Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they are wrong. I'm sure there is some issue in which your actions violate your sentiments.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A Greener Apple
- Thread starter TheSailerMan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just because someone is a hypocrite doesn't mean they are wrong. I'm sure there is some issue in which your actions violate your sentiments.
They are only echoing public sentiment. People's opinions on GM food and nuclear power are the two issues that convince me we need better science education in school. It puts traditional propaganda to shame.
Exactly, who was the one who said, he would only believe statistic faken by himself?
I don't think display prices will go up.
Overall, great essay. This is the kind of stuff that makes me feel prouder of Apple.
Makes me want to buy a new iMac right away!
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
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?
That might be true... however, I'm not telling people what they're doing wrong and then do it myself. There's a difference.
-Clive
Actually, that's (at worst) the first time I've ever been wrong...
And don't call me Ernt.
Al Gore
What people need to understand about Gore's carbon credits is the idea of allowing people to invest in greener energy sources. It is not about people being hypocrit's by using as much power as possible and then using their wealth to buy out of it. As Gore states, the only way alternative sources of energy will become successful is to make it profitable, and that may be done by bringing that to the public as current public electricity doesn't offer consumers a choice on where they get their power from. This is a first step, but it isn't perfect. Gore admits it should NOT be used as a way of burning carbon fuels relentlessly, but rather states it is important to limit your carbon footprint as much as possible, and then offsetting what carbon is used by investing in green energy.
As for Gore being a hypocrit, until alternative sources of green energy are available to everyone, we are ALL hypocrits. I just don't understand why there is so much hate and negativity towards someone who is trying to do something positive. It is a sad day when the general public is so jaded and angry for all the wrong reasons. Sad day indeed...
What people need to understand about Gore's carbon credits is the idea of allowing people to invest in greener energy sources. It is not about people being hypocrit's by using as much power as possible and then using their wealth to buy out of it. As Gore states, the only way alternative sources of energy will become successful is to make it profitable, and that may be done by bringing that to the public as current public electricity doesn't offer consumers a choice on where they get their power from. This is a first step, but it isn't perfect. Gore admits it should NOT be used as a way of burning carbon fuels relentlessly, but rather states it is important to limit your carbon footprint as much as possible, and then offsetting what carbon is used by investing in green energy.
As for Gore being a hypocrit, until alternative sources of green energy are available to everyone, we are ALL hypocrits. I just don't understand why there is so much hate and negativity towards someone who is trying to do something positive. It is a sad day when the general public is so jaded and angry for all the wrong reasons. Sad day indeed...
Hate is always wrong, but "negtivity" is found on all sides here--even your sentiments here could have been taken as very negative...negative towards those who are viewed as anti-Gore, for example.
Americans don't like to be told what to do, period. Especially when they are just trying to live thier lives in the ways they've been taught too (recycle, don't litter, etc.) and others are STILL calling them hypocrites, telling them they are destroying the environment and ruining the planet, etc. Even if these things were TRUE, people don't like the way that many environmentalists deal with the situation. People don't like to be told they are "evil" when they're just doing what everyone else does. Saying that someone is ruining the earth because they can't afford a newer car or refrigerator is not helpful to anyone's cause (I'm not saying you would say that, but I just saw someone on CNN talking about this).
As for me, I'm a Christian and as such believe that God gave humans stewardship over the earth--and we've done a pretty crappy job at times--and it is therefore our responsability to care for it to the best of our ability. But for those who don't have religious reasons or strong personal beliefs about caring for the environment, they need to be invited into the dialoge without feeling like they are being attacked...otherwise there will be a very strong anti-environmental sentiment in the next decade.
But back to the topic on hand...LED Macbooks in JULY--woohoo!!
Thank you!
Thanks for doing the right thing!
I was just thinking this morning about my ugly credit card bill, and of how I am probably still paying for my G5 dual 1.8 that I brought years ago ... but then I realized it was just so worth it compared to a PC, really no comparison.
And now Apple has taken a turn for a greener future.
Thank you Apple! (once again)!
Thanks for doing the right thing!
I was just thinking this morning about my ugly credit card bill, and of how I am probably still paying for my G5 dual 1.8 that I brought years ago ... but then I realized it was just so worth it compared to a PC, really no comparison.
And now Apple has taken a turn for a greener future.
Thank you Apple! (once again)!
No, I'm not a hypocrit because I'm not telling others to make sacrifices in their lives to reduce their carbon footprints. Al Gore is a hypocrit because he DOES tell people these things thhen proceeds to do the opposite. He lives in a mansion, hogging energy, not only by its sheer square footage, but also with a heated pool and other lavish amenities. Then he doesn't even purchase the offsets himself! It's an employee benefit of a firm he chairs! Big self sacrifice, Mr. Gore. Way to set the bar high.
