A Greener Apple

[irbdavid]

From a while back in the thread:

I also think we'll see a raise in Apple's display prices but there will also be benifits to the newer displays:

• Perfect 180º viewing angle (*)
• Less power hungry (*)
• Better contrast ratio
•*"True" whites/blacks
• Better color gamut
• Better durability/lifetime
• Lighter/thinner casings (*)

(*) A lot of these factor will benefit the laptops.

Few points to make:
1) No LCD will ever have a perfect 180? viewing angle, simply because the LCD layer and filters would need to be infinitely thin to achieve this. Can't happen because you have to have _some_ liquid crystals behind each filter for the thing to work
2) Contrast is determined by the effectiveness of the crystal layer and the polarising filters, not the backlight - same for 'true blacks'.
3) The colour gamut, the whiteness of the whites etc is again affected by a lot more than just the backlight. A brighter, whiter back light will make some improvement but last time I looked into it, fluorescent cathodes were a lot 'whiter' than white LEDs. But LED tech moves at a pretty astounding pace.

LED backlights sound great to me, but I just worry about how even the backlighting will be given that they're basically just point sources of lights, rather than the convenient bars of cathodes.

My money is still on OLEDs in the long term though, since they do away with so much of what limits current LCD tech (LED backlights or not, you still need some sort of backlight, colour filters, polarisers...). There's a lot of money going into display tech and the lifetime bugs etc will be worked out of OLEDs pretty soon. Not that that didn't stop people buying plasma TVs...

 

[Evangelion]

I broadly agree with you, nothing in fact changed but as Apple wouldn't previously reveal their plans we could only assume they were not intending to cease the use of certain toxins.

Even if that was true: so what? Is it better for the environment if Apple simply reduced their ecological footprint, as opposed to them reducing their ecological footprint while making huge press-releases out of it? What exactly has Greenpeace accomplished here, as far as environment is concerned? Answer: Nothing. Nothing at all. Yet they still act as if they managed to "make Apple change their policies", when in fact the only policy they changed was that they made their activities public. And that act alone does NOTHING to help the environment.

Greenpeace: Get off from your high horse, and go hug a tree. You are trying to make yourself look like some champion of environment here, when in fact you acomplished NOTHING.

I'm happy for Greenpeace to overstate anything, they're doing as much as they can while a vast majority of our race sit on their fat collective arses in their hugely overpowered automobiles in traffic jams...

Yet they, among other things, oppose nuclear power, even though it doesn't pump pollution in to the atmosphere...

 

[macleod199]

I took college-level environmental science, biology, and chemistry in high school. Maybe my education was lacking, because I don't recall learning about any long-term studies on the safety of GM-food, the ability to separate GM-food growth from organic farming to the extent there isn't contamination, or about any long-term plans for the storage of nuclear waste. And I went to school every day. Tell me, what should I have learned about those important issues that I missed?

I think we have better plans for storing nuclear waste than where we've been storing the waste from most of our other energy sources (coal, oil/diesel/etc). And don't forget all the toxins produced making solar panels. And all the birds killed by wind farms.

There's pros and cons of everything. Personally, I think that nuclear makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, and the dangers are overhyped. One of the issues with it now is that so many people have been turned off of it. This has led to under-enrollment in nuclear engineering programs, meaning there's not enough qualified people to maintain the current reactors. Which is one of the reasons they haven't run so smoothly as of late - something environmentalists are quick to point out.

I'm even more excited about offshore wind farming, though, although it will probably never supply enough energy for all of us. Wind farms get a lot of the same 'not in my back yard' attitude as nuclear plants, though, unfortunately.

 

[Evangelion]

LED backlights sound great to me, but I just worry about how even the backlighting will be given that they're basically just point sources of lights, rather than the convenient bars of cathodes.

In reality, screens with LED-backlight have more even illumination than cathode-illuminated screens do.

 

[Apple Architect]

Stark

What is a "big d**k nissan W**K mobile"???? I've only seen 1 model of Full Size pickup from nissan and the gas mileage is better than it's American Counterparts. I'd say you're looking for something along the lines of the Chevy Suburban or a F-350 to better illustrate your point. I have the misfortune of living in Texas so I know what you mean - there are WAY WAY WAY too many SUV's/Trucks out there being used simply for a daily commute...

Its a line from a book, Stark by Ben Elton. And you did get it, the actual line is "Nissan Toyota Big D**k Wa** Mobiles". The idea of big cars with crap mpg. You have to remember that here in Europe most of us drive cars that get 30-40 mpg.

