Blog Action Day

aroberts writes "Today is Blog Action Day which means that lots of bloggers will be writing on one general topic for one day in an attempt to see what might be achieved through coordinated posting, and I am one of them so my humble contribution amongst the hundreds of thousands is entitled individual action is not enough. The topic for this year's blog action day is the environment." You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter when the people with control don't even know how to read the tubes. Lick a stamp or march- that's harder to ignore.

Comments

Take your Blog and Shove It !

[Anonymous Coward]

Take your Blog and Shove It ! I ain't reading here no more !!

Re:Take your Blog and Shove It !

[rucs_hack]

I'm reminded of Deep Thoughts Comment to Vroomfondle and Majikthise - "And Who Will That Inconvenience?"

Re:Take your Blog and Shove It !

[dbrutus]

So how did you like Dan Rather on the evening news last night?

Re:Take your Blog and Shove It !

[DrWho520]

Oh, come on! Blogging action day is B.A.D.!

Re:Take your Blog and Shove It !

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice sig. I also like my women like I like my coffee - ground up and in the freezer....

Re:Take your Blog and Shove It !

[glittalogik]

Dark, from South America, less than $5 each.

That Sucking Sound

[CajunArson]

This reminds me of a quote I heard on the difference between blogging and flogging

The difference between blogging and flogging, is that flogging actually leaves an impression on people.

"march..."

[toomanyhandles]

I read that as "match" as in a call for lighting a match. I guess that shows how frustrated I'm getting with the _status quo_.

Fixed.

[EveryNickIsTaken]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter. Fixed that for you...

Re:Fixed.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking. Fixed that for you.

"Kettle? CmdrTaco on line one."

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter when the people with control don't even know how to read the tubes. Lick a stamp or march- that's harder to ignore."

So sayeth the man with one of the biggest blogs around.

Re:"Kettle? CmdrTaco on line one."

[Anonymous Coward]

CmdrTaco attempts to accomplish nothing but getting people fired for reading /.

He doesn't pretend that he's going to impeach Bush, he doesn't pretend he's going to stop world hunger, at least, not without marching.

Posting anon so people don't think I'm sucking up to CmdrHotSauce for Karma.

Uh...

[Anonymous Coward]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter
Isn't ./ your blog, blumpkin?

Such an impact

[tomknight]

Tumbleweed drifts past....

Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry. Al Gore has that space locked up. You will need to chose another topic or prepare a royalty check.

Everyone knows he is the father of the environment as well as the internet.

cheers

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Hey, that's a Nobel Prize winner you're talking about. Mock not the mighty Gore, for all humanity depends on his benevolent leadership to survive!

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's kind of sad when people attack the person and not the idea. Go ahead and debate Gore's science and conclusions, but attacking because he's Gore? Meh.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft, the whole global warming thing was done wrong from the beginning.

All that was needed was for the government to quit bailing out the rich people with oceanfront property, and things would be fixed mighty fast. The problem is that so many people in government have oceanfront property... I wonder what kind of payout Trent Lott got for his house compared to the rest of the houses destroyed by Katrina.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Woah, someone got out of the humour bypass machine on the wrong side!

For what it's worth, Mr AC, if you search my posting history you will find plenty of specific, serious posts challenging the science of Gore and his film. This just wasn't one of them. I'll even admit to flip-flopping a bit on some of the specifics, as I came across better presentations of the data and clearer potential explanations consistent with it. Unfortunately, most of the threads start with something typically unconstructive like this:

Sceptic An Inconvenient Truth is full of bad science! The "inconvenient documentary" highlighted several of them! Supporter But the "inconvenient documentary" has been debunked by many established scientists by now. So say the IPCC, and they have thousands of experts, while there are only a few critics! Sceptic You know that most of the IPCC's "scientists" aren't actually scientists, right? And that several of the prominent critics were also part of the IPCC, prior to various funding politics connected with whether they backed the "consensus" view? Supporter Well, OK, so the film presented some of the data poorly, but you can still use it to support the basic arguments. You just have to totally ignore the misleading timeline nonsense in the film, and think about the system as a feedback loop. Sceptic A feedback look that isn't consistently supported over the geological timeframes spanned by the data? Supporter Well, it's the most recent data that matters. Over the last few decades, as mankind's emissions have soared, we've seen several of the hottest years on record! Sceptic According to records that have only run for the past few decades, at least. Anyway, if we're talking about feedback loops that take decades to take effect, how can we possibly explain the recent hot years on the basis of man-made emissions that, relatively speaking, only just happened? Supporter Well, it's because the man-made emissions have increased so fast that they've upset the balance of the system. Sceptic Man-made emissions represent only a tiny fraction of the overall carbon content of the atmosphere, almost all of which occurs naturally. And in any case, since we've known about the carbon issues for decades and the big industrial changes that increased artificial output were in the early to mid 20th century, how come this is suddenly so much more serious an issue than it was a couple of years ago?

And somewhere around this point, a few people with a clue about science, or at least an understanding of the scientific method and a willingness to examine the data with an open mind, turn up and start a more interesting variation. I guess from now on, it's obligatory to use Gore's Nobel Prize as "evidence" that he knows what he's talking about, and the UK court judgement the same week about showing the film in schools as "evidence" that he doesn't, before we move along to any more enlightened discussion. :-(

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

For what it's worth, Mr AC, if you search my posting history you will find plenty of specific, serious posts challenging the science of Gore and his film.

Why would I do that? Do you research the posting history of every poster you reply to? Of course you don't. Each post stands on its own.

You wrote a very long but very irrelevant post replying to something I never said. All I said was that attacking a person instead of debating the views of the person was lame. That's what you did, that's what I commented on. Your posting history does not erase the fact that, in the post I replied to, you attacked the person and not the idea. You were being lame.

P.S: Scientific debate isn't a binary process. Someone collects and presents data, the scientific community debate it. Frequently they disagree about the meaning of the data. Sometimes new data is produced which supports the old data, sometimes it contradicts the old data. People invent hypotheses, they test them and often they discard them. This debate and change can go on for a very long time. At no point can anyone ever claim to have "The Truth" and by dint, no one can ever claim to have "Debunked" anything. They can provide a new theory or invalidate existing data. That's it.

For the outside observer it looks like an argument, and the observer will naturally label one side "wrong" and one side "right", without ever realising that neither side is "right" or "wrong" and that frequently the "sides" change and move about as new data and theories are presented. Yes, nine "truths" in the Gore film have been invalidated: because new data has become available since the film was produced. That's how it works. It is equally valid to say that the remaining data and theories put forth in the film are currently the best understanding that Gore has of the available data. They may not be tomorrow, or the theories may be made even stronger next week. Again, that's how it works.

Arguing over the "right"ness and "wrong"ness of current theories of global warming and guffawing because theories in the 70's were of "Global Cooling" (Obviously those damn scientists don't know what they're talking about!) just goes to show how so very poorly equipped the vast majority of people are when it comes to basic science. I can't tell from your post (& no, I can't be arsed to read your posting history) whether you're one of them or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Dragonslicer]

I guess from now on, it's obligatory to use Gore's Nobel Prize as "evidence" that he knows what he's talking about The fact that his documentary made millions of dollars is enough proof already. Climate change is real because the market says so.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[MartinB]

I guess from now on, it's obligatory to use Gore's Nobel Prize as "evidence" that he knows what he's talking about, and the UK court judgement the same week about showing the film in schools as "evidence" that he doesn't, before we move along to any more enlightened discussion.

...and conveniently ignoring that the UK court judgement only criticised 9 (out of a large number) of specific claims made in the film. And of course misunderstood the dividing line between science and politics. Science is the tool that provides evidence showing that $badthings are happening and their probable causative and rectifying agents. If the rectifying agent is a widespread change in human behaviour, then the effective and reasonable tool is politics.