As for me personally, I know I don't always do my best to save energy. I do, however strive to improve in this department because I know it's important. I will never admit to being perfect in this department, and I might never achieve an neutral carbon footprint, but the important thing is that I continue to improve in this department and that is what my goal is.
If I were Al Gore, this is what I would tell others to do as well. If everyone does a little, it does a lot.
-Clive
It sounds to me Al Gore's critics are more jealous of his lifestyle than critical of his [supposed] inabilities in off-setting his carbon footprints. Every time I read someone's comments criticizing him it's always about his big home and luxuries. I'd like to know where this information is that states Al Gore does such. Further, Al Gore is LOADED, would you rather he live in a trailer home using very little energy?
Hmmmm
Again, the core of what Al Gore is attempting to do was glossed over in my statements with more personal attacks on Al Gore. If people really think about what Gore is trying to do by making a market for alternative green sources of energy people would be more apt in investing in these sources and thus bringing more environmentally conscious energy to the mass public. It's not about Gore, it's about what the end result is: building an economy based on alternative energy. Where there is money, the people will follow...
Again, the core of what Al Gore is attempting to do was glossed over in my statements with more personal attacks on Al Gore. If people really think about what Gore is trying to do by making a market for alternative green sources of energy people would be more apt in investing in these sources and thus bringing more environmentally conscious energy to the mass public. It's not about Gore, it's about what the end result is: building an economy based on alternative energy. Where there is money, the people will follow...
I could care less about being enviromentally friendly.
Will these displays perform better? Better Resolution? Sharper Picture? Lower Response time? Better Viewing angle?
I will trade the enviroment any day if I can get a better computer.
Why can't you use English? It is "I couldn't care less about ..."
I love you worthwhile post. You're right. The environment sucks!
That is such a bad post on so many levels. Go take a proper class and I am sure you'll find out why...
Let's start killing each other to lower CO2 levels.
This has nothing to do with CO2 (or very little)
Because you won't see 6 hours in a laptop for a while yet. LED displays or no LED displays.
All you are doing is showing that you don't understand what Gore has said and what he advocates. He doesn't advocate living a life of poverty in order to save energy. He does advocate limiting our carbon footprint. In his own case he does this, for example by buying, at a premium cost, energy for his home that is produced by non-greenhouse emitting sources (wind power, etc.) He could be using 100 times the energy as other homes and he would still be in keeping with what he advocates. Gore is a capitalist who has no problem with the accumulation of wealth. He just wants us all to do so in a way that doesn't destroy the earth through a human-induced greenhouse effect. The only hypocrisy is from his opponents that distort what he says and tell him he must live his life differently - all the while they are living a life totally unconcerned about environmental issues.
MSNBC
Well lets see.
First off CO2 vs. mercury\lead; I would love to see plants absorb mercury and output oxygen. Secondly that is what plants are for. You know trees? This planet has a surprisingly good ability to take care of itself when all it has to contend with are the basics that humans and animals have thrown at it since that first animal crawled out of the ocean.
We aren't doing this for the planet. We are doing this for us. Mankind could be wiped from the face of the planet tomorrow via nuclear armageddon and the planet would keep on spinning, repair itself in a few hundred thousand years and start over.
No what this is about is keeping this crap out of the dump. Out of the landfill because eventually it will make it back into the environment in some form or another and give little billy in 2078 a nice cancer of some form or another.
I really do love the justifications people use. Well everything is bad for the environment so lets all say screw it and do nothing. That might not have been your intention but that definitely is the vibe that comes off your post.
Besides the obvious environmental benefits of LED backlighting it makes me hope that Apple will combine the ability of the ACD's and the greater effect of LED backlighting and go into the TV business with large LCD's. I'm sure they won't but their HDTV's would be amazing and very expensive .
and very expensive .No, it doesn't, since you (and Greenpeace) took it out of context. Here's the entire relevant quote:
Of course Greenpeace (and you) try to make it sound like they are changing their environmental-policies and that it's all thanks to Greenpeace. When in fact they are merely changing their policy regarding their environment-related PR.
So in short: Greenpeace == Deceptive liars.
Greenpeace is making the assertion that Apple has changed their _environmental_policies and that it's thanks to Greenpeace. And that claim is 100% false.
But that has not changed here. Apple has not suddenly become more green thanks to Greenpeace. Their policies are the same as they were before the Greenpeace-campaign. What they are doing is that they will simply tell more about their efforts.
Again: Greenpeace = Deceptive liars.
This is unbelieveable. Just like Greenpeace, I have [people] on my back who aren't actually READING what I am saying. They just detect that I have a stance against Al Gore and decide to attack, despite the fact that I AGREE with Gore that we should do what is in our power to reduce our impact on the environment.