Regardless, this is really about Apple just saying "look, groups have been lying about us and we want to set the record straight." Of course I wouldn't expect any type of apology from Greenpeace for their lies but an admission of fraudulence would at least be adult like of them. But then again if they did that they wouldn't be greenpeace.

I actually don't think you will find they are lying. Greenpeace based the report on data they had. I am sure that without such pressure some of the "business as usual" methods at Apple would not exist today.

 

[CoreWeb]

"Including uncertainties in the models and in future greenhouse gas concentrations, the IPCC anticipates a warming of 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100."

i'm bloody shaking in my boots

I suppose you do realize that that seemingly small amount of change in temperature can cause very drastic change in climate? Such as sea levels going up, meaning much less shore, meaning areas where people are living now going UNDER WATER?

1.1º C may not seem like much - but as a global change, it is quite a lot.

 

[-hh]

As i was a participant in a thread recently and made my opinion clear that I wanted apple to be a leader in this field I am happy they have made this change and are declaring their goals. Hopefully they will fullfill them

Now that Apple has revealed what they're doing, it is found that they already are the effective leader in the field.

Greenpeace's real complaint of Apple wasn't that they weren't doing anything, but merely that Apple wasn't telling Greenpeace what they were doing. -hh

wow. how in gods name did you read that into their statement?

Because Apple's accomplishments didn't just begin yesterday, or even 6 months or a year or two ago when Greenpeace started their campaign. Instead, Apple's initiatives go back years and years and years.

For *anyone* (read GP) to try to take full credit for the hard work and ongoing accomplishments of others (read Apple) is nothing less than unethical.

Greenepeace and other people (quite rightly) where upset that a iconic brand like apple didnt disclose this information. The consumers and the people/species living on this planet have a right to know

We, the Public, only have the right to know if the company is within the current laws.

We, the Public have no rights of knowledge of anyone's future business plans.

Yes, it would be nice for a company to choose to share their future business plans with us, but there is no legal or ethical obligation for them to do so.

there are two ways of reading into that paragraph. You chose to think that apple was already this numero uno eco friendly company in the world but didnt disclose anything as they are so modest. Others might want to think that they behaved like many fortune 500 companies did/do and cut corners where possible

Actually, that's an overinterpetation too. Apple chose to not disclose things - - but it was for whatever reasons that they felt were important.

Maybe it was modesty, but personally, I doubt it. My guess was that it is a core value for them, but one which must get balanced against the financial bottom line. They probably don't make announcements of plans because this then forcibly locks them into that promise regardless of costs, which is the old "Under promise & over deliver" value of Apple. As such, they won't mention things until the financial risk has been identified and minimized, since Apple has to keep their products competitive with the rest of industry in order to be successful, plus they don't want to have people disappointed when a technology can't be delivered on time - - just look at all of the teeth-gnashing that occurred over G5 clock speeds (3GHz promise), or over Leopard's delivery schedule: being unable to meet your promises always results in a more negative perception of your corporation.

absolute nonsense. It was clear from greenpeace´s comments that they wanted a recycling program wherever (makes a bit of sense) apple sold computers.

I agree, but I was merely being sarcastic. GP had effectively been accusing Apple of being an e-waste exporter to Asia for their US goods, but it appears that that this was a fabrication because they assumed in the absence of factual data.

Presently, Greenpeace has not admitted that they made mistakes in what they accused Apple of. This failure to come clean and admit to their shortcomings is merely one more example as to why I am no longer personally a financial supporter of the Greenpeace organization.


-hh

 

[Lycanthrope]

Even if that was true: so what? Is it better for the environment if Apple simply reduced their ecological footprint, as opposed to them reducing their ecological footprint while making huge press-releases out of it? What exactly has Greenpeace accomplished here, as far as environment is concerned? Answer: Nothing. Nothing at all. Yet they still act as if they managed to "make Apple change their policies", when in fact the only policy they changed was that they made their activities public. And that act alone does NOTHING to help the environment.

Greenpeace: Get off from your high horse, and go hug a tree. You are trying to make yourself look like some champion of environment here, when in fact you acomplished NOTHING.

Well I think this has created a lot of positive publicity around a company that a lot of people follow (here we all are...) and that's a great thing for Greenpeace.

Don't be so harsh on Greenpeace, they've been campaigning for many years on environmental matters, long before we were aware of the global warming issue - long before many of us were born I think...

Yet they, among other things, oppose nuclear power, even though it doesn't pump pollution in to the atmosphere...