Any work presenting "$badthing is happenening" can either stop at the "So what?" stage (ie be pointless), or move into proposing rectifying action. At which point, it's necessarily political. This is true for climate change, or the shutdown of Manufacturing Industry, or the state of the healthcare system, or whatever.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[dbrutus]

Birth of a Nation was highly successful commercially. That makes its race politics no less odious.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[SIIHP]

"...and conveniently ignoring that the UK court judgement only criticised 9 (out of a large number) of specific claims made in the film"

For someone using their credibility as currency, 9 is 9 too many.

And I really like how people line up to talk about "only 9" as though that would be acceptable in any other context with.

Sorry guy, lying is lying, and some of those 9 things they knew were wrong before they released the film.

That makes them liars, regardless of the justification. It seems like a short step from "only 9, but they got the gist" to "only the general facts, but they got the gist" to "say whatever you need, as long as they get the gist".

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are one of the people I talk about. You don't understand basic scientific debate and treat it like some petty argument where people are "right" and "wrong". Data changes. Welcome to science.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Eivind]

Actually, science can't even show that $badthing is happening, merely that $thing is happening, atbest with reasonable hypothesis why it may be happening.

If the $thing is bad or good is a question of ethich, morale, politics, science has nothing to say about it.

Would it be a bad thing if the sun went nova tomorrow ? Most of us think yes, but there isn't, and can't be any scientific evidence to this effect.

You can't reason from descriptive to normative.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[SIIHP]

"You don't understand basic scientific debate and treat it like some petty argument where people are "right" and "wrong"."

Hmm, that's funny, I said nothing about the debate, and spoke only of objective fact. For which there is a "right" and "wrong".

With that in mind, I have to say, you're one of the people I talk about when I say "fucking idiot".

Keep making excuses, it seems to be all you're any good at.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you demonstrate your poor grasp of basic scientific process. There are no "objective facts", simply theories which are supported by data. People can disagree with the theories and provide their own. Data can change. The only facts are the raw data, and even then the methods used to obtain the data can be questioned, refined or even invalidated.

As if you compound your error, you result to insults, non-sequiters and strawman arguments.

You'll note at no point have I ever stated where I stand on the debate and which theories I believe are supported by the available evidence. We may even agree on some subjects, but you have no idea: I've never mentioned my stance and you're using emotion to choose a "side" that doesn't exist in an "argument" that isn't happening.

You should probably stop doing that.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[SIIHP]

"There are no 'objective facts'..."

I stopped reading there, as it was obvious you weren't going to say anything worth reading after that point.

Just saying this is worth a KITN, believing it deserves sterilization.

You are dumber than I could have imagined.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped reading there

Yes. I sort of guessed that you might do that. You still haven't read my original post have you? You do not understand basic scientific debate. There are no objective facts, just data. Data can even be subjective, depending on what you are measuring and how you measure it. You don't know this of course, because you do not understand basic science.

Then you resort to insults, non-sequiters and strawman arguments. Again. Ho hum.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[SIIHP]

"There are no objective facts, just data."

A gram is .001 of a kilogram. Objective fact.

Fuck off now.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* No, you see, that's data. It isn't a measurement, but it's data.

More crap arguments, more profanity. Yawn.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[SIIHP]

"It isn't a measurement, but it's data."

It's ALSO an objective fact.

Why are you so intent on pretending they're mutually exclusive?

Oh right, because you'd be wrong if they weren't.

I realize it sucks to be wrong, but stop being a child, you lost.

Re:Environment Trademark?

[dbrutus]

How many lies does it take to impeach a witness in a court? Exactly one. We know that Gore propagandized 9 times but that's a minimum, not a maximum.

right

[stoolpigeon]

that's why the founding fathers were waisting their time writing all those pamphlets. i doubt the king or the parliament read those. so what value did they hold?
 
most blogs are day journals and have very low readership - but there are a number of blogs that directly impact the thinking and actions of thousands of readers. in aggregate there are millions influenced - and if those millions act in a coordinated fashion, they become the ones in control.

Re:right

[MyLongNickName]

that's why the founding fathers were waisting their time writing all those pamphlets.

From the paintings, I seem to remember Ben Franklin having a rather big waistline.

Re:right

[stoolpigeon]

i previewed and everything - fixed a typo but missed that. nice.

Re:right

[ScentCone]

but there are a number of blogs that directly impact the thinking and actions of thousands of readers. in aggregate there are millions influenced - and if those millions act in a coordinated fashion, they become the ones in control

But you can't get more than five bloggers to agree on what's the most important thing about a given topic unless they're just the usual small fry talking to themselves and their already-drank-the-koolaid like-minded buddies. If you told a less-engaged person that today was We Really Care About The Evironment Blogger Day(tm) and told them to go out and check out "the message," they would get exactly more of what's alrady out there: a muddled mess of conflicting opions, bad facts (or outright fiction), and political agendas poorly disguised as feel-good ranting. How this will lead to bloggers being "in control," as you put it, is a bit of a mystery... and even if they were, I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea.

Re:right

[mdwh2]

most blogs are day journals and have very low readership

And they shouldn't really even be compared - the only thing they have in common is the technology. The people writing them don't intend them to be read by loads of random strangers.

Also note it isn't necessarily true they get lower readership - many LiveJournals I've seen have hundreds of readers, gettings 10s-100s of comments on posts (I mean, that's even comparable to a non-front-page Slashdot post), whilst the standalone "political blogs" hardly ever get any comments.

Re:right

[stoolpigeon]

I'm not saying the bloggers will be in control. They may be able to motivate people to take control. I do think they can have a lot of influence. Sure there are varying opinions, but it seems to me this idea is about trying to get on the same general page.
 
It's easy to forget how young this medium is, and I think it has the potential to become huge. Mocking it now and saying there is no point is ignoring what may come down the road. It reminds me of the people who say we shouldn't recycle because it isn't cost effective. But it wont become cost effective unless we work on it now.
 
Blogs may not have a huge impact yet, but that's not to say they wont and this may be a part of what runs up to that.

Re:right

[Dunbal]

It will happen. Of course you'll never be forgiven by the nit-pickers, but many of us can read and wrtie fluent typo.

Re:right

[quanticle]

The purpose of the pamphlets was to get people out into the streets - to march and protest Britain's injustices. This movement says that blogging is an end in itself; that writing about some injustice on the Internet will somehow magically make the injustice go away. If they were calling for bloggers to organize some kind of protest movement (much like the Committees of Correspondence organized protest against the British) that'd be different.

Lick a stamp or march?????

[jayhawk88]

Have you been outside recently? IT'S HOT! Or Raining! Also there are bears.

Re:Lick a stamp or march?????

[Anonymous Coward]

I just can't bear these bad puns any more!

Re:Lick a stamp or march?????

[Neon Aardvark]

I also fear bears, for they are giant marauding godless killing machines.

Re:Lick a stamp or march?????

[DrWho520]

Don't forget raptors.

Re:Lick a stamp or march?????

[Anonymous Coward]

Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.

Re:Lick a stamp or march?????

[Anonymous Coward]

You know bloggers don't go outside. That's like expecting them to actually support their sermonizing with facts. Or like expecting a /.er to have a girlfriend.

Sound of the vaccuum?

[clickety6]

"You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter"

Is it just me, or does that make no sense whatsoever?

I mean, I think I know what he's trying to say, but even leaving aside the physics and taking it as a purely literary construct, the phrasing just doesn't make any sense, does it?