It's right here, among many other places around the web. All you need to do is google it. And I'll summarize it again for those of you who will not read the article: Gore expends twice the energy in one month than the average American uses in one year. He does NOT use solar; he does NOT use geo-thermal. He claims he purchases carbon offsets. Even that is not true. The offsets are purchased on his behalf as an employee benefit of the firm he chairs. Translation: Al Gore makes no personal sacrifice to reduce his carbon footprint. In the meantime, he encourages others to make those sacrifices in order to better the environment.
BY DEFINITION, THAT IS A DOUBLE STANDARD.
If it more accurately alligns his actions with the perspective that he cares so dearly about then yes. It doesn't matter how much money one has. I live comfortably, yet I still try to find ways to reduce my impact on the environment.
Actually, yes I do. He advocates making personal sacrifices to reduce one's carbon footprint. That's EXACTLY what I've stated in previous posts which you obviously didn't read.
At what point did I say anything about living a life of poverty? Oh, that's right, I didn't.
No he doesn't. Read above. Al Gore does not purchase the offsets.
No, actually, Gore does the smart thing and doesn't directly attribute global warming to humans. The reason for this is because out of all carbon emmissions on our planet, humans are actually one of the smallest pieces of pie. He also knows, as any informed scientist will tell you, that global temperatures experience natural fluctuations. We know for a fact that we are experiencing slightly above-normal temperatures, but it cannot be attributed directly to humans. Sure we don't help matters, but to say it's our fault would not be accurate. Gore knows this and instead he advocates, as I do, doing what we can to reduce the carbon emmissions that ARE our fault. He recommends we do this through personal sacrifices to our daily energy-using habits.
Obviously you are not talking about me because I DO have concern about reducing our energy use (as you would have learned if you had read ANY of my previous posts). What I am saying is that Al Gore is NOT living up to his own standards of self-sacrifice for a greener world. The only way I would be a hypocrit in this manner would be if I was the one telling others to reduce my carbon footprint. And I am not.
Let this stand as a lesson that leaders can be deceptive. Just because I won't fall for the hoax that Gore is "leading the charge" against energy consumption doesn't mean I disagree with the cause. Don't let yourself be a fool. Read what I am saying. Understand that I do advocate a healther, greener environment even though I disagree with Al Gore himself. It isn't difficult to understand when you actually take the time to read and comprehend my argument instead of immediately pegging me as a right-wing, toxin-dumping, hummer-driving, pollution-loving, naysayer.
-Clive
It's right here, among many other places around the web. All you need to do is google it. And I'll summarize it again for those of you who will not read the article: Gore expends twice the energy in one month than the average American uses in one year. He does NOT use solar; he does NOT use geo-thermal. He claims he purchases carbon offsets. Even that is not true. The offsets are purchased on his behalf as an employee benefit of the firm he chairs. Translation: Al Gore makes no personal sacrifice to reduce his carbon footprint. In the meantime, he encourages others to make those sacrifices in order to better the environment.
BY DEFINITION, THAT IS A DOUBLE STANDARD.
If it more accurately alligns his actions with the perspective that he cares so dearly about then yes. It doesn't matter how much money one has. I live comfortably, yet I still try to find ways to reduce my impact on the environment.
Actually, yes I do. He advocates making personal sacrifices to reduce one's carbon footprint. That's EXACTLY what I've stated in previous posts which you obviously didn't read.
At what point did I say anything about living a life of poverty? Oh, that's right, I didn't.
No he doesn't. Read above. Al Gore does not purchase the offsets.
No, actually, Gore does the smart thing and doesn't directly attribute global warming to humans. The reason for this is because out of all carbon emmissions on our planet, humans are actually one of the smallest pieces of pie. He also knows, as any informed scientist will tell you, that global temperatures experience natural fluctuations. We know for a fact that we are experiencing slightly above-normal temperatures, but it cannot be attributed directly to humans. Sure we don't help matters, but to say it's our fault would not be accurate. Gore knows this and instead he advocates, as I do, doing what we can to reduce the carbon emmissions that ARE our fault. He recommends we do this through personal sacrifices to our daily energy-using habits.
Obviously you are not talking about me because I DO have concern about reducing our energy use (as you would have learned if you had read ANY of my previous posts). What I am saying is that Al Gore is NOT living up to his own standards of self-sacrifice for a greener world. The only way I would be a hypocrit in this manner would be if I was the one telling others to reduce my carbon footprint. And I am not.
Let this stand as a lesson that leaders can be deceptive. Just because I won't fall for the hoax that Gore is "leading the charge" against energy consumption doesn't mean I disagree with the cause. Don't let yourself be a fool. Read what I am saying. Understand that I do advocate a healther, greener environment even though I disagree with Al Gore himself. It isn't difficult to understand when you actually take the time to read and comprehend my argument instead of immediately pegging me as a right-wing, toxin-dumping, hummer-driving, pollution-loving, naysayer.
-Clive
Oh really? Since when does Apple encapsulate everything that has to do with computer?