I don't know GP's reason to campaign against nuclear energy but I imagine it's revolving around the risks (remember Chenobyl?) and the rather nasty waste that is produced and the disposal thereof.

Indeed nuclear fission when properly managed is a very safe and clean way to produce energy.

 

[macleod199]

In this case Apple had not divulged their plans to cease the usage of certain toxins in the same way other companies have, the only assumption that can be made without the facts is the worst-case scenario and that's what GP did.

I wish someone (and especially Steve Jobs and Greenpeace) would just go to this website:

http://www.epeat.net/

An environmental assessment tool was created by the IEEE (i.e. the same people who define standards for everything from electrical wiring to WiFi to simulator architectures) and the Environmental Protection Agency. Which I hope we can all agree are relatively unbiased parties.

The results on that webpage have, for at least the last year, shown Apple leading the pack in environmental sustainability, especially in the notebook category. The facts are, and have been, available, for a while. Greenpeace just chose to focus more on the PR image of the companies, rather than their record. As did Steve. Disappointing, all around.

 

[bigmc6000]

I don't know GP's reason to campaign against nuclear energy but I imagine it's revolving around the risks (remember Chenobyl?) and the rather nasty waste that is produced and the disposal thereof.

Indeed nuclear fission when properly managed is a very safe and clean way to produce energy.

1 thing you should know about Chernobyl is that NO US nuclear power facility has even been built with as little protection as that. Remember the so-called Three Mile Island incident? Turns out that absolutely no abnormal radiation was detected outside of the facility. The level of security and preventative measures in todays nuclear power plants are absolutely insane. There's a nuke plant near Houston Texas that has an external wall thick enough to absorb a direct impact from a 777 - and that's just the EXTERNAL wall.

Also, there is no such thing as nuclear "waste." They are simply storing it in containers that are as safe as eating a banana (potassium is a radio active isotope and holding a Geiger counter next to a banana will show you that) until we have the technology to use it. We're not just throwing it away - we're storing it for future use.

 

[Evangelion]

Well I think this has created a lot of positive publicity around a company that a lot of people follow (here we all are...) and that's a great thing for Greenpeace.

Apple already had a lot of positive publicity. What we have here is basically this:

GP: "Apple, you suck! You pollute way too much!"
Apple: "No we don't"
GP: "Yes you do!"
Apple: "No we don't. In fact, here are some facts that show that we are in fact among the most progressive companys in the business"
GP: "Another victory for Greenpeace! Without us, Apple would still be polluting way too much! Aren't we great?"

And they did that while there were other companies that were still selling CRT's. Did GP attack them? Of course not! And that's because the goal of this campaign was NOT to improve environment, the goal was to get more publicity for Greenpeace. If they were really concerned about environment here, they would be attackign those companies that make low-quality computers that break after few years and end up in landfill. they would be attacking those companies that still sell CRT's. Did they do any of that? No they did not.

Don't be so harsh on Greenpeace, they've been campaigning for many years on environmental matters, long before we were aware of the global warming issue - long before many of us were born I think...

I will be "harsh" on Greenpeace because, quite frankly, I hate them. There are environmental-organisations that I respect, but Greenpeace is not among them.

I don't know GP's reason to campaign against nuclear energy but I imagine it's revolving around the risks (remember Chenobyl?) and the rather nasty waste that is produced and the disposal thereof.

Using Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power is pretty darn dumb. Chernobyl is imply not relevant to the discussion, it was mishandled plant that had fundamentally flawed design. And there are ways to handle nuclear waste, one idea is to convert it back to nuclear fuel, and re-use it for energy.

 

[Lycanthrope]

Apple already had a lot of positive publicity.

I think I expressed my self badly there, I was referring to the publicity that Greenpeace gained by slagging Apple...

Using Chernobyl as an argument against nuclear power is pretty darn dumb. Chernobyl is imply not relevant to the discussion, it was mishandled plant that had fundamentally flawed design. And there are ways to handle nuclear waste, one idea is to convert it back to nuclear fuel, and re-use it for energy.

I'm not arguing against nuclear power, I'm very pro nuclear power. My brother is the top ranking safety officer at a UK nuclear power generation site and if he's to be believed the safety in place is incredibly redundant. No, I'm very comfortable with that. France, the country one hour drive from where I'm sitting produces 70% of its electricity from nuclear - I'm not aware of any major incidents ever hapenning there.

But, when it does go wrong the impact can be quite high and when the by-products of fission are not contained adequately then there's a problem.