Re:Sound of the vaccuum?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, considering that this person believes that anyone (much less those in authority) still pays any attention to the adult temper tantrums known as "protest marches", it's not surprising.

Re:Sound of the vaccuum?

[Anonymous Coward]

>the phrasing just doesn't make any sense, does it?

Sure it does: Since nature abhors a vacuum, their heads implode. That sound is a sort of crunchy squishy splat. Metaphorically speaking, that is.

Re:Sound of the vaccuum?

[liegeofmelkor]

Are you kidding? Haven't you every read an X-men comic with Nightcrawler? Or in an updated context, context, haven't you ever read Harry Potter? When a vacuum is suddenly created (from a body disappearing, for instance), the sound of the air rushing in to fill the space creates a sharp crack... just like the one you're going to here after I hit 'submit' and turn this loose on the blogosphere... crack, crack!

Vacuum

[tsa]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter when the people with control don't even know how to read the tubes. Lick a stamp or march- that's harder to ignore.

I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't even know how and where to find all these important bloggers in the tubes...

Re:Vacuum

[mh1997]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter when the people with control don't even know how to read the tubes. Lick a stamp or march- that's harder to ignore. I couldn't agree more. I wouldn't even know how and where to find all these important bloggers in the tubes...

Why would you lick a stamp? They are all self stick now.

Re:Vacuum

[everphilski]

MySpace

Re:Vacuum

[crimperman]

Not all of them. Some of them you can't lick at all.

Re:Vacuum

[twoshortplanks]

I write my blog in the tube quite often (and then post it when I get to an internet connection.) I'm sure some of the important bloggers do the same...

apparently it's blog action day

[jsldub]

Today for blog action day, all bloggers will report that it is blog action day!

Re:apparently it's blog action day

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be 'insightful'

Re:apparently it's blog action day

[Cctoide]

Reminds me of Use StumbleUpon to drive traffic to your site by writing about driving traffic to your site using StumbleUpon.

DNA

[Lodragandraoidh]

Lick a stamp or march- that's harder to ignore.

Yes, but that also leaves traces of DNA...

Ebay?

[AltGrendel]

And here I thought you said "Blog Auction Day". A day where all bloggers will shill for money.

Ok, to be fair, not all of them do, but at least it would get it all out in the open for all the astroturfers out there..

The Environment?

[Crudely_Indecent]

Why not pick a topic that effects everyone now? Perhaps, politicians who flip flop (almost all of them), unjust wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Iran soon), dollar devaluation and the fed who prints money and causes inflation, spend time blogging about politicians that the main stream media ignores (Ron Paul), or any number of actually important topics. But, the environment? Did you guys drink the purple cool-aid with Al Gore?

The Nobel Peace Prize has already been handed out. That bandwagon has already been parked, no sense getting on now. Our world has bigger problems now, and they're problems that can be resolved.

My suggestion, blog about avoiding war with Iran.

Re:The Environment?

[Colin Smith]

Why not pick a topic that effects everyone now? This way they get to have a group wank. If they picked a cause rather than an effect they might actually have to get off their arses and change something.

Re:The Environment?

[Dunbal]

dollar devaluation and the fed who prints money and causes inflation

Printing money doesn't necessarily cause inflation. Allowing that printed money to rapidly expand the money supply does. But there are many other ways to expand the money supply without actually printing money. Just like there are ways to reduce it without "burning" money.

Re:The Environment?

[CensorshipDonkey]

"The Environment? Why not a pick a topic that effects everyone now?"

The environment does affect everybody ...

Re:The Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

My suggestion, blog about avoiding war with Iran.

How about blogging on avoiding allowing psychotic terrorists to have nuclear weapons, avoiding threatening to exterminate everyone in a neighboring country, and avoiding executing people for being gay or insulting the government?

Re:The Environment?

[DigiShaman]

Because that doesn't fit the liberal anti-war template. Thank God we arn't fighting WW2 with today's media and technology, cause we would have lost that war long ago!

Re:The Environment?

[saintm]

> Why not pick a topic that effects everyone now?
Huh? Have I fallen for a joke post or do you really not see how the environment effects everyone now?

> dollar devaluation and the fed who prints money and causes inflation, spend time blogging about politicians that the main stream media ignores (Ron Paul)
"This just in. New lands have been discovered beyond US borders. More at 11."

Re:The Environment?

[Crudely_Indecent]

This damned global warming has almost prevented me from putting a jacket on today. I recently read that the ozone holes near the north pole are getting smaller.

For every environmentalist bullhorning about the environment, there are just as many with the opposing viewpoint. Not everyone agrees that the environment is in bad shape. There is a majority that think the war is bad, and those same people don't want anything to do with Iran either. This whole environment thing is like a screaming monkey designed to avert our attention from the more important topics. The election, the war, the law, the real news suffers when useful information is replaced by fluff.

LOOK AT THE MONKEY! LOOK AT THE MONKEY!

Re:The environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not Portal? The environment gets so much attention anyway. I'll be writing about Portal, Valve's new and wonderful game. Because there will be cake for the people who participate in blog action day by writing about the environment.

Re:The Environment?

[Crudely_Indecent]

I must concede that you're correct. The environment does effect everyone. That doesn't change, however, the fact that it is of minimal consequence when compared to things like war. War effects people more directly.

Seriously, who cares if the air conditioner is set too low when the house is on fire?

There are plenty of studies showing that the global warming issue is caused by the sun getting hotter (look it up...I'll wait), and a recent study showing that the ozone holes at the north pole are getting smaller (did we do that? doubtful. Can a blogger get that kind of reaction, unlikely)

Re:The Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that doesn't fit the liberal anti-war template. Thank God we arn't fighting WW2 with today's media and technology, cause we would have lost that war long ago!

LIBERAL antiwar template? WTF? FYI, Afghanistan was and is a just war - they ATTACKED us on 9-11; or rather, protected the peopl ethat did. I was only sorry we didn't nuke their asses. BTW, did they ever catch Osama?

OTOH, Iraq was and is a clusterfuck. The stated reason when Bush started that war was "weapons of mass destruction". There were none. Now it's "we brought them democracy." that's a sick joke; what democracy? And if that wasn't a lie, why aren't we attacking Burma? There were no terrorists in Iraq before we attacked, now it's full of them.

We are in Iraq for one reason and one reason only - so George Bush and Dick Cheney can make more money. They are oil men. When Bush took office, gasoline was $1 a gallon in my town. Now it's nearly $3 (and was well over $3 just a few weeks ago).

We are in Iraq solely so our President and his family and friends can make money. He is getting richer on the deaths and maiming of our brave troops, all of whom should be in Pakistan rooting out Bin Laden and the rest of the Taliban.

We belonged in WWII; we were attacked. We belonged in in Afghanistan; We were attacked. We do NOT belong in Iraq; that is totally NOT how America does things; or rather, it never was until a COWARDLY TRAITOR got in the white house.

You are a brainwashed fucktard. If you're old enough to join the army, join and volunteer to die, you stupid little dimwitted moron.

-mcgrew

Re:The Environment?

[dup_account]

Ironically, your analogy applies, but in reverse of how you intended. Why worry about a little war and a relatively small number of deaths compared to the numbers that will happen if those "nasty environmentalists" turn out to be correct about our destruction of the planet.

Re:The environment?

[Copperhamster]

The cake is a lie.

Re:The Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why worry about a little war and a relatively small number of deaths compared to the numbers that will happen if those "nasty environmentalists" turn out to be correct about our destruction of the planet."

Because war is a fact of life that is happening now, while those things the enviro-trolls claim are going to happen aren't even facts.

How's that for an irrefutable reason? Hate it doncha?

Re:The Environment?

