Steve Jobs expands on Apple's green goals

[AppleInsider]

In a new interview, Apple's co-founder explained his company's environment-centric public relations push, and shared advice provided by former Vice President Al Gore.

Steve Jobs, along with Chief Operating Officer Tim Cook, spoke with BusinessWeek to highlight Apple's environmentally conscious ways. Jobs acknowledged that Greenpeace's targeting of his company years ago played a part in the Mac maker promoting its green focus in public.

After Greenpeace criticized Apple for the use of toxic chemicals in its products, Jobs said he turned to Gore, a member of his company's board of directors and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. Gore reportedly told Jobs to do what he does, and not get into a "mud-slinging war" with the environmental organization.

In response, Apple began mentioning its products' environmental impact with a scorecard at each keynote. Jobs argued that his company has always been green, but in the past it didn't make it a point to mention it in public. He said the company's tight-lipped approach, particularly on public policy issues, hurt its image with environmental organizations.

"We tend to report rather than predict," Jobs told BusinessWeek. "You won't see us out there saying what the PC is going to look like in 2016. We quietly go try to invent the PC for 2016."

It was the second time this week the publication profiled Apple's environmentally friendly push. Another feature highlighted the company's reporting of hardware carbon emissions, a new disclosure that was revealed by the company this week. That story also included comment from Jobs.

The use of Apple products by consumers accounts for more than half of the Cupertino, Calif., corporation's annual 10.2 million tons of carbon emissions. The company's environmental Web site states that less than 5 percent of the company's emissions come from manufacturing facilities, while more than 95 percent of Apple's greenhouse gases are from the products they make.

Cook said that companies often focus on the wrong issues. He gave the example of installing motion detectors in a conference room, to automatically turn off the lights in a room when no one is there. But the real carbon footprint, he said, comes from the products themselves.

"Making products cleaner involves real engineering," Cook said. "It's about innovating, and it's hard work."

[Rot'nApple]

What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?

Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!

Gotta love him!

[htoelle]

As long as we use Computers -- it shall never be 100% green. The imported thing is Apple has gotten hold of the principle make as green as possible . Very good

HT

[Ireland]

meh..

[nagromme]

I'm glad Greenpeace played their part in moving Apple (and others) in this direction. I wish Greenpeace had used better tactics, and am increasingly disappointed in them, but it's still better than if they'd done nothing. These causes are far more important than some corporation's image--or the emotions of that corporation's users

I no longer see Greenpeace continuing to help in this area though. They need to reward successes! Maybe now it's time for Apple to push THEM to improve. I sure hope so.

Greenpeace's sensationalism isn't what bothers me, nor their singling out of Apple just because that makes headlines. Those choices are just "good marketing," and in modern culture, unfortunately they ARE good ways to get things done sometimes. What bothers me, though, is the emphasis on what companies promise vs. what they deliver. That's where "good marketing" fails to get things done, and actions must be acknowledged! That's how other companies will be persuaded to follow Apple's lead.

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?

Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!

Gotta love him!

I do hope Al Gore gets smaller homes--or maybe one is enough!--but that won't help the planet much. These causes are real, and increasingly desperate, and we ALL need any help the planet can get. Even if that help comes from someone whose homes are too large.

If a former arsonist puts me out when I'm on fire, I'll call him a hypocrite... but I'll still be glad not to be burning!

[1984]

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?

Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!

Very immature but not at all surprising coming form him as Rush is arrogant, immature, sexist, racist and earns a living by spreading hate and ignorance.

[Orangeoutsider]

Originally Posted by 1984

Very immature but not at all surprising coming form him as Rush is arrogant, immature, sexist, racist and earns a living by spreading hate and ignorance.

Gore, and Greenpeace should mind their own whacko business. Greenness is a ridiculous reaction to bunko science.

Nature does more damage to the earth than man could ever hope to imagine.

You are the arrogant one here.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...s/1smoking.gif

[Tauron]

Originally Posted by Orangeoutsider

Gore, and Greenpeace should mind their own whacko business. Greenness is a ridiculous reaction to bunko science.

Nature does more damage to the earth than man could ever hope to imagine.