 

[Data]

Optimistic

Data, your numbers are imaginary - not even close to the actual marketshare figures.

I was a bit optimistc there indeed, but that taks nothing away from the point i was making, right ?

 

[AlexisV]

Call me cynical, but report comes out saying Apple aren't the most environmentally friendly, Apple releases statement a few weeks later, Apple improves PR, Apple improves sales

Ker-ching!

 

[Manic Mouse]

"Including uncertainties in the models and in future greenhouse gas concentrations, the IPCC anticipates a warming of 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100."

i'm bloody shaking in my boots

also, temperatures are rising on other planets in our solar system and i'm pretty certain nobody is driving SUVs on Venus.CO2 emissions are not what you should be worried about, worry about something that is actually toxic if you must.

So we shouldn't worry about large portions of the populated cost being submerged, erratic and severe weather (like Katrina) and the end of the Gulf stream?

That's a whole new level of apathy right there.

 

[3282872]

"Including uncertainties in the models and in future greenhouse gas concentrations, the IPCC anticipates a warming of 1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to 11.5 °F) between 1990 and 2100."

i'm bloody shaking in my boots

also, temperatures are rising on other planets in our solar system and i'm pretty certain nobody is driving SUVs on Venus.CO2 emissions are not what you should be worried about, worry about something that is actually toxic if you must.

Keep in mind, it only takes 1-2 degree C rise in GLOBAL temp to cause serious problems, such as the melting of the polls. When the sea levels rise (and at this point it is inevitable), how are we going to damn all the coastal cities and who will pay for it? All the nay-sayers that deny humanity's negative effects on the environment? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, it's a river running through your backyards...

 

[3282872]

But, when it does go wrong the impact can be quite high and when the by-products of fission are not contained adequately then there's a problem.

What happens to all that waste? Where does it go? I always wondered. Buried in tightly sealed barrels under ground, out of sight, out of mind, until they leak and effect the fresh water we depend on for life and the ecosystem animals and humans depend on for living? How about getting away from Nuclear power and investing in solar, wind, water, hydrogen. Honda and GM already have cars running on hydrogren fuel that occurs in abundance in nature and is being harvested through the use of solar power technology (that has greatly improved through recent R and D). Nuclear power is exactly what we should NOT be getting into, it's counter intuitive.

 

[bigmc6000]

See previous post

What happens to all that waste? Where does it go? I always wondered. Buried in tightly sealed barrels under ground, out of sight, out of mind, until they leak and effect the fresh water we depend on for life and the ecosystem animals and humans depend on for living? How about getting away from Nuclear power and investing in solar, wind, water, hydrogen. Honda and GM already have cars running on hydrogren fuel that occurs in adundance in nature and is being harvested through the use of solar power technology (that has greatly improved through recent R and D). Nuclear power is exactly what we should NOT be getting into, it's counter intuitive.

See post #263 - and stop spreading FUD...

Futhermore, the locations of the storage facilities are so far away from the water table and the storage containers so sealed that they won't affect anything for 10,000 years. Yes, that was the new regulation laid out for the storage of "nuclear waste" (entirely under political pressure of course) - so really, stop the FUD...

 

[3282872]

We're not just throwing it away - we're storing it for future use.

That has to be the FUNNIEST statement I have ever read. Just "storing it" up. ROFL If it's so safe, then why are they "storing it up" in tightly sealed drums away from major metropolitan area's? If it's so safe, then by all means, use those drums as a make shift kitchen table and have dinner around them with your family. Don't mind the glow, it's like a nice tan... and until we find a use for it? Assuming we WILL find a use.

If any one is spreading FUD around here, you need to take a good, long hard look in the mirror (don't mind that toxic glow, remember, it's safe, and get your daily dose of radio active isotope's from those banana's). Of course, comparing the banana's and barrels of radio active waste is tantamount to comparing, well, "bananas" and oranges.

While you're at it, realize this is a debate section, and you don't know EVERYTHING.

 

[Evangelion]

I think I expressed my self badly there, I was referring to the publicity that Greenpeace gained by slagging Apple...

So this wasn't about environment, this was about publicity for Greenpeace? That's what I thought....

 

[Evangelion]

and until we find a use for it? Assuming we WILL find a use.

Energy. Basically you get a bunch of waste as a sideproduct from nuclear power. Then that waste is re-used as energy. And then it's used again, again and again.