[tygerstripes]

Again with "effects" instead of "affects"?

Syntax aside, while I understand your POV, I have to disagree. The house-on-fire would be the wars, yes. The destabilisation of our environment, on the other hand, is the raging forest-fire that is about to engulf your house and your town.

If the world's natural resources - fossil fuels AND agriculturally viable land-area - continue to deplete, the wars you're seeing now will someday be remembered fondly for their relative civility and restraint. When whole nations start competing aggressively for scarce resources in an effort to maintain their dominance or their way of life, the cracks in our currently-civilised facade will split right open.

Seriously, in the long run, it's a MUCH bigger issue.

Re:The Environment?

[Kelson]

The environment does effect everyone. That doesn't change, however, the fact that it is of minimal consequence when compared to things like war. War effects people more directly.

Considering how many wars are fought over resources like arable land, water, oil, etc., that availability of said resources is an aspect of the environment, and that use of those resources impacts the environment (desertification, pollution, etc.)... maybe the topics aren't as unrelated as you think?

Re:The Environment?

[BarneyL]

There are plenty of studies showing that the global warming issue is caused by the sun getting hotter (look it up...I'll wait), and a recent study showing that the ozone holes at the north pole are getting smaller (did we do that? doubtful. Can a blogger get that kind of reaction, unlikely)

While you are waiting you could spend the time looking up all the responses that debunk this theory

Re:The environment?

[rs79]

Portal?

If sounds like A Serious Dilemma for the Net to me.

Re:The Environment?

[bre]

I clicked across some of the blogs listed on the site, and came across an interesting point. The environment isn't just the whole planet, but also your local environment. Taking action to make one's own environment a better place sounds fine to me...

Re:The Environment?

[Blakey Rat]

If the world's natural resources - fossil fuels AND agriculturally viable land-area - continue to deplete, the wars you're seeing now will someday be remembered fondly for their relative civility and restraint.

Considering that available oil reserves and worldwide food production are much, much greater now than they ever have been in the past, that's a pretty big "if", isn't it? Oil hasn't depleted at all; we have more available now than ever before. Same with food, there are fewer people starving now than ever before in history and that's with increased population.

Re:The Environment?

[mdsolar]

I agree. Here is my post: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/10/splash-plot.html. Comments are welcome.

Re:The Environment?

[spicate]

a recent study showing that the ozone holes at the north pole are getting smaller (did we do that? doubtful. Yes - we did that. That's what reducing CFCs was all about. Look up the Montreal Protocol. I'll wait.

There are plenty of studies showing that the global warming issue is caused by the sun getting hotter There are studies like this one showing that variability in the sun's output isn't to blame.

I'm not a global warming catastrophist but that doesn't mean we should stick our heads in the sand.

Re:The Environment?

[Watson Ladd]

There is a finite amount of oil below the ground. We are pumping it at a faster and faster rate. One day it will vanish entirely. There is a finite amount of topsoil, and every annual we grow on it leads to some erosion. Today our world has 6 billion people. If only 1% of them are starving that is still 60 million people. We have enough food to feed everyone, but we don't. We could give everyone in the world clean water and sewers, but we let 1 billion people worldwide suffer the effects of bad sanitation. Never before has so much belonged to so few.

Re:The Environment?

[smellotron]

War effects people more directly.

I'm sorry, I usually let the occasional affect/effect error slip, but this one is just too funny. "Effect" as a verb means "to produce", as in "the company began offering overtime pay in order to effect 60-hour work weeks" (which didn't exist prior). "Affect" is what you want, which means "to modify", as in "the company offered a generous bonus in order to affect employee morale" (which did exist prior).

What you said amounts to "war creates people." Which I suppose is true (look at the Baby Boomers), but probably not what you intended.

Re:The Environment?

[smellotron]

We have enough food to feed everyone, but we don't.

A lot of that has to do with the warlords in various nations, as Bill Clinton tells us.

But seriously, yes. "Feed the world" only works if we're willing to usurp all of the local governments of the world (particularly some of the more poorly-behaved African nations) and handle the entire supply chain ourselves (USA/UN/whoever).

Re:The Environment?

[smellotron]

Thank God we arn't fighting WW2 with today's media and technology, cause we would have lost that war long ago!

Are you kidding? Having a well-defined enemy with unambiguously evil goals who is willing to fight more or less face-to-face is awesome. At least, relative to situations like Iraq and Vietnam, both of which are "conflicts" with half-hearted support back at home and very little support from locals (who don't necessarily see us "liberating" them as a good thing).

Re:The Environment?

[Blakey Rat]

There is a finite amount of oil below the ground. We are pumping it at a faster and faster rate. One day it will vanish entirely.

Yes, there is. And it's enough to power our society at its current level for thousands of years. It gets marginally more expensive to drill over time, then again, technology to find and drill oil also gets cheaper over time, so the end result is that we have far more reserves (oil we know is in the ground but haven't bothered to tap yet) than we've ever had before.

The fact that people have been predicting the "end of oil" for literally a hundred years, and it's never come to pass, also weakens this point of debate quite a bit.

There is a finite amount of topsoil, and every annual we grow on it leads to some erosion.

Yes, but there are also processes in place that reverse erosion. If erosion was the only mechanism at work on topsoil, the entire Earth would have been nothing but rock long before humans came along. In any case, there are fields in New Guinea and China that have been farmed for thousands of years, and are still farmable and productive.

Today our world has 6 billion people. If only 1% of them are starving that is still 60 million people.

Yes it is. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that anybody starves, but the simple fact is that fewer people are starving now than ever before in recorded history. And every year, fewer still people starve, as food production is going up far faster than population growth. There's no reason for alarmism here, because things *are getting better*.

We have enough food to feed everyone, but we don't.

The areas that do not have enough food suffer from repressive governments that do not allow farmers to farm productively and waste food aid from other nations. The problem here is not a lack of food, it's a lack of stable government. You say "but we don't" as if we aren't trying!

We could give everyone in the world clean water and sewers, but we let 1 billion people worldwide suffer the effects of bad sanitation.

Same point as above.

Never before has so much belonged to so few.

Are you serious? Have you ever heard of "kings" and "serfs?" Did you know the entire world used to be ruled by tyrannical dictators who took everything while the common man got nothing? You have got to be kidding me if you think our current society is more stratified than historical ones! Seriously, let's engage some brain cells here and think before typing.

Re:The Environment?

[tehcyder]

Our world has bigger problems now

Yeah, the potential destruction of most animal and all human life on Earth is just a distraction from the really important things, like, um...

Re:The Environment?

[Watson Ladd]

Manorialism only existed in Europe during the Dark Ages. Food prices have begun increasing worldwide, meaning that fewer people can afford to eat. And the food aid the United States sends is sold in the country where it arrives, and the proceeds are used to fund relief efforts. This is a very inefficient use of food aid, and it's one that the host government has nothing to do with. As for my last sentence I was talking about absolute wealth. Could the king have a cellphone in 1200 AD?

Re:The Environment?

[Blakey Rat]

Food prices have begun increasing worldwide, meaning that fewer people can afford to eat.

Then how come average calories consumed per capita has been increasing consistently for the last 50 years?

Food prices increasing, if it's even true (I'm pretty sure it's not; farming and shipping have never been more efficient), doesn't imply "more people going hungry." It could just mean that people are making more money and prices across the board are going up.

Hi.

[Anonymous Coward]

I "blog", therefore I am very, very special.

I hereby tag this article: attentionwhoreday

Re:Hi.

[rs79]

" I "blog", therefore I am very, very special. "

They have an Olympics just for you.

Re:Hi.

