Comments cavecanem has made

  • I love how

    I love how Northern Ireland's environment minister banned enviro ads but these ads are aired with alarming frequency here.On FCC and FTC need to hold 'clean coal' ads accountable to reality posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • Audrae Erickson -

    High-fructose corn syrup contains mercury. Need I say more?On Cheap-chicken ad from KFC hides true cost of food; here's a tastier, low-cost alternative posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 17 Responses

  • WTF?

    What happened to good old-fashioned layering of clothes? The lengths people will go to for comfort, using technology, wasting money and resources, when all they need to do is wear long johns, a shirt under a sweater, wool socks, and a hat, is insane.

    Can you imagine the waste stream and the natural resources being wasted, as well as the environmental destruction, if tens of millions of people all bought "heated" clothing?On How to save the planet with heated clothing posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 11 Responses

  • Here's the problem

    The problem is people don't care. They are too involved in their self-absorbed lives. This same poll anytime before our current me-me-me age would have drastically different results.

    Mankind is so disconnected from nature, and it is highly disturbing. It's easy to say the Earth isn't warming and to not worry about pollution when we are comfortable in our houses and cars and when everything we buy has the pollution and slave labor and ecosystem destruction externalized so that the regular Joe Plumber isn't even aware of it.

    Educate your children. Get them outdoors, for the sake of humanity. Let them appreciate the planet, and don't hide truths from them. It is, I feel, our only hope.On Americans' climate change doubts aren't hard to understand posted 10 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses

  • Sweet Georgia Brown!

    Georgia - wator vapor is a greenhouse gas. It is not a pollutant. Its levels have remained more or less constant since the industrial revolution.

    O2 is not a greenhouse gas. Nor is it a pollutant.

    CO2 is both. Legally, and as far as common sense dictate.

    As I very simply stated prior, the greenhouse effect contributes to warming. Simple, and verifiably true.On Few Americans are ever likely to see George W. Bush's greatest environmental legacy posted 10 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

  • Georgia on my mind

    Where do I begin? I'd like to make one thing clear, and leave the remaining rebuttals to someone else.

    CO2 is a pollutant. It acidifies oceans and is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect contributes to warming. It's science, it's fact, and there's no getting around it.On Few Americans are ever likely to see George W. Bush's greatest environmental legacy posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 7 Responses

  • We need a price on carbon

    The reason we need a price on carbon is to show that we are going to charge polluters for polluting. As a first step (in the Northeast anyway) it was very smart, and a vital first step.

    Retiring permits can also drive up the price; my site, Carbon Purging allows clients to purchase the rights to retire CO2 permits from RGGI AND the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.On Will carbon cap-and-trade be the next Ponzi scheme? posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

  • Good Grief!

    I guess we need heated blades now!On Old Man Winter declares war on renewable energy posted 11 months, 1 week ago 33 Responses

  • Nothing is wrong with CCS...

    except it doesn't exist, mountaintop mining still ruins vast landscapes and ecosystems, and to implement CCS on such a scale as to actually help out, it would cost billions that the coal companies will not pay.On Coal front group sets up 'Blogger Brigade' to fight reality posted 11 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses

  • 280 PPM

    Why stop there? We seriously need to return to pre-industrial levels, which were 280 ppm.On Al Gore calls for 350 ppm goal at Poznan climate summit posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • sigh.

    I like art. I like reducing my carbon footprint. But unless these paintings are made of fully recycled and recyclable materials, use 100% natural paints, and actively suck up CO2, they cannot reduce ones carbon footprint. It truly bothers me when anything green-related is touted as helping to save something or reduce CO2 when materials used to produce said products cause CO2 emissions, among other atrocities.

    p.s. A hybrid SUV is not "green". Buying a new vehicle because it has less emissions than a current vehicle is worse than keeping your higher-pulluting vehicle.

    <Removes self from soapbox>On From 50 to Felony posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

  • I'm Lava'n It!

    Good job Hawai'i!

    Gov. Linda Lingle says "These are not <bold>hope</bold>s or dreams or wishes; these are our specific plans that we <bold>hope</bold> to achieve."

    They are not dreams, but I dream you can do it!On Hawaii lei's out ambitious clean-energy plans posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

  • AMA

    Audrae - that rhetoric is highly questionable.

    1.) Per http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20080618/sweetener-gets-un ...

    "We do recommend consumers limit the amount of all added caloric sweeteners to no more than 32 grams of sugar daily based on a 2,000 calorie diet in accordance with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans," Dolan says.

    The AMA acknowledges that obesity rates have soared in recent decades, in sync with the growing use of high fructose corn syrup."