The waste could be used in IFR-reactor. IFR converts 99.5% of fuel in to energy, compare that to less than 1% current reactors achieve. And the remaining waste is only dangerous few hundred years, as opposed to thousands of years.

So less waste (a lot less) and less dangerous waste. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[bigmc6000]

hmm

That has to be the FUNNIEST statement I have ever read. Just "storing it" up. ROFL If it's so safe, then why are they "storing it up" in tightly sealed drums away from major metropolitan area's? If it's so safe, then by all means, use those drums as a make shift kitchen table and have dinner around them with your family. Don't mind the glow, it's like a nice tan... and until we find a use for it? Assuming we WILL find a use.

If any one is spreading FUD around here, you need to take a good, long hard look in the mirror (don't mind that toxic glow, remember, it's safe, and get your daily dose of radio active isotope's from those banana's). Of course, comparing the banana's and barrels of radio active waste is tantamount to comparing, well, "bananas" and oranges.

While you're at it, realize this is a debate section, and you don't know EVERYTHING.

Reading your post tends to make me think you really don't have any knowledge of the subject at all since you still haven't made a single factual point. They store it far away because of people like you who are needlessly fearful of a technology you don't understand...

By the way - france is currently using the level of "waste" we're creating to produce energy but because of politics we're so far behind in the game we don't have that level of technology yet.

So how many people were exposed to excessive radiation at the infamous 3 mile island incident? Ya know - the WORST nuclear power plant accident we've ever had.

Hint - it's 0...

"Don't mind the glow, it's like a nice tan... " that's the FUD - you've never been around one, you've never seen one, you've never talked to anyone who works with them you're just venting about something you have no idea about. That would probably help your argument - ya know - facts and stuff...

 

[Clive At Five]

...and besides, your SOURCE is from Faux News HAHAHAHAHA The "Fair and Balanced" Republikkklan Fox News has already been called out on its numerous lies ESPECIALLY the non-sense about Al Gore's supposed misuse of energy (how many times did they report Mark Foley as a Democrate knowing full and well he was one of theirs? Hmmm fair and balanced lol). Get a clue...

Like I said, CJD2112 won't listen to reason. I'll try to make it a little easier for you... Here's the same information from several different articles, none of which are associated to Fox News:

LINK 1

The confusion, Campbell said, arose because GIM pays to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore.

So, the firm will cover the cost to offset the energy use at Gore's home, or his global jet travel, as it would the offset cost of any other employee, Campbell said.

LINK 2

The offset purchases are actually made for him by Generation Investment Management, a London-based investment firm that Mr. Gore co-founded, and which provides carbon offsets as a fringe benefit to all 23 of its employees, ensuring that they require no real sacrifice on the part of Mr. Gore or his family.

LINK 3

A few months ago, when Gore’s personal energy usage was in the news, a Gore spokesman told the paper that Gore was “carbon neutral” because he purchases carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management.

That has turned out not to be true. Instead, Gore’s company buys carbon offsets from CarbonNeutral “in order to offset the carbon that results from its business and staff activities, including commuting and air travel,” The Tennessean now reports. Neither Gore nor the companies’ employees pay for their offsets - they are a part of the employee benefits package, a perk...

So now if you still choose not to believe the evidence that is right in front of your face, there is no help for you.

And I'll say it one last time: I AM FOR REDUCING OUR CARBON FOOTPRINTS. I am against Al Gore's hypocritical ways. He preaches that we all have to make personal sacrifices in order to reduce the effects of global warming. He asks us, "Are you ready to change the way you live?" Meanwhile, he hasn't changed his lifestyle, nor has he made any sacrifices. He, personally, is contributing to global warming 20 times the amount of the average American and justifies it with "carbon offests," a.k.a. investments in renewable resource companies through GIM, a company which he chairs. The payoff then, if one of these companies grows big, is that those investments, too, will grow, leading to a big payoff for Gore in the end.

It seems to me the only cause he truly cares about is his pocketbook.

If you are not able to draw a similar conclusion or at the very least, see where I am coming from, I have pity on you. Open your eyes and quit allowing yourself to be led by frauds. Take initiative to stand up for what YOU believe in instead of what Al Gore believes in. Maybe they'll coincide, maybe they won't. Just don't allow yourself to be sucked into the propoganda machine that is politics. It will cause you to refute all fact in the name of supporting a stance. Stand for yourself.