[Anonymous Coward]

I one a medal in those - Third Place!

aroberts you totally missed the point

[unity100]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter when the people with control don't even know how to read the tubes. Lick a stamp or march- that's harder to ignore. its not about making the people with control hear it. they wouldnt "hear" you if you were to play a drum frantically in their front door yelling your petition, because they dont care.

its about making PEOPLE notice. because PEOPLE is the power.

remember that the fight for net neutrality was conducted that way, and billion buck worth megacorp lobbying was thwarted.

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

That was Taco, not the submitter. Note where the quote marks are.

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[Lumpy]

People are sheep, people dont want to be bothered, people cant be expected to miss the latest episode of lost because of a city council meeting.

All the lip service the environment has going for it and nobody is still willing to do anything about it. Many recycling programs fail because people do not want to bother with separating their trash. Free or subsidized insulation programs for the inner city poor fail fast because nobody cares to donate. Nobody fights city hall to remove laws restricting alternative power. boo hoo that you dont want to look at solar panels on my roof. Being a selfish ass does not help the environment.

Until you can change the human thought patterns to actually care about others and the big picture nothing will change no matter how much lip service is given to it. If you can prove that driving a SUV causes birth defects or causes death, sales of the things will not go down.

People need to stop singing to the Choir and figure out how to make the average sheep pay attention. Figure that out and the environment will be an easy fix.

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[cowscows]

I think a lot of people out there would care, and would like to be more informed, it's just hard to do. You want to blame Lost and pop-culture, and while that's a big part of it, there's also a lot of hardworking people out there who just don't have the time to find out about all of the stuff that's going on. The mainstream news media has really dropped the ball in terms of providing real and useful information, and that's created a great opening for the internet to step in and provide people with info.

The combination of blogs and politics are still in their infancy, so expecting it to have solved all the world's ills is silly. But that doesn't mean that it isn't helpful, and that it doesn't have potential for the future. I learn way more about what's going on by reading some blogs for a half hour each day than I would watching CNN 24/7. The spread of information cannot hurt democracy.

Environmentalism is slowly making progress. Although technology and such changes rapidly these days, people are still slow to change.

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[Red Flayer]

People need to stop singing to the Choir and figure out how to make the average sheep pay attention

Sheep pay attention when there is a wolf or a sheepdog in their midst.

Most USians will start paying attention when their quality of life is affected by environmental concerns. This can be the wolf (toxins causing disease to a relation or friend) or it can be the sheepdog (government/NGO/grassroots action to force/encourage good environmental practices).

The problem with the 'wolf' approach is that the level of environmental devastation necessary to motivate sufficient people would be mind-boggling and, likely, past the point of no return.

This leaves us with the 'sheepdog' approach. I favor multiple avenues of 'herding' -- one of the most important being economic. Make environmentally irresponsible behavior expensive by attaching a tax surcharge to those behaviors. Since the environment is a public good that is damaged by bad behavior, we need to have the cost of that damage factored into the retail cost of goods and services. If we can better assess the value of that damage, we can tip the economic scale towards behavior that is more responsible and less damaging.

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether a 'wolf' or a 'sheepdog,' your babies still end up as 'lamb chops.'

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most USians..."

It's "Americans", making up words because you're too stupid to realize why won't change that you sound stupid.

In all seriousness, every time you and those like you type this, it's like a huge sign that says "I'm a fucking idiot, pay no attention to what I say because I'm too fucking stupid to have an intelligent opinion".

Grow up and learn what "vernacular" means, then look up what an abbreviation is, so you don't sound like a fucking idiot again (long shot, I know).

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[daVinci1980]

Many recycling programs fail because people do not want to bother with separating their trash.

Most recycling programs fail because recycling isn't economically viable. It's 3x as expensive to 'recycle' something as it is to place it in a landfill. And oftentimes, just because you place something in the recycling bin doesn't mean that it actually will get recycled. It might have too much organic residue leftover, or the guy who is sorting that day just doesn't recognize it for what it is.

I'm all for developing a long-term, economically viable recycling solution. And I do recycle all of my aluminum, because that (at least) is a net-win for the environment. But pretty much everything else just goes in the trash.

Re:aroberts you totally missed the point

[Lumpy]

Metal and glass recycling both make money. problem is most metals that are worth the most are non ferrous and therefore can not be easily separated automatically. The amount of aluminum and copper that ends up in landfills daily is insane.

Glass recycling also is now profitable. Problem is only manual seperation can get glass away from dirty diapers and used condoms in the waste stream. Why not force the consumer to spend 3/4 of a second to do it instead of spending the cash on the backend to do it?

If you want change, change.

[khasim]

Get all of your friends together who have the same views that you do.

Agree to vote as a bloc. Every one of you will vote for the same candidate.

Then send a LETTER (no email, no "blog" posts) to your current elected officials to get them to vote the way you want them to.

If they do not agree, then research the other candidates and WRITE letters to them asking them to vote the way you want them to if your bloc will support them.

If you can get enough people who agree with you to vote in your bloc, you'll have the changes you want at the next election. If you don't have enough people, find out why the majority do NOT support your views.

Re:If you want change, change.

[CRCulver]

The two-party system and strong executive of the U.S. basically ensures that no suitable candidate can be found, one will simply be voting for the lesser of two evils. I gave up on U.S. politics a long time ago (though moving abroad made that much easier).

Re:If you want change, change.

[Applekid]

So, in other words, make change by starting a special interest group for politicans to pander towards.

It's sad, perhaps, that special interest groups are the only way to get noticed by the bigshots (instead of getting back a form letter).

Corporations learned long ago how to get change. Pay for it. Campaign contributions and lobbyists. In addition to a bloc of voters, pass around a collection basket to get some green-backed persuaders.

Re:If you want change, change.

[heelrod]

That is why people must advocate the overthrow of the United States Government. A little revolution now and then is a good thing. Yea I said it, and I believe I just broke a federal law by saying it. But it is true. The government must be overthrown.

Re:If you want change, change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to continue AFDC and milk price supports?

Without those two, I'm afraid I just can't support your efforts.

Re:If you want change, change.

[dbrutus]

If you look at history, the two party system works out quite well so long as you have the threat of swapping out parties. All parties comprise of coalitions of true believers and opportunists/careerists. The true believers want their program put in to place but don't necessarily care who does it while the opportunists/careerists want power and have weak ideological beliefs. The opportunists split themselves pretty evenly between the two parties and brown nose their way into getting power positions whenever the party succeeds. Eventually they throw the party out of whack and dominate the machinery, leaving the true believers out in the cold for the most part, getting lip service but no real movement forward on their goals.

What's gummed up the works is a conspiracy of opportunists who have made it inordinately difficult for a 3rd party to rise up and push one of the established bands of opportunists down into 3rd place (into irrelevance in the US system). When Pierre Rinfret threatened to do that in NY (by sinking the Republicans to 3rd), letters were sent out nakedly admitting the game and a call to arms to save Republican patronage jobs was issued.

Lower the barriers to competition and you've solved the US political problem.

The alternative of voting for parties that you truly believe in but who enter into soul destroying compromises *after* the vote is no better. The opportunity for mischief is extended well after the election as parties maneuver to create governing majorities and compromise their ideals without a second thought in order to satisfy their opportunists' thirst for power.

Re:If you want change, change.

[Anonymous Coward]

Revolution is against the law. It always has been, and it likely always will be.
The way to overthrow the government is simple:
Massive EMP weapons in ten major cities...take out the TV stations, the Internet, the fancy new iPhones, all of it. Destroy the opiate of the masses, and the masses will rise up. A large EMP device can be had for a few ten thousand dollars. This is NOT an expensive plan, and it WILL work.

Anonymous because I work for the government...it's not kosher to advocate violent revolution.

