What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Missed out on the best electronic deals last Black Friday? view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com's Cyber Monday Promotion has you covered. No Lines, No Crowds; Just Click and Save.
66 Comments
- DjOnz, on 11/06/2009, -7/+38manbearpig
- ftc08, on 11/06/2009, -6/+27What's the problem with trying to clean up the environment? Really. It might cost a couple dollars, and make things a hell of a lot more efficient, and make things a lot safer, and make it easier to actually breathe.
But this is a socialist, fascist, liberal, atheist, nazi, babyeating, dog fornicating, lobster boiling, elitist, mustard eating, whale spearing, female circumcising, icecap melting, bald eagle barbecuing, SUV burning, volcano provoking, ecoterrorist scam. - bjenidles, on 11/05/2009, -3/+24Canadian mirrors:
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-wi ...
http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-colbert-repor ... - denizen42, on 11/06/2009, -1/+20You forgot cannibal and pedophile.
- Kungfumantis239, on 11/06/2009, -3/+14Yes, damn those crazy people for trying to protect the very thing that gave life to us.
- Kungfumantis239, on 11/06/2009, -2/+13Hilarious how the only place you can get a straight shooting journalist is from a show based entirely on satire.
- Gusbob, on 11/06/2009, -1/+10Sorry, I think I fell down on your slippery slope. Next time you wet yourself at the thought of any government regulation, please put up a sign so people can avoid it.
- psychoace, on 11/06/2009, -2/+11I applaud the fact that John Stewart didn't treat Al Gore like most fanboys would. It was nice to see him ask questions that I think a lot of Americans are asking. I don't think the problem is that we don't want to be more energy efficient and lower our pollution but without affordable solutions it is a tough pill to swallow. Solar panels and wind turbines cost thousands of dollars. Even if there is a new ethanol where can we get it? Where can we even get the old ethanol? I think instead of writing a book with your idea's for changing the world you should actually go to the senate and get this stuff passed. Understandably he is no longer a senator or VP but I'm sure he can find some way to fast track a bill to help our environment.
- 4321234, on 11/06/2009, -1/+9Well, the globe warmed up and changed the climate.
You could look this stuff up yourself, you know. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/06/2009, -1/+8Okay, but what does this have to do with his arguments concerning the environment?
It certainly doesn't make him wrong. - TheCollective00, on 11/06/2009, -1/+7Well, maybe we do need to destroy economic development. After all, economic development as it exists today, exists for the sole purpose of keeping cyclical consumption going, without regard to efficiency and renewability, and for creating false scarcity of resources for the sole purpose of corporate profit interests. So yea, the economy can pretty much go to hell. We already have the technology to create efficient and renewable abundance, without profit interest, so why not use it? And if it takes a government to see that happen, well, ***** it, our grandchildren will thank us (you're not naive enough to think that the free market will welcome all this abundance and efficiency, which are enemies of profit, are you?)
- Kungfumantis239, on 11/06/2009, -2/+8There's so many things wrong with that argument that I don't even know where to start, nor am I going to take the time to. How about cracking open a biology book?
Life will continue to happen, modern science proves that anywhere that life can exist, it will exist. You should be more concerned about whether or not your great grandchildren will be ABLE to exist, however. - funkeepickle, on 11/06/2009, -0/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan ...
- Naumadd, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5I get the whole argument - "It's so incredibly expensive to switch to the new ways" blah blah blah. I have to ask just how expensive it's going to be by way of resources and human life to replace what is lost due to the increased number, scope and intensity of global environmental catastrophes? To me, even one human life lost to human-induced global environmental changes is too many - and that one life has already been lost many times over. How many additional lives will have to be lost before the cost of continuing in the old ways is simply too great for others?
How many tragedies like the hurricane devastation of New Orleans will it take for the so-called expense to be worth it? As I see it, the huge costs of switching the power sources driving human culture now is a very small price to pay.
One thing is certain, if this generation doesn't take action, this generation and those that preceded it will be despised by the generations to come in the same way and for many of the same reasons we despise some who have come before us. - SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/06/2009, -0/+5I'm sick of this "destroy economic development" nonsense. When was the last time a global shift in technology destroyed economic development instead of creating it?
We're about to convert the entire world to sustainable energy. Consider all of the work that entails. How in the world is it you imagine that will destroy jobs or development? Sure, certain jobs will go away, but they'll be replaced by ten more involved in whatever is replacing the job that just disappeared.
When this finally happens it's going to be the biggest international economic boom since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Mark my words. - magibeg, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6Hey someone forgot to tell you, there can be different causes for like effects. After all, if a tree falls down in the woods it can't be a lumberjack because trees fell before lumberjacks. Also forest fires can't be started by people because forest fires happened before people.
- magibeg, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6Your example is somewhat inaccurate as people weren't causing those particular forest fires. It's more like clear cutting. We go in leaving no tree behind then later research the repercussions of that after the fact and realize clear cutting is a bad thing but not before having the companies fight for the ability to do it despite the costs to the environment to slow the legislation citing not enough research.
It's more like that as it's something that man is actually causing and we're only studying the effect of after the fact. - choiboy, on 11/06/2009, -1/+6Dugg for Al Gore dunking Colbert in the tears of dying trees and liberals
- TheCollective00, on 11/06/2009, -1/+5Right, because I'm sure a Lasse faire economy that relies completely on people's morals will get the job done.
Seriously, how many neo-con ***** do you see driving around in gas guzzling SUV's with their stupid little ***** bumper stickers that say "my hummer can beat up your prius" and completely support oil drilling in natural habitats, and are completely proud and in your face about these facts? ***** these *****. You are why my grandchildren are going to have to wear gas masks in the open.
Also, our government is hardly the same as Nazi Germany's. I understand that our government has a slight POTENTIAL to become that if we ever let it get out of hand, but I give enough credit to good old American democracy and technology that allows for instantaneous communication of any atrocities that may occur to not be paranoid enough to think that our government could ever become that. - TheCollective00, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3North of the United States, in the north-western hemisphere. 60 00 N, 95 00 W on a world map.
- Gusbob, on 11/06/2009, -2/+5Just because it's popular doesn't automatically make it suck.
Regarding your comment on science, I'm sure you know a lot more than hundreds of scientists that have gone through rigorous training. Just listen to yourself. The new religion is not environmentalism. Your comment is taken straight from the textbook on 'bitch about everything so I sound smart and informed'. This is not free thinking. This is a perversion of free thinking. - magibeg, on 11/06/2009, -0/+3Apparently what i said sailed clear over your head.
"there can be different causes for like effects" would be the common sense aspect of my comment. I then proceeded to list examples where things happened naturally but have been impacted by man. - zachstanley, on 11/06/2009, -2/+5Perhaps he intended to say the ways they're producing the ethanol aren't as bad for the environment? Just a thought, could be right or wrong.
BTW, you can have D2O--heavy water with deuterium instead of hydrogen--or even T2O, with tritium. Also just saying. - UselessTrivia, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2To answer your question on Old vs New ethanol...as of right now it's all basically still "old ethanol" meaning it's made mostly from Corn.
The new form he's referring to is called Cellulostic ethanol. Meaning that instead of using a starch and sugar-heavy fuel like corn to produce ethanol, they'll break down cellulose instead. It's slightly less efficient in terms of how much ethanol can be produced per pound of product, but it's generally more efficient in terms of how much energy it takes to grow the cellulose, and it comes from sources outside of our food infrastructure like wood chips or switchgrass.
The problem is it doesn't work yet. Not on an industrial scale anyway. And corn ethanol still won't go anywhere because that process is already widely adopted and the corn is subsidized by the government. Removing that subsidy would bankrupt thousands of farmers overnight.
So it's possible that some of the "new ethanol" is already working its way into the supply chain, but you'll never notice it because after it's processed it's identical to the old stuff and they all just get mixed together. Depending on where you live you'll see an "E-10" label on one of the handles at the gas pump, which means the fuel contains 10% ethanol by volume. It's usually a little cheaper and it's actually better for most cars than pure gasoline of an identical octane rating. - vault, on 11/08/2009, -0/+2Hilarious how people think Jon Stewart is a "straight shooting journalist" when he has a clear agenda and he's about the least objective person on tv. No, you just like his brand of bias and he makes jokes along the way to appeal to the type of audience who otherwise wouldn't even care about the news and needs that to stay interested.
- carbonetc, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2If someone took out a loan and called the check he received "profit" we'd call him an idiot. But that seems to be how today's economy works -- we line our pockets by borrowing against our own futures.
- Navicerts, on 11/06/2009, -0/+2Even if you don't believe in global warming the political and economic benefits of switching are hard to ignore.
- Navicerts, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1what video did you watch?
- zachstanley, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1Oops, realized I implied deuterium and tritium weren't hydrogen. But different isotopes of hydrogen which are not typically denoted with your normal H2O.
- maurovz, on 11/06/2009, -4/+5Half man, half bear, and half pig.
- Navicerts, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1I agree with you in concept but I think the problem of climate change and what is predicted for the future is an urgent enough problem to take some risk in doing what we think the the smart choice right now (I guess that's what's "always" said though eh?). I think we should focus on what the problem is. It seems illogical to me that the US (for example) would be importing the amount of power that it does from half way around the world.
We are a huge consumer of a product that we could get locally with the following benefits; cheaper, more economically friendly, a hell of a lot less diplomatic disputes. Sure some of these things may not be cheaper right off the bat but it really doesn't take rocket science to know that a renewable energy will be better than a limited resource you ship half way across the globe and compete for.
So what's the problem? Why haven't we changed? Why haven't oil companies seen the future and begun seriously implementing new technology? Are they simply incompetent or are they intentionally taking actions to get short term personal gain? If it's the latter should we pass law's that try to change that behavior or continue to try to pass laws that are more symptomatic as Al suggests. I think those are the problems we should be focusing on. - MistrBrownstone, on 11/06/2009, -6/+7The new forms of ethanol that they are coming up with now actually are not bad for the environment. Ohhhhh, the NEW forms of ethanol, you know the ethanol that is something other than C2H6O. I heard they are working on a new water too, it's not H2O it's HOH; it's going to revolutionize hydration.
- vault, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1"It might cost a couple dollars"
understatement of the century.
I know, I know...and if we don't do exactly what Al Gore prescribes, then there won't even be a United States anymore, let alone an earth, blah blah blah yawn shut up.
No, plenty of people support the general idea of protecting the environment. Doesn't mean everyone agrees on the way to do that, or has the same priorities, and the rampant fearmongering we all have to listen to isn't exactly winning people over. - vault, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1He should probably also stop flying around the world in his carbon-spewing jet while he's at it.
- falconear, on 11/06/2009, -0/+1What are you, a captain of industry or something?
- rednip, on 11/08/2009, -0/+1" It's does not mean you have to support legislation that does nothing or barley nothing to clean up the environment."
People said the same things about clean water legislation. At one time waterfront properties was cheap, as no one wanted to live near the often foul smelling and unclean water downstream from businesses and communities which would dump raw sewage and waste upstream. It's different now, but it was once a political fight much like the fight for clean air. - mrjoshuanc, on 11/06/2009, -1/+2To a degree. You're sort of missing the point. This isn't an issue of blame here. That's not what I'm questioning. What I'm questioning is the absolute rush to ACTION on all fronts. That's what got us in this mess in the first place. Less alarmism, more understanding. I'd rather not ***** it all up all over again trying to solve the problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do some things that are obviously helpful. It's the rush to market these solutions that I have a problem with. Just don't think for a second that an Inconvenient Truth would have EVER been sold as it was if those folks had nothing to gain. Not that I have anything against folks getting paid, but then don't turn it into a crusade. Just be smart /shrug.
And for record, thanks for actually replying before burying. Discussion is good, we need more of it ;P - Barackalypse, on 11/06/2009, -2/+3Ethanol is awful as a fuel additive and it gets worse the more of it that is in the fuel. Its hygroscopic (water in fuel systems is bad), its a solvent and all the crap it dissolves ends up in your fuel system, it dissolves certain materials commonly used in fuel systems (more a problem when it was first shoved down our throats), and it gets worse mileage per gallon than normal gasoline.
- SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/07/2009, -0/+1Because it's easier to maintain the status quo and short-term profit gains often outweigh long-term investment opportunities.
It's perfectly "economically viable." It's just a HUGE investment, and many companies see their dollars as better spent running fallacious FUD campaigns regarding global warming and selling gimmicky "green" solutions that work well for marketing but do little in terms of actual environmental impact reduction. - Nicoon, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1I am cereal.
- RatatRatR, on 11/06/2009, -1/+1No *****, we've seen the show
- geezor, on 11/06/2009, -3/+3And 150% mammal
- maurovz, on 11/06/2009, -2/+1Canada sucks too
- RatatRatR, on 11/06/2009, -2/+1Shut the ***** up
- LackyB, on 11/06/2009, -1/+0You guys keep saying how great this switch to renewable energy is going to be for business. If it's that simple, why haven't private interests taken it upon themselves to harness it? The first company to offer cheap renewable energy will be one of the most successful businesses in history. You think this hasn't happened yet because they just don't want to do it? It hasn't happened yet because it's not economically viable at this point.
And @TheCollective: Of COURSE the free market will welcome an abundance and efficiency - that's what the free market creates! How are you not getting this?? - tj111, on 11/06/2009, -4/+2I'm super cereal you guys!
- diggdong, on 11/06/2009, -4/+1Fuzzy math. And what is so super about limiting the amount of electric power a person can purchase?
- MrFunStuff, on 11/06/2009, -8/+4Is Cap and Trade just cleaning up the environment? Most people including myself support clean up the environment. It's does not mean you have to support legislation that does nothing or barley nothing to clean up the environment.
-
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is