You are the arrogant one here.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...s/1smoking.gif

You have been reported for Trolling.

[GregAlexander]

Originally Posted by nagromme

What bothers me, though, is the emphasis on what companies promise vs. what they deliver. That's where "good marketing" fails to get things done, and actions must be acknowledged!

Me too!

I think it was Dell that was highlighted 18months back as better than Apple, due to the promises it was making to have removed all <insert polluting components> within a year. I remember hearing it and getting annoyed that they were comparing Dell's promises against an unknown Apple. And then 6 months ago Dell announced that they wouldn't be doing that yet, but promised it for the next year.

And this, by Greenpeace standards, is great as it's a commitment to greener products.

[BertP]

Every bit regarding the environment counts, and I'm glad Apple is not ignoring the subject. To me – it is not a loss to have mobile chips in my iMac.

Al Gore gave Steve Jobs good political advice…"don't get into mud-slinging…".

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by Rot'nApple

What's the environmental savings offset between Apple's environmentally friendly ways of doing business and Al Gore's massive homes?

Rush was on Jay Leno thursday and took Jay's green car challenge driving on an obstacle course in an electric card where Al Gore and Ed Begley cardboard cutouts would "jump" out at you for you to take evasive action. If you were to hit them, you would be penalized and your time increased. During Rush's run, Al Gore pops out and Rush hits him. Rush then stops the car, backs up so he can go forward and hit Al Gore again!

Gotta love him!

What a load of off topic, negative crap.

Why don't you start your own forum if all you want to do is hear yourself talk. The only thing remotely relevant here is the lie about Al Gore's carbon footprint, and it's ... you know, ... a lie.

Rush Limbaugh is not funny he's a fascist jerk. You are also not funny.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Cook said that companies often focus on the wrong issues. He gave the example of installing motion detectors in a conference room, to automatically turn off the lights in a room when no one is there. But the real carbon footprint, he said, comes from the products themselves.

"Making products cleaner involves real engineering," Cook said. "It's about innovating, and it's hard work."

Sure that's true, Mr. Cook. It is absolutely essential to use good engineering to reduce the 'lifetime-use carbon footprint.'

But there are two things to note here: (i) The benchmark should not be how your own products performed in the past, but rather, how your best (on this score) competitors' products are performing. I'd like to see Apple perform that analysis against its best competitor, with the analysis conducted by a third-party that can audit and verify the results independently - that would be pushing the envelope. (ii) It is also hugely important to take on energy efficiency initiatives since those are like low-hanging fruit for cost savings as well as GHG emissions reductions. Motion detectors in conference rooms etc are a no-brainer. Every little bit helps, considering how energy-hungry and energy-wasting the US is.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by htoelle

As long as we use Computers -- it shall never be 100% green

So what? Breathing produces CO2. So we'll never be 'green' as long as we breathe either.

It is a matter of making the best cost-benefit tradeoffs that we can.

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Sure that's true, Mr. Cook. It is absolutely essential to use good engineering to reduce the 'lifetime-use carbon footprint.'

But there are two things to note here: (i) The benchmark should not be how your own products performed in the past, but rather, how your best (on this score) competitors' products are performing. I'd like to see Apple perform that analysis against its best competitor, with the analysis conducted by a third-party that can audit and verify the results independently - that would be pushing the envelope. (ii) It is also hugely important to take on energy efficiency initiatives since those are like low-hanging fruit for cost savings as well as GHG emissions reductions. Motion detectors in conference rooms etc are a no-brainer. Every little bit helps, considering how energy-hungry and energy-wasting the US is.

This post is nonsense to me. What are you arguing here?

Apple (and Cook), are saying to include the products themselves in the ratings, which no-one has bothered to do before. Apple's products are known to be more energy efficient on average than most others because they've been designing to that heuristic for many years now. It seems like you are saying "yeah, but let's see what a detailed comparison of products will reveal." As if this would be a bad thing for Apple?