Nomination for next year's topic

[Anonymous Coward]

Suicide.

Dear Blogger

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Blogger, you are the most worthless sack of crap on the planet. I'd rather have lunch with half a cockroach than read one of those mental diarrhea dumps that you continually shit out onto the Internet. Instead of a brain you have a second colon in your head. Why don't you get it? NO ONE CARES about you, you problems, what happened at work, what beautiful haiku you composed while masturbating in the shower this morning, how sick your dog is, or what your plans for the winter are. Fuck you. Keep your drivel to yourself. You're so pathetic because you need the imaginary validation of your adoring readers to feel good about your life. You despicable sad-sack! Here's a clue, you have to validate your own existence. So stop blogging into the uncaring void, get off your fucking whiny, sniveling, fat excuse-making ass, and do something meaningful for yourself.

Re:Dear Blogger

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of the same can be said about your post.

Re:Dear Blogger

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Anonymous Coward,
Then don't effing read it. Save the bandwidth for readers who are actually interested in doing more productive things than anonymously insulting strangers over the Internet.Sincerely,
Blogger

Re:Dear Blogger

[Anonymous Coward]

So stop blogging into the uncaring void, get off your fucking whiny, sniveling, fat excuse-making ass, and do something meaningful for yourself.

Your posting about an uncaring void makes not a void nor uncaring.

The difference between blogging and news...

[IBBoard]

The difference between blogging and news is that the mainstream media who make the news know about grammar.

...my humble contribution amongst the hundreds of thousands is entitled individual action is not enough.

Aren't titles supposed to be quoted and capitalised? How do the bloggers hope to get anywhere without basic grammar like that?

Oh, I forgot, it is teh interwebs so you don't have to write properly to think you have a point. In fact there may even be an inverse correlation between grammar and blogger's perceived importance of blog post.

Re:The difference between blogging and news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ewe muss bee knew hear! Grammar? Shes a grate laddie! Ann she donut knead a spill chucker!

Re:The difference between blogging and news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I forgot, it is teh interwebs

Exactly, grammar! It is all about the grammar!

Re:The difference between blogging and news...

[Anonymous Coward]

>The difference between blogging and news is that the mainstream media who make the news know about grammar.

Apparently, you haven't been paying any attention to the news. Either that, or you've confused "grammar" with "grandma", again.

Re:The difference between blogging and news...

[IBBoard]

Either that or I pay attention to BBC and more reputable sources ;)

Okay, so in hindsight then "make" isn't the best choice of word, but the BBC and the Times seem to have good grammar. ITV, Five, and any of the Fox/CNN-like news from the US that we see over here is potentially a bit more borderline.

Re:The difference between blogging and news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between argument and trolling is...

The quotation marks are not present in this excerpt because they have have been stripped for some reason between here and the original post, which you clearly haven't bothered to read before coming out with a lame spelling or grammar flame.

Re:The difference between blogging and news...

[^me^]

eh; mainstream media screws this up all the time, seriously.

Re:The difference between blogging and news...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between blogging and news is that the mainstream media who make the news know about grammar. Hopefully they are reporting the news, not making it. And let's not forget about the excesive use of syntactic pleonasm.

O RLY?

[jalefkowit]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter when the people with control don't even know how to read the tubes.

And yet Josh Marshall and his blog Talking Points Memo managed to break the U.S. attorney firing scandal -- a scandal that ultimately led to the removal of the Attorney General, the highest law enforcement officer in the U.S. This despite the fact that the AG's boss hardly knows how to read, much less to read the "tubes".

I'm not saying that all blogs can have this kind of impact. TPM succeeded because they did the hard work of unearthing the story and keeping it alive when nobody else cared about it; most bloggers do it for fun and don't have that level of commitment. But it's silly to make sweeping generalizations dismissing the impact blogs can have when the evidence to the contrary is all around us.

Re:O RLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

More impressive, still, since it was a NON-story, yet the jibber-jabber of the left actually got the AG removed.

Re:O RLY?

[yhetti]

+1. It was a complete non-story, but it does go to prove one great thing about America: any idiot with a [microphone|camera|keyboard] can be heard, parroted, and divert the entire country away from important things.

Re:O RLY?

[Phroggy]

More impressive, still, since it was a NON-story, yet the jibber-jabber of the left actually got the AG removed. Correction: it would have been a non-story, if the DOJ/white house hadn't tried to cover up what happened. If everyone had been forthcoming, everything would have been fine.

Re:O RLY?

[ElForesto]

Same thing happened here in Utah. A bunch of bloggers (including yours truly) scooped the papers on a faked e-mail sent out during a referendum issue. A week later, the spammer has charges leveled against him in the AG's office and the papers still aren't reporting jack squadoo (aside from a brief blog-only posting from one of the political columnists).

Blog about a Log

[jflo]

I'm glad that even the most unsociable of peoples are able to have a day dedicated to hot blog porn action. I mean, Bloggers needs hard logs too ya know.

Lick a stamp?

[barzok]

All the ones I buy are self-adhesive.

Re:Lick a stamp?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed! The machine at my work actually prints them on the envelope. What is this licking business the post speaks of?

Something good always happens...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something good always happens when the masses demand that something be done.

Right?

I'm blogging this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. I'm blogging that slashdot has a posting about blogging about the environment, and now I posted it.

Now that's *so* Web2.0.

Today is pregancy and infant loss awareness day.

[RJarett]

http://www.october15th.com/
Maybe the bloggers should pull their head out of their but... stop talking about their cats... and focus on what the day REALLY is about.

All 50 states have laws designating today as Pregnancy and Infant loss awareness day.

The full implication of what he just said...

[Zorbane]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter. Thus says a poster on slashdot...

Sucking Sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that sound?..Why its the sound of me not giving a damn.

Bloggers do, and can do nothing. They can create all the 'content' they want, but if people don't read or understand it, it's just useless content. The signal to noise ratio is just too great.

Marches, Protests, Letter writing campagains, lobby groups, are the only thing people in power 'understand'.

It generally helps if you have some $$$ to poney up for your 'cause' as well.

The great unwashed masses, ie: bloggers, have never, and continue to hold, no influence.

We are all individuals!

[tmk]

BRIAN: Good morning.
FOLLOWERS: A blessing! A blessing! A blessing!...
BRIAN: No. No, please! Please! Please listen. I've got one or two things to say.
FOLLOWERS: Tell us. Tell us both of them.
BRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS: I'm not.
ARTHUR: Shhhh.
FOLLOWERS: Shh. Shhhh. Shhh.
BRIAN: You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS: Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
BRIAN: Exactly!
FOLLOWERS: Tell us more!
BRIAN: No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do! Otherwise-- Ow! No!

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-19.htm

Blogs are like any other kind of media.

[DanielJosphXhan]

Blogs are like any other kind of media. You have your large, successful, commercial entities that command a lot of power in people's mindspace.

Then you have all the other entities whose purposes are varied, and appeal either to a select audience, some sort of niche; and you have entities that essentially appeal to the author's vanity.

It's important to remember that, much like a crowd, blogs don't have a unified voice. And their voices are harder to find. Blogging does leave an impression on people, but let's not pretend it's this world-shaking thing that we've never had before. It's just another method of publishing and social interaction rolled into one.

Re:Blogs are like any other kind of media.

[Anonymous Coward]

mindspace I see you are a blogger. Probably a Web 2.0 blogger, out the leveraging the mutificiencies of social networks, and the like.

Re:Blogs are like any other kind of media.

[DanielJosphXhan]

I see you are a blogger. Probably a Web 2.0 blogger, out the leveraging the mutificiencies of social networks, and the like.