    2.) HFCS doesn't actually exist anywhere in nature. It is a manufactured product created by using enzymes (two natural, one synthetic) to increase the fructose content of corn syrup to about 90%. This super high fructose syrup is then blended "down" with a 100% glucose corn syrup to create various mixes. HFCS 55, for example, which is 55% fructose and 45% glucose is the mix used most commonly in beverages. HFCS 42 is the blend used more commonly in baked goods.

    3.) Yes, it's absolutely true that high fructose corn syrup is made from corn, but it doesn't mean anything. Biodiesel is made from corn too, and you wouldn't want to see that used as a food additive.

    4.) The AMA also states: "But [the AMA] called for further independent research to be done on the health effects of high fructose syrup and other sweeteners."

    They then went on to say:

    "We do recommend consumers limit the amount of all added caloric sweeteners to no more than 32 grams of sugar daily."

    ...and "Currently, there are few available studies on the health effects of high fructose syrup and most are focused on the short-term effects."

    5.) It is in everything and Americans eat a lot of it - nearly 60 lbs. per capita in 2006. The claim is it is "healthy" when consumed in moderation - the problem is it is not consumed in moderation. Your company's lobbying efforts have directly caused this.

    The fact is, high-fructose corn syrup is reviled for contributing to everything from the obesity epidemic to rising rates of childhood diabetes.On The story behind the corn industry's cloying ad blitz posted 1 year, 1 month ago 12 Responses

  • Hopefully this

    will exert pressure on the 100 entities to stop illegally logging and destroying.

    I have searched and hunted for the list, but cannot find it. Does anyone have a link to the list?On Amazon deforestation soars, Brazil blames its own land-reform agency posted 1 year, 1 month ago 4 Responses

  • Red Sox won

    Good points; good article; Red Sox won.On GM flack misuses Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science (!) to defend Lutz climate skepticism posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

  • Did Governator Terminate Her?

    What was Ahnold's reaction? Did he sign it anyway?On Palin asks Schwarzenegger to veto bill that would reduce port pollution posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

  • Problem with the root of the problem

    The attack was due to religious indoctrination implemented to justify hating US lifestyles. I'm not saying how the US operates is good, but nobody should murder over it. Justifying bin Laden's demands as reasonable is atrocious and egregious. Whatever his demands, the effect they had was thousands of lives affected in the worst way possible. That certainly is not reasonable.

    To suggest that a political leader should go on record stating that we need to simplify and consume less "so that they won't hate us and this won't happen again" is a fallacy and ridiculous. We need to simplify and consume less for multitudes of reasons; missing in that list of reasons is preventing someone from hating us. Many Americans would consume more just out of spite if they heard such a statement.

    I agree with addressing a problem's roots. The roots here are not another country hating us, but for the US to get back to its own roots and be self-sufficient and realize that consumption does not make one happy; connectedness, community involvement, and being a strong person do.On Obama mentions green programs in 9/11 public-service forum posted 1 year, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • My main issue...

    My main issue... is the fact that the FDA disallows product labelling. Let them clone animals, but allow people the choice to avoid their food.

    They are just afraid of labelling, because they know most people won't eat it.

    Food labels should let us know if it is genetically modified (in the current sense) and if meat is cloned.On Consumers demand market rejection of food from cloned animals posted 1 year, 2 months ago 9 Responses

  • Detox Foot Pads

    ...are a sham.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detox_foot_padOn Umbra on diet soda posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

  • Which Makes More Sense

    Which makes more sense:

    Giving oil companies tax breaks

    or

    Removing the subsidies and using the $ to help our economy, gas prices, and renewable power generation?

    Which makes more sense:

    Allowing drilling on pristine lands to make a few bucks and a few million barrels of oil, while causing havoc on the environment

    or

    Allowing the land to remain pristine and valuable as a natural resource?

    Which makes more sense:

    Burning coal and oil - pollutants...

    or

    Using renewable energy which causes zero pollution and would reduce asthma rates, acid rain, AND help slow global warming?

    Bailo, ignorance is bliss.On Sierra Club ads defend Dems who are 'standing strong against Big Oil' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

  • Which Makes More Sense

    Which makes more sense:

    Giving oil companies tax breaks

    or

    Removing the subsidies and using the $ to help our economy, gas prices, and renewable power generation?

    Which makes more sense:

    Allowing drilling on pristine lands to make a few bucks and a few million barrels of oil, while causing havoc on the environment

    or

    Allowing the land to remain pristine and valuable as a natural resource?

    Which makes more sense:

    Burning coal and oil - pollutants...

    or

    Using renewable energy which causes zero pollution and would reduce asthma rates, acid rain, AND help slow global warming?

    Bailo, ignorance is bliss.On Sierra Club ads defend Dems who are 'standing strong against Big Oil' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 4 Responses

  • Hukt on Fonix

    Steve Bloom: The exact quote is "with 1.3 million members and supporters."