All indicators we know of, kind of imply Apple would win such a comparison hands-down. Their batteries are more efficient and have a greater power density, their motherboards are more efficient etc. The only product I know of they make that could be said to really suck up the power is the Mac Pro and they make those in lower volume than all the others. I don't get what you are arguing here.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

This post is nonsense to me......... etc etc

Calm down, man. That said, let me address your weasel-y words and vacuous claims.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

This post is nonsense to me. What are you arguing here?

I am not arguing anything. I am just making a couple of points. The fact that you don't agree with them is fine.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

Apple (and Cook), are saying to include the products themselves in the ratings, which no-one has bothered to do before.

Really? No one? Produce some evidence, please.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

Apple's products are known to be more energy efficient on average than most others because they've been designing to that heuristic for many years now.

'Known to be' by whom? Provide some evidence. 'On average'? That's weasel-y. I am presuming Apple aspires to be better that than average. 'They've been designing.....' and others haven't? If you know that, provide some evidence.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

It seems like you are saying "yeah, but let's see what a detailed comparison of products will reveal." As if this would be a bad thing for Apple

No. I am saying that'll be a good thing for Apple. And, I am saying, do it against the best in the industry (and if Apple is that already, shout it from the rooftops).

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

All indicators we know of, kind of imply Apple would win such a comparison hands-down.

Really? Provide some - any - evidence.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

I don't get what you are arguing here.

Hopefully, you do now.

[cwfrederick]

Steve Jobs,
I appreciate environmental consciousness but PLEASE dont taint my favorite company with this global warming scam BS, PLEASE dont compromise any products for the sake of environmentalism, and PLEASE dont give credibility to the greenpeace pu**ies.

[teckstud]

I told you all - it's all Al Gore's doing! When are they going to do something about the Chinese slave labourers and human rights violators making Apple products? SUCH HYPOCRISY!

[cwfrederick]

Originally Posted by Tauron

You have been reported for Trolling.

Do you breathe, fart, drive a car, use incandescent bulbs, live in a developed nation....?

If you do, I will be forced to report you to Al Gore! You may be redeemed by purchasing $10,000 in carbon credits.

[Winter]

I saw the interview/segment and was entertained. That aside however, I like Al Gore's advice and I see it as a positive for Apple that they took the steps to make changes.

[mrr]

I wonder if all of this PR this week about Apple promoting their Green initiatives has anything to do with the big article that came out in NEWSWEEK this week ranking corporate America.

http://greenrankings.newsweek.com/companies/view/apple

Apple only came in at number 133/500 !

That was behind HP at 1, Dell at 2, Intel at 4 and IBM at 5!!

Something sounds fishy

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by cwfrederick

Do you breathe, fart, drive a car, use incandescent bulbs, live in a developed nation....?

If you do, I will be forced to report you to Al Gore! You may be redeemed by purchasing $10,000 in carbon credits.

Don't panic. Or exaggerate. The average American emits a little over 20 tons of CO2 per year from all that stuff you list. At $20/ton for CO2 credits (a very generous estimate of the likely price), that's only $400 per person.

[teckstud]

Where the inovatuon on the thermal AppleTV ? Why is that left off Apple list ? Where it's on/ off swich

[Winter]

Originally Posted by mrr

I wonder if all of this PR this week about Apple promoting their Green initiatives has anything to do with the big article that came out in NEWSWEEK this week ranking corporate America.

http://greenrankings.newsweek.com/companies/view/apple

Apple only came in at number 133/500 !

That was behind HP at 1, Dell at 2, Intel at 4 and IBM at 5!!

Something sounds fishy

Very interesting find, of course note how HP is at No. 1 yet Greenpeace still thinks they've failed in some areas.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by mrr

I wonder if all of this PR this week about Apple promoting their Green initiatives has anything to do with the big article that came out in NEWSWEEK this week ranking corporate America.

http://greenrankings.newsweek.com/companies/view/apple

Apple only came in at number 133/500 !

That was behind HP at 1, Dell at 2, Intel at 4 and IBM at 5!!