Not only that! I'm leveraging the meta-synergies of the blogosphere's anthropotopography to inspire an new generational parashift.

Re:Blogs are like any other kind of media.

[Nazlfrag]

Blogs are a ludicrous medium for communication, and the zenith are the satirists.

Re:Blogs are like any other kind of media.

[DanielJosphXhan]

As if, somehow, interaction is limited only to communication?

MARCH???

[b96miata]

As someone who lives inside the beltway, I can assure you that not only are marches easy to ignore, they're obnoxious, ineffective, and serve only to piss off the people whose commute gets ruined by them - people who are then embittered a little towards your cause. Letters are a little better. At least the rep might notice the increased volume of crap, but it, just like marches, is an annoyance that they'll get their underlings to help shield them from. You want to make a difference? Give money to an appropriate (thoroughly-researched) advocacy group, that will hire lobbyists who make a living knowing what politicians *do* listen to and delivering your message through those channels. Think I'm full of it? Look at how much success antiwar protesters have vs say, verizon, or the movie studios with their high-priced representation.

I'm amazed...

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading all of these comments, there seems to be a lot of vitriol and disdain towards "bloggers." You people realize, surely, that you're commenting on what is basically the world's largest blog, right? What makes you think that your comments matter?

I Beg to Differ

[rueger]

Lick a stamp or march - that's harder to ignore.

Tee hee, yeah, for sure..... that's why there's no war happening in Iraq right now.

Real change doesn't happen at the end of a picket sign, it happens at the end of a six figure check written to a politician's campaign fund.

Re:I Beg to Differ

[bjourne]

One method doesn't exclude the other and very few people have the money to write six figure checks. Real change happens after the first brick of stone is thrown, and when that happens, it is important to know that at least you tried changing it the right way.

*YAWN*

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, you want mine? here it is. It's a bit old; I haven't done a blagh in quite a while now.

It's also not about the environment. Who died and mede these asstunnels in charge of what people write in their blaghs? Who are these people, anyway? And why should I give a shit about them?

How did this garbage make the front page of slashdot?

-mcgrew

(if you want a blagh somebody actually liked reading, here are a few old ones of mine (believe it or not, I used to have fans)

-mcgrew

Re:Today is pregancy and infant loss awareness day

[mdwh2]

Maybe the bloggers should pull their head out of their but... stop talking about their cats... and focus on what the day REALLY is about. ...by posting it to their blog? (Or Slashdot, as you are doing.)

However, I'm not sure that the entire Internet should stop just because some people have designated this a particular day. Clearly, it's not just "bloggers" who aren't focusing on this day.

(And I'm sure you mean well, but this comes across rather much as an off-topic spam to me...)

Power consumption

[WPIDalamar]

I wonder if the planet would benefit more from a bunch of whiney bloggers posting, or from that same group of bloggers simply turning off their computers.

No, no, no...

[morgan_greywolf]

Wish to greet our coordinated blogging overlords! You've got it all wrong!

Look. If you're going to propogate the meme, here's the format. Everyone, let's get coordinated here:

I for one, welcome our new [adjective FTFS][, [additional adjective or gerund form of verb FTFS] ...], [gerund form of verb FTFS] overlords!

So, let's try it, shall we?

I for one, welcome our new coordinated, environmentally-conscious blogging overlords!

Re:No, no, no...

[wsanders]

Natalie Portman can cover me with Greenpeace bumper stickers anytime!

Re:No, no, no...

[morgan_greywolf]

Arrggghhh!!!! No! It's HOT GRITS. And she POURS THEM DOWN YOUR PANTS!!!

Get it right!

The environment?

[hansamurai]

Why not Portal? The environment gets so much attention anyway. I'll be writing about Portal, Valve's new and wonderful game.

Actually, my writing is actually done and I'm just waiting until 4:30 to post it.

Re:Today is pregancy and infant loss awareness day

[Anonymous Coward]

(1) Problem has long since been solved with prenatal care and vitamin supplementation. (2) Why can't two things be on the same day?

Isn't...

[slyn]

"Blog Action" an oxymoron?

Re:Isn't...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you think they can see this? I'm doing it as hard as I can."

Re:Isn't...

[egoproxy]

Today is the day for those who have courage to sit down and be counted!

Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succeed

[alexhmit01]

All the lip service the environment has going for it and nobody is still willing to do anything about it. Many recycling programs fail because people do not want to bother with separating their trash. Free or subsidized insulation programs for the inner city poor fail fast because nobody cares to donate. Nobody fights city hall to remove laws restricting alternative power. boo hoo that you dont want to look at solar panels on my roof. Being a selfish ass does not help the environment.

I am NOT an environmentalist. I will NOT sacrifice my lifestyle for "the greater good." I am focused on my family first, idealism is a WAY distant second. However, some wise environmentalists are starting to make the programs reasonable. Our power company, no doubt as part of the deal with the government, ran a program for insulation. They inspected the insulation for free, gave a credit for insulation, and brought a list of contractors for us to choose from AND set up the install. I just had to sit at home and have a check ready when they showed up, sealed my ducts, and blew in insulation. Because of the credit, in four months I've recovered half the cost of the insulation, making it a no brainer, and the environment wins.

My roof is coming up due for replacement. The technology of panels on the roof was expensive, didn't save money in the time frame that most people own their houses, and was extremely ugly. However, the new technology of "panel roofs," where you have tile-like installations on the roof was starting to be feasible, as the labor to install on the roof was about the same, but the electrical hookups were costly. The new systems come in "sheets" so they are easier to install than roof tiles, integrate with the roof, and should, in time, cost about the same to install as a normal new roof. As the costs (after tax breaks) comes down, more people will use them. Demanding ugly roofs on people's homes with a "boo hoo" will not get you buy in, but come up with a series of tax incentives and let the free market develop solutions that people want and you can actually get progress.

If you really want recycling efforts, then you need to make it easy for people, convenient, and ideally provide some incentive to them doing so. Just like some states offer deposits with refunds for recycling cans/bottles, why not have a scale in the curb-side pickup of recycled materials, and give people a credit on their garbage bill.

People aren't sheep, people are autonomous individuals. Their willingness to spend their free time on your pet projects instead of their families is pretty limited. I don't see you offering free babysitting services or transportation for their kids to after school events to free up time for people to do what you want. I don't hear that you're donating money, you just want other people to do so.

YASPRF

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet Another Stupid Pun Rated Five

Re:Today is pregancy and infant loss awareness day

[RJarett]

So if this is offtopic spam... wouldnt the hippy environemental stuff be offtopic spam as well? It's something people designated a particular day to.

Seems like circular redundancy to me...

I think Dan Rather would disagree.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Dan Rather would disagree with the summary.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

If it doesn't matter, then why did you post it on Slashdot, one of the largest blogs sites on the internet?

no

[unity100]

im seeing many, even some dogged, zealotly conservative people taking up on some ideas.

Post an e-mail

[analog_line]

Lick a stamp or march- that's harder to ignore.

Actually, sending e-mail is still better than snail-mail, since the anthrax scare continues to wreak havoc with mail to Reps and Senators. I've gotten several response directly from my Rep when I've brought up issues (or at least they seemed to come from him). Nothing directly from my Senators, but I don't expect that.

What tech geeks need to do if they want to influence legislation is the same thing everyone else does, hire lobbyists. You can live in the happy fantasy land where every citizen speaking to their representative is given an equal hearing, or you can live in reality and try to get things done the way you get things done.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice tirade. but how is it sacrificing your family by looking at my Solar arrays and my Windmill? that is what he is talking about. how is it sacrificing your family by not watching LOST and going to a city council meeting ONCE A MONTH? Hell how about your association meeting?

