturers who put out CO2. How do those products get to the store?? Trucks, that put out CO2.
So telling me I need to buy new products to live a "greener" life is completely senseless. How about using less water, driving less, using public transportation, recycling, use less lighting in your house. If you're buying a home, get what you need, not a 4,000 square foot mansion if there's only 2 of you (cough-cough, AlGore). These types of decision making do not require buying more products thus creating more CO2, not eliminating it.- OneHine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Few people are tossing out that new fridge they got last Christmas for an energy-efficient one. Rather, when the old fridge is failing and it's time to get a new one, an energy-efficient fridge is the way to go. It still has to be manufactured and transported, of course, but so would an inefficient fridge.
- bbass74, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0"Few people are tossing out that new fridge they got last Christmas for an energy-efficient one"
That's an assumption. Why do you think prices for used SUVs have dropped considerably and sales of hybrids and diesel vehicles are up. It's not because people want to drive them. People are really believing the crap that is spoon fed to them about global warming and that we're the cause of it. If people would just think about it and do their own research instead of taking what they saw on CNN or the Today show, they would see that they don't have to run out and buy that hybrid.
- LordSalisbury, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Yahoo has no business saying anything to it's users. It's users say what they want, Yahoo gets it, that's the end of it's usefulness. What is with the collecting of popular networking and information sites?
Google bought YouTube (eventhough it already had Google Video). Rupert Murdock (owner of FOX and thousands of local news sources, television and print) just bought PhotoBucket and even bought MYSPACE! Then myspace suddenly started censoring under the guise of combatting phishing, which was true but it went far beyond that.
Stopping phishing = fighting a disruptive entity that looks just like undisruptive entities by letting those in charge decide which ones are bad. That sounds kind of familiar. I almost sounds like myspace is starting a "War on Spamism". Unfortunately for myspace users, you can't do that in a broad sweeping way, as is being done, without sweeping away a lot of of legitimate things. It's especially interruptive when a topic has an explosion of popularity. For example, a lot of people were suspended from being able to post abut Ron Paul for a while after the GOP debate, because myspace somehow determined it should block posting about Ron Paul.
IF YOU OWN A SOCIAL NETWORK, DON'T SELL IT TO FREAKIN' CORPORATIONS WITH CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. You're just putting what you've created at risk. - Zola1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1hope this could be of some value contribution
http://www.designerplanet.org/?p=248 - magicjava, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1SHORT ATTENTION SPAN VERSION: DO NOT BUY COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS
I feel it's very important to warn people these "green" bulbs contain mercury which will end up in landfills throughout the country if we make the switch to them. In addition to filling our landfills with mercury, if the bulbs break you will be exposed to the mercury they contain.
HEALTH EFFECTS OF MERCURY
---------------------------------------------------
Here is a quote from a report by the National Institute of Health on the effects of Mercury:
Quote - "Exposures to very small amounts of these compounds can result in devastating neurological damage and death. For fetuses, infants and children, the primary health effects of mercury are on neurological development. Even low levels of mercury exposure such as result from mother's consumption methylmercury in dietary sources can adversely affect the brain and nervous system. Impacts on memory, attention, language and other skills have been found in children exposed to moderate levels in the womb."
Source : - http://orf.od.nih.gov/Environmental+Protection/Mercury+Free/MercuryHealthHazards.htm
Here are some of the problems we're having with mercury now. Switching to CFLs will only make it worse.
* 32% of lakes and 20% of rivers do not meet water quality standards
* 48 states have fish health advisories
* 1 in 6 women of childbearing age have unsafe levels
* 300,000 – 600,000 children born each year with neurological problems
Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/mpaenvironment/pages/projects/sum2005/MercuryPresentation8-15.pdf
Also, putting mercury into landfills actually makes the mercury even worse and compounds the problem even more. For info on this see: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010707/fob1.asp
MERCURY AND POWER GENERATION
-----------------------------------------------------------
Some folks will make the claim that using normal bulbs produces more mercury than these bulbs containing mercury. This claim is based on the assumption that all power comes from coal, which is not true, as shown in this quote from the EPA:
Quote - "Please note that a major limitation of EPA’s estimate of mercury emissions
savings is that we assume a direct relationship between energy saved from using T8 lamps and a reduction
in coal-fired electricity for all types of utility boilers; that is, the Agency assumes that, as the demand for
energy decreases, there would be a corresponding decrease in coal-fired electricity for all utilities and
regions of the country. Yet, lamp manufacturers and utilities have indicated that, for many parts of the
country, the marginal demand for electricity during business hours would be satisfied by gas and oil units,
not necessarily coal-fired units. For such regions, a decrease in energy demand would not necessarily result
in a decrease in coal-fired electricity. This issue has not been resolved in the analysis."