-Clive

 

[3282872]

If you are not able to draw a similar conclusion or at the very least, see where I am coming from, I have pity on you. Open your eyes and quit allowing yourself to be led by frauds. Take initiative to stand up for what YOU believe in instead of what Al Gore believes in. Maybe they'll coincide, maybe they won't. Just don't allow yourself to be sucked into the propoganda machine that is politics. It will cause you to refute all fact in the name of supporting a stance. Stand for yourself.

-Clive

Thanks Clive, but I don't believe in everything Al Gore states either, and you definitely didn't read any of my posts if you truly believe that. I believe in his message, but my point was most people seem to ignore his message and attack him, which is exactly what you initially did.

Certainly CO2 levels rise naturally, over the course of 1,000+ years, NOT in the course of 100 years or less and NOT with the rapid change in global climate we are currently experiencing. Cutting down trees through excessive logging and paper consumption that are essential in recycling humanity's excessive CO2 emissions is part of the problem, as well as over-population and suburban sprawl. Note that Los Angeles had the BEST electrical mass transit train system in the 1930-40's until General Motors bought the mass electrical system out with a monopoly in order to use diesel buses ( http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm and a Wikipedia reference just for those that believe it to be the best lol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...car_conspiracy ) ? Check it out. We have become an oil based nation with political powers that have heavy ties to oil companies. Lee Raymond, ex-Exxon/Mobil CEO retired with a $400 MILLION DOLLAR PARACHUTE PACKAGE ( http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989 )! Exxon/Mobil reported the biggest profits in the fourth quarter of 2005 of $10.7 Billion at a time when Americans were paying the most at the pump ( http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=1558860 ). Apparently this was due to the extra money Exxon/Mobil spent acquiring oil due to Katrina and Iraq, yet if that were the case their profit margin would have remained the SAME, not increased, in order to compensate for costs. We're all pawns in the corporate/political oil game people, it's time we woke up from our dream states of bigger flat screen TV's, political rhetoric and realized we're just sheep baa'ing our way through it all.

I think people get angry over this issue because it is hard to accept that our way of life is negatively impacting the planet and our future. We have become arrogant creatures with our religious beliefs and our recent rapid rise in technological innovations since the industrial revolution that we have lost sight of the fact that we are still carbon based life forms that are a small part in nature’s grand scheme. Using Al Gore as an escape goat and piñata to blow off and continue our lives of luxury and indifference is not going to solve the problem, and the "figures" from FOX News and Wikipedia (FACT Wikipedia is a user submitted site and many of the "facts" are completely inaccurate that teachers and Professors have automatically failed students for referencing any information from Wikipedia) have been proven inaccurate and laughable. We need a lot more humility in our lives...

Instead of casting all this aside and arguing, why not make a difference. It's easy to criticize someone for putting something they passionately believe in out there than it is in doing something positive and active. I recycle 50-60% of all our household waste; I purchase organic produce and only shop from retailers that ship using recyclable materials. I recycle all cardboard materials and paper products, use cloth dinner napkins and biodegradable household products such as Method (which are cheap and sold at Target). I recently purchased brand new Kenmore Elite stainless steel appliances for my parents and my home, including dishwasher drawers that use less water and energy, and I saved 20% plus 10% and another 10% on the appliances and warranties, with two years no interest on my Sears card. The point is, if we all do a little bit (and we don't have to spend a fortune), each one of us can make a difference, we just have to realize that we need to and care enough to make it happen...

Al Gore is demonstrating that there is a huge green economy out there waiting to be made, if we just transition slowly off of oil we would not need to be involved in the Middle East conflicts (although something tells me our government has done more to produce these conflicts in order to gauge oil prices and create more terrorism - wasn't it the U.S. that trained Osama bin Laden and Sadam Hussein in the first place?). An economy based on green power is not a fantasy, it can and has to become a reality, we just need to make it happen with our dollars...

Do not pity me, I have enough education, knowledge and desire to learn and understand to get me through life without needing any pity. Instead of lecturing and putting people down online, why not concede someone may have a point, but steer them in the right direction if they are wrong. People have lost site of common decency in the online community, it's quite depressing and disheartening.

 

[Watters]

I suppose you do realize that that seemingly small amount of change in temperature can cause very drastic change in climate? Such as sea levels going up, meaning much less shore, meaning areas where people are living now going UNDER WATER?

1.1º C may not seem like much - but as a global change, it is quite a lot.

Plz don't go watch an inconvenient truth or take an intro enviro coarse and start spitting out a stupid line about climate change, and if you want to, go find a crappy environmental forum.

Any one think that the new displays will be out the same time as Santa Rosa? and will santa rosa be out in may or in WWDC