I understand that spending that extra 30 seconds with your family instead of seperating your garbage is way more important. Good god man, you can create a lifelong bond with your child in that 30 seconds. or you can teach your child to ignore traffic laws as well.. Damn the state for putting highway speed limits they are Destroying your family!

People like you are the perfect example of what Lumpy is talking about. Thanks for being the example that pushes home what he was saying. you are the NIMBY crowd that dont wnat ot be bothered but bitch to high hell if your neighbor dares to paint his home anything other than a light brown hue.

Collective responsibility

[vain gloria]

Wait, so we've all got to apologise to Ursula K Le Guin now?

Damn you Doctorow!

Re:Today is pregancy and infant loss awareness day

[crimperman]

(2) Why can't two things be on the same day?

It seems they can be. At least according to The White House (White Cane Safety day) and The Suzy Lamplugh trust[1] (National Personal Safety day - UK). Plus we're in National Bandana week in New Zealand and National School Lunch week in the USA.

Truth is that there are probably hundreds of "days" designated for each calendar day each year. What normally happens of course is that the ones which can attract enough publicity get recognised - hence I suppose this - quite frankly - non news item being posted on /. :o)

[1] Site was responding slowly when I checked just now. Surely it hasn't been slashdotted?

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Anonymous Coward]

but come up with a series of tax incentives and let the free market develop solutions

I would like to point out that almost no private firms do original materials research anymore. Prominent exceptions include 3M, GE, Intel, AMD, and IBM; however each of these firms tends to have only one facility in the USA doing the research and a large chunk of it is now in other countries with better social safety nets, lower labor costs, or both. Smaller US firms can manage to eek by on venture capital -- but only a tiny fraction of those develop processes that can be commercialized.

In reality, materials research is borne mostly by academia and funded almost entirely by the public. The "free market" only appears after millions of dollars and many years have been spent on the problem. Any innovation from that point on is mainly modifying the existing production infrastructure to create the new material.

My point: these solutions that work for you are not really from the market but from the government, which were in turn driven by environmental scientists working over decades to push public policy down this path. Many of the people you are mocking in this post are responsible for your solution.

Hey Taco...

[swordgeek]

Shut up!
Your stupid little rant doesn't make you appear clever. Nor does it add any value or insight to the post. All it does is remind the readers that behind one of the more influential and long-lived websites in the tech sphere is a whiny little nerd who still hasn't grown up.

Re:Hey Taco...

[flydpnkrtn]

Or how about he actually post a comment on the story after he posts it. Let the community moderate such a post as they see fit.

Get around the "groupthink" all hail Taco mentality by not posting as CmdrTaco with a userid of 1, as well.

Instead of "posting a comment built-in to the story" post in the comments section. What a concept.

All of you who tagged "blogisastupidword" . . .

[achurch]

Just wait until next year.

Blog Action Day 2.0. The Revenge.

It's about votes, not pandering.

[khasim]

So, in other words, make change by starting a special interest group for politicans to pander towards.

If you like them blowing smoke up your ass, that's up to you.

Pandering is not the same as getting the person who shares your views elected. If the person in office does not vote the way you want them to, you MUST support a different candidate.

Pandering is where the politicians trot out boogeymen to get your votes. Gay marriage! Soft on Terror! Protect the children!

If you want X, then you vote for people who will vote for X.

You do NOT vote for the candidate who claims that the other candidate will do Y.

You vote for the candidate that will vote for X.

Corporations learned long ago how to get change. Pay for it. Campaign contributions and lobbyists. In addition to a bloc of voters, pass around a collection basket to get some green-backed persuaders.

You don't need to.

Corporations pay for candidates and the candidates use the money to run commercials about how great they are and how bad the other candidates are.

Why would your bloc care about how bad the other candidates are? Your bloc cannot be bought. Your bloc cannot be fooled. Your bloc will vote. In every election. As a bloc.

That is the way to change politics. Don't argue with me on /. You're just making my case for me. Ranting online does NOTHING.

Sending a single hand-written letter to one official will do more than all the rants posted on /. in the past 10 years.

Who is in your bloc? Have you written your elected officials to make your opinions crystal clear to him/her?

Re:It's about votes, not pandering.

[Applekid]

Why would your bloc care about how bad the other candidates are? Your bloc cannot be bought. Your bloc cannot be fooled. Your bloc will vote. In every election. As a bloc. Consider:

Your bloc must be like-minded on all issues. For example, how much overlap is there between pro-choice and pro-copyright-reform? Anti-war-on-drugs and pro-death-penalty? Pro-gun and anti-war-in-iraq? I can barely get a bunch of my friends to agree to what they want on the pizza let alone every single issue of importance, and I don't think that's a problem bloc leadership can solve.

And politicans aren't one-issue candidates. They can mix and match their issue orientations as they see fit. Preferably to their own convictions, yes, but let's face it: it's primarily a function based on to whom they are indebted. Even worse, if every issue had blocs for and against then it literally becomes a game of which politican is the best at performing arithmetic.

So what does happen when a candidate pledges in favor of the issue your bloc represents but also takes a line against your preference on another issue? Does your allegiance to the bloc outweigh your own inclinations? Should we ask people who are uncomfortable with abortion vote for a pro-abortion candidate simply because they belong to a bloc that agrees with their position on the war?

That is the way to change politics. Don't argue with me on /. You're just making my case for me. Ranting online does NOTHING. I'm not quite as mean-sprited as you seem to imply. We're having a healthy discussion. I mean, it looks good on paper and all but a candidate needs to evaluated as a whole and not as a one-issue make-or-break, or else your bloc is a lump-of-votes to whom he can simply promise things with a snarky one-liner. You know the type: "10 20 Life", "3 Strikes You're Out", "War on Terror", "Save the Whales", ect.

Huh? The bloc can represent more than one issue? Then you sir, have a political party complete with your platform of ideals. I bid you good luck taking on the two in control, you'll definitely need it.

Re:It's about votes, not pandering.

[PopeRatzo]

I think the point of the poster who encouraged voting as a bloc is that we can gain a good deal of power just by organizing ourselves, even a little bit.

Today, we find ourselves being governed by people who are outright hostile to our interests, who are also funded by corporations and interest groups who are also hostile to our interests.

And believe me, they are organized as hell.

I was listening to Fresh Air today, and they were discussin how, in 2000, a study was done on peer reviewed scientific articles that dealt with climate change. Of those approximately 1000 articles, they all agreed that the earth was warming and that human behavior was the cause. At the same time, in the media, the articles dealing with climate change were split 50/50 on articles that said the truth and articles that claimed there was no scientific consensus on the issue.

And this was accomplished through an organized effort, funded by energy corporations, to obfuscate the issue using propaganda techniques that had been refined in the '90s.

A year later, 70 percent of the US population was to believe that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for 9-11. Again, this was accomplished by an organized effort by the Bush Administration, funded again by energy corporations and military contractors (such as Haliburton and KBR).

The only times in the past century that the working class/middle class has made any gains at all were during periods of social organization such as the Labor Movement and the top-down policies of the Franklin Roosevelt administration. And those were only possible because the Great Depression was a great equalizer of wealth, shrinking the disparity between the very wealthy and the rest of us.

The only time we've seen as huge a wealth gap between rich and the rest in the US before today was just before the Stock Market Crash at the beginning of the Great Depression.

These are very interesting times. The great move to the Right that started at the term of Ronald Reagan has finally run out of gas, and has become ideologically and morally bankrupt. At the same time, there is a renewed movement of the middle and working classes in this country away from the "supply side", "trickle-down", "free-market" fantasy. The behavior of the Bush Administration in attacking the underpinnings of our civil rights is an indication