Something sounds fishy

FWIW, here's Newsweek's methodology:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215522

[cwfrederick]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Don't panic. Or exaggerate. The average American emits a little over 20 tons of CO2 per year from all that stuff you list. At $20/ton for CO2 credits (a very generous estimate of the likely price), that's only $400 per person.

hahaha, who calculates how much carbon you produce? who decides how that is 'compensated' for? who sets the price? you trust them?? ridiculous, have fun paying $400 to assuage your guilt. only a fool would give these people money.

the most beneficial thing we can do for the environment is provide economic security to 3rd world countries in exchange for promises to stop pollution and habitat/forrest/wetland destruction. the people promoting the carbon BULLSH*T should be ashamed for taking attention and resources away from something that could actually be meaningful.

edit: does anyone else notice the Carbon MARKET Expo advert below. the title says it all.

[LTMP]

Originally Posted by mrr

I wonder if all of this PR this week about Apple promoting their Green initiatives has anything to do with the big article that came out in NEWSWEEK this week ranking corporate America.

http://greenrankings.newsweek.com/companies/view/apple

Apple only came in at number 133/500 !

That was behind HP at 1, Dell at 2, Intel at 4 and IBM at 5!!

Something sounds fishy

I looked at the data presented by NEWSWEEK, and I have some doubts about their methodology.

A third of the ranking comes from "reputation" which, at best, is meaningless, and at worst skews the data egregiously.

There were also numerous references to reporting of initiatives and intentions, which, frankly, has very little to do with the "greenness" of a company.

I really think that this kind of information is important to a lot of consumers. It would be nice of somebody could come up with a comprehensive and meaningful auditing system.

[krabbelen]

Apple came in 133rd overall and 25th in its industry. Which is still a little fishy, given some of those in the top 24.

I am wondering how MacAfee is down at 56th place when they are a software company. Presumably it is because they still ship out millions of plastic discs in large cardboard packaging, rather than focusing on something greener like downloads. And because, as we know, they cause every PC on the planet to work twice as hard making fans and processors spin a lot more than they should and to take twice as long to do anything.

Too bad MS doesn't get pegged for the lost hours and countless amounts of energy required to do everything half-a**ed in the first place, or over again, or to need IT staff and consultants to get in their cars and make house calls. Can you even imagine all the wasted energy that can be laid at MS' door?

[Winter]

Originally Posted by cwfrederick

hahaha, who calculates how much carbon you produce? who decides how that is 'compensated' for? who sets the price? you trust them?? ridiculous, have fun paying $400 to assuage your guilt. only a fool would give these people money.

the most beneficial thing we can do for the environment is provide economic security to 3rd world countries in exchange for promises to stop pollution and habitat/forrest/wetland destruction. the people promoting the carbon BULLSH*T should be ashamed for taking attention and resources away from something that could actually be meaningful.

All fair points indeed. Aside from the carbon credits mess though, I would think you would be interested in a company trying to make environmentally friendly products correct? (if not for the environment than for your own health, I know I would)

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by cwfrederick

hahaha, who calculates how much carbon you produce? who decides how that is 'compensated' for? who sets the price? you trust them?? ridiculous, have fun paying $400 to assuage your guilt. only a fool would give these people money.

I'll ignore the (seemingly uninformed) sarcasm.

1) Here's the data: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html Look at the appropriate para under "Emissions per Capita."

2) As to 'compensation' and 'price:' The market will decide if there is a cap-and-trade system (as the EU currently has, where the price of CO2 is about $20/ton), and the government will decide if there is a carbon tax. Neither exists in the US yet (obviously).

3) I have no guilt whatsoever. (In any event, I'll take guilt over ignorance.)

4) If it's the law, you'll have no choice. You'll be a fool too.

Originally Posted by cwfrederick

h
the most beneficial thing we can do for the environment is provide economic security to 3rd world countries in exchange for promises to stop pollution and habitat/forrest/wetland destruction. the people promoting the carbon BULLSH*T should be ashamed for taking attention and resources away from something that could actually be meaningful.

Care to explain why and how that will be the 'most beneficial'? If you can't, you shouldn't make such wild statements.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by Winter

All fair points indeed.

See above.

[teckstud]

I've always said this right here is the reason for those Nasty high gloss glass screens for the last 2 years- BLECH! EnvironmentL rating over function- THANK U AL GORE

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by Tauron

You have been reported for Trolling.

I don't know what he drives now, but when al gore first started with the global warming and carbon nonsense he drove a Cadillac escallade.

[quinney]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

FWIW, here's Newsweek's methodology:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/215522

It doesn't appear that the methodology takes into account the impact of the use of the companies' products, after they are sold. This could be what the Tim Cook quote was referencing.

[cwfrederick]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

I'll ignore the (seemingly uninformed) sarcasm.

1) Here's the data: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html Look at the appropriate para under "Emissions per Capita."

2) As to 'compensation' and 'price:' The market will decide if there is a cap-and-trade system (as the EU currently has, where the price of CO2 is about $20/ton), and the government will decide if there is a carbon tax. Neither exists in the US yet (obviously).

3) I have no guilt whatsoever. (In any event, I'll take guilt over ignorance.)

4) If it's the law, you'll have no choice. You'll be a fool too.



Care to explain why and how that will be the 'most beneficial'? If you can't, you shouldn't make such wild statements.

hahahaha, stop it! youre killing me!

there was no sarcasm. those were rhetorical questions meant to further emphasize that this is a scam (your answers, and the fact that the government is involved only supports the scam argument). that was a wild statement!? funny

@ Winter: totally agree
(i mentioned in an earlier post that i do appreciate environmental consciousness, its the icing on the cake. apple has the best working products, best looking products, and theyre the most environmentally friendly!)

[Winter]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

I don't know what he drives now, but when al gore first started with the global warming and carbon nonsense he drove a Cadillac escallade.

Gore was supposedly caught on tape entering a big Gulfstream II (I think that's the name of it) jet as well. Him not sticking to his own philosophies does not bother me though if his ideas become part of the law, that is a bit troublesome.

I'm all for environmental initiatives, such as what Apple and others are doing. I am against crazy initiatives that have not really been factored correctly through today's society.

Edit: cw, just saw your post and I'm glad you agree.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by quinney

It doesn't appear that the methodology takes into account the impact of the use of the companies' products, after they are sold. This could be what the Tim Cook quote was referencing.

Yes. Indeed, note that all the energy producers are at the bottom of Newsweek's list. This despite the fact that it's all of us (and the energy-consuming companies) that demand what they produce, which is why they produce in the first place.

It would, however, be equally screwy if firms were held accountable for the carbon impact of the lifetime customer use of their product - for example, Toyota would never sell a car or GE an aircraft engine.

That is why rankings like these have simply no way to truly account for "green."

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by cwfrederick

hahahaha, stop it! youre killing me!

there was no sarcasm. those were rhetorical questions meant to further emphasize that this is a scam (your answers, and the fact that the government is involved only supports the scam argument). that was a wild statement!? funny

@ Winter: totally agree
(i mentioned in an earlier post that i do appreciate environmental consciousness, its the icing on the cake. apple has the best working products, best looking products, and theyre the most environmentally friendly!)

Originally Posted by Winter

Edit: cw, just saw your post and I'm glad you agree.

My turn to at the Laurel and Hardy tag-team.

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(Coincidentally, just saw that on my Google homepage).

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by nagromme

I'm glad Greenpeace played their part in moving Apple (and others) in this direction. I wish Greenpeace had used better tactics, and am increasingly disappointed in them, but it's still better than if they'd done nothing. These causes are far more important than some corporation's image--or the emotions of that corporation's users

You can't possibly support green peace and at the same time deplore their behaviour. Either there approach is correct or it isn't. From my standpoint they aren't even close to doing the right thing, before jumping green peace needs to be working with fact based evidence. Unfortunately that isn't even remotely the case as green peace often reacts to speculation, bad science or guess work.

Further more these causes you seem to support have been exploited by organizations like green peace to advance their own agenda. It is really difficult these days to get to solid facts as everybody massages the data to support their point of view.

I no longer see Greenpeace continuing to help in this area though. They need to reward successes! Maybe now it's time for Apple to push THEM to improve. I sure hope so.

They aren't helping because they are are more concerned about themselves than the environment or fact based science. Apple doesn't need to be involved at all, what we need is for the general public, that supports these idiots, to wise up and take their environmental dollars else where.

Greenpeace's sensationalism isn't what bothers me, nor their singling out of Apple just because that makes headlines.

Actually that should be a number one concern. It goes to green peaces lack of credibility with respect to the general public. Their behaviour just marginalizes them as a organization.

Those choices are just "good marketing," and in modern culture, unfortunately they ARE good ways to get things done sometimes. What bothers me, though, is the emphasis on what companies promise vs. what they deliver. That's where "good marketing" fails to get things done, and actions must be acknowledged! That's how other companies will be persuaded to follow Apple's lead.

Frankly rolling over and playing dead like Apple has would be completely stupid and would gain most companies nothing. In many cases it is better to ignore green peace and it's focus on bad science.

The fact if the matter is that by responding to green peace Apple has decrease the quality, reliability and safety of it's products for zero gain. Well except for the pleasure of kissing green peaces ass if that can be seen as a gain.

I do hope Al Gore gets smaller homes--or maybe one is enough!--but that won't help the planet much.

What you don't seem to grasp is that is that Gore sees this as a trendy way to keep a thumb on the masses. It's the great Democrat lie that they care about the little guy. It's BS, they use regulation and taxes to make sure you will never have a house like Gore has. I'm actually surprised to find that people really believe Gore gives a damn. The only thing Gore is interested in is exploiting anybody overly emotionally involved with the envirnmental movement, it keeps his bank coffers stuffed and that makes him happy.

These causes are real, and increasingly desperate,

What causes? The whole global warming crew is nothing but a bunch of crackpots.

There are real concerns with polution, but honestly when was the last time that green peace offered up a solution to any of the problems? Their answers are always regression and control.

and we ALL need any help the planet can get. Even if that help comes from someone whose homes are too large.

Who are you to say a home is too big? This is one of the worst things about green peace and some other environmental groups, the desire to impress their point of view on everybody else. Last I knew this was a free country where we are free to live how and where we want. In any event do you really think the rich, like Gore, will ever care or be impacted.

If a former arsonist puts me out when I'm on fire, I'll call him a hypocrite... but I'll still be glad not to be burning!

I'm not even sure what the above is suppose to mean.

Look most people are concerned about the environment. Green peaces problem is that most people recognize them as a bunch of idiots that have done little for the environment in real terms. Frankly by the time I was thirteen I planted more trees than green peace has.

So if you are concerned about the environment, my suggestion is to pull the wool off your head and seek out more responsible environmental organizations. Otherwise you are simply allowing yourself to be exploited and your wallet fleeced for nothing.


Dave

[cwfrederick]

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

My turn to at the Laurel and Hardy tag-team.

"There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity."
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

(Coincidentally, just saw that on my Google homepage).

this is too much.. we're just having a cordial interchange thankyouverymuch (which doesnt pertain at all to anything youve mentioned bty)

"There is nothing worse than a obtusely defensive forum commenter."
-Johann Sebastian Bach

coincidentally, i just made that up

[wizard69]

Originally Posted by cwfrederick

hahaha, who calculates how much carbon you produce? who decides how that is 'compensated' for? who sets the price? you trust them?? ridiculous, have fun paying $400 to assuage your guilt. only a fool would give these people money.

I have to agree this is totally assinine. Worst there isn't even solid evidence tha carbon is a polutter. In a nut shell it is a effort to make sure people are kept poor and dependant on the government.

the most beneficial thing we can do for the environment is provide economic security to 3rd world countries in exchange for promises to stop pollution and habitat/forrest/wetland destruction.

Sounds good but economic security can never be gauranteed.

the people promoting the carbon BULLSH*T should be ashamed for taking attention and resources away from something that could actually be meaningful.

This is a huge concern and frankly green peace goes through millions every year that could be better spent on doing real good for the environment.

edit: does anyone else notice the Carbon MARKET Expo advert below. the title says it all.

It is extremely frustrating to see this stuff. Especially when any discussions about carbon seem to be based on questionable science.


Dave