Source: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/merc-emi/merc-pgs/emmrpt.pdf
Also note that the EPA's Clean Air Mercury Rule will reduce mercury emissions from coal power plants by 70% by the year 2018. This is a much better solution than the "green" idea of dumping mercury into landfills all over the country.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/control_emissions/index.htm
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/pollutioncontrols/overview_mercurycontrols.html
Summing it up, here are the numbers on mercury for CFLs and normal bulbs:
Based on 100% Coal (used by the EPA)
CFLs: 6.4 milligrams of mercury
Incandescent: 10 milligrams of mercury
Based on 50% Coal (what America actually has)
CFLs: 5.2 milligrams of mercury
Incandescent: 5 milligrams of mercury
Based on 50% Coal w/mercury scrubbers (scrubbers being added this year)
CFLs: 4.8 milligrams of mercury
Incandescent: 1.5 milligrams of mercury
Source: http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
Source: http://www.pbs.org/now/science/coal.html
ALTERNATIVES
------------------------
If you want to reduce the amount of energy you consume from light bulbs then please follow these steps:
1) Use natural light to its fullest effect, including scheduling your tasks to take advantage of natural light.
2) Buy smaller wattage bulbs.
3) Use candles.
4) Buy LED bulbs. They do not contain mercury.
Please do not buy these mercury bulbs. We are just now reaching the point where we've cleaned up the mercury in landfills. We don't need to turn around and put it back now.
IF I CAN'T CONVINCE YOU
-----------------------------------------
Compact fluorescent bulbs are listed by the government as hazardous items. For those folks who I cannot convince to not use these bulbs, here are the procedures for properly disposing of them, taken from the GE website:
• Like paint, batteries, thermostats, and other hazardous household items, CFLs should be disposed of properly. Do not throw CFLs away in your household garbage if better disposal options exist. To find out what to do first check www.earth911.org (where you can find disposal options by using your zip code) or call 1-877-EARTH911 for local disposal options. Another option is to check directly with your local waste management agency for recycling options and disposal guidelines in your community. Additional information is available at www.lamprecycle.org. Finally, IKEA stores take back used CFLs, and other retailers are currently exploring take back programs.
• If your local waste management agency offers no other disposal options except your household garbage, place the CFL in a plastic bag and seal it before putting it in the trash. If your waste agency incinerates its garbage, you should search a wider geographic area for proper disposal options. Never send a CFL or other mercury containing product to an incinerator.
Source: http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm#disposal
If you break one of these bulbs _do not vacuum up the mess_. Follow these steps:
• Get people out of the spill area immediately. Keep uninvolved people and pets away until the spill is completely cleaned up. Blow fresh air into the area to dilute the mercury’s invisible, odorless, harmful vapors.
• Try to determine how much mercury was spilled. Contact one or all of the following:
• Poison Control Center
• local fire department HAZMAT team
• Department of Health and Family Services’ 24-hour answering service
Small spills are those involving less than a dime-sized puddle of mercury metal. These small spills can be
scooped up using a small, disposable dustpan or sucked up using a syringe or an eye dropper, but this method
doesn’t deal with the vapor problem. Safety equipment, if available, should include disposable liquid-proof
gloves and eye protection.
The most effective way to clean up mercury spills is to first spread sand, clay or sawdust in a circle around the
spill to stop the mercury from spreading. Then add an “amalgamating” powder to the spill to make the
mercury solid and reduce evaporation. Mercury clean up kits containing amalgamating powders are available
through safety supply companies and from some local health departments. Once the mercury spill turns into a
solid amalgam (a few minutes), the vapor hazard is reduced and the material can be easily picked up and put
in a sealed plastic bag.
Source: http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/HAZEXCEPTIONS/merclean.pdf
RELATED LINKS
-------------------------
Woman breaks light bulb, turns house into hazmat zone: http://ellsworthmaine.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7446&Itemid=31
Mercury in energy-saving bulbs worries scientists: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_47218.html
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by