    With emphasis: and supporters.On Groups make joint announcement in Cleveland posted 1 year, 5 months ago 30 Responses

  • Con-vexing

    A large building with a convex curve with said curve facing south with the best light-allowing glass would work wonderfully. The north side of the building can be used to store rain barrels for water. With ample natural light, a wind turbine or two on the building should suffice.

    Fiber optics could also channel sunlight, as well.On Sustainability a big theme at the World Science Festival posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

  • Don't Hate; Pollinate

    Q: How, for instance, do the crops on a completely bug-free indoor farm get pollinated?

    A: Apiaries.

    Nobody ever said it would be bug-free; only a drastic reduction of pests. Apiaries inside would solve the pollination problem.On Sustainability a big theme at the World Science Festival posted 1 year, 5 months ago 17 Responses

  • This Bud's for You

    Bud- in response to

    [new] i 'm an organic farmer but even i don't; believe we can feed the world organically.
    right now most of the people on this planet cannot afford to eat well much less buy organic.  we need to get real and realize that technology to increase organic crop yields is important to long term sustainable food production. not every one has the access OR luxury to afford organic food.

    I would like to disagree. Organic farming has healthier yields than non-organic; and if every neighborhood or many houses in a neighborhood started a community or back yard garden, these additional food sources could easily make up for the possible lower yields organic farming creates. For areas without access to water, rain barrels work wonderfully.On Are 'organic pesticides' the way forward for organic agriculture? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

  • Wiki

    Regarding

    "Very good point, and the solution I'm hoping to get is that everything changed or added in an edit would be marked as such -- maybe boldface or a different color -- and there would be a small tag at the bottom: "edited on [date]." Ideally, there would be no way to do a stealth edit."

    You could always integrate wiki function and allow changes. This way it tracks all prior changes; it shows who is abusing it (and will allow you to block a thread from being edited further), and will allow the ability to rollback to an original version of a comment. If you want to allow it at all.On Grist is cooking up a new site; what do you want to see in it? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 32 Responses

  • Quit your whining

    And enjoy the cartoon, canis. That's right- CARTOON. Plus, the elephants weren't suffering- they looked happy crushing humans and cars.On View the winners of the '60 Seconds to Save the Earth' ecospot contest posted 1 year, 9 months ago 4 Responses

  • Denying the deniers

    This is the second article I have read from Mr. Jacoby that tries to use rhetoric to attempt to brush off the global warming problem. I wrote him a reply on 1/7, thus stated:

    I read your article and was mildly disturbed. The penultimate paragraph, however, had me incensed. It is dangerous. You say:

    "But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.""

    The open letter, of course, was not peer-reviewed. Also, quoting the idea of adapting to climate change being more sensible than attempting to prevent it is ridiculous. Most of the gases and particulates that cause climate change also cause breathing problems, pollution problems (think acid rain), and a multitude of other problems. Slashing CO2 emissions will not retard our economy- in fact, it will create many jobs in the "green" sector. Finally, global warming offers the most human suffering. Increasing frequency of terrible weather events, the mass loss of species, poor countries without access to food and water, wars over access to water, and many more are likely side effects of global warming.

    You tend to write the occasional skeptic piece in the Globe- I don't know why, but it is shameful and rotten.

    As I always say: If global warming is not real, then we have nothing to lose except for clean air and water. If global warming is real, which most scientists say it is, then we need to act now, and touting pieces like this are risky. If you're right about your opinion of global warming, then simply institute clean air laws. But if you're wrong, you come off looking a lot more foolish.On Climate skeptics claim no warming since 1998 posted 1 year, 10 months ago 5 Responses

  • I want what I want

    jabailo- who said anything about what a polar bear wants? Nobody did, nor was it inferred. Polar bears live in the arctic because they have adapted to it; it's not that they want to or don't want to, they just DO.On Bush administration will offer oil leases in prime polar-bear habitat posted 1 year, 11 months ago 13 Responses

  • Wrong, wrong,

    wrong. Walmart may have reduced their workers' pollution inadvertantly by providing microwages, but they more than make up for it by simply existing. The poor masses travel to Walmart by car, SUV, or Hummer, purchase all manner of disposable products, waste energy, cause landfill influx via the plastic waste-stream, etc.On A new article examines enviro Adam Werbach's decision to work with Wal-Mart posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

  • Don't forget

    HANS "PANCAKE" TIRRY.On A funny for word nerds posted 2 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

  • The right to doze...

    Folks, I am all for making the manufacturers of new mobile source equipment meet stringent emission standards but as a business owner, I don't want to have to jack with all that jive.  If I want a 1965 bulldozer I should be able to have it as a matter of constitutional rights.  If I want a clean new bulldozer meeting TIER 4 standards, well that's my right too.

    Where in the Constitution does one have a right to own bulldozers?On Ahhhnold and friends tell the folks on the Hill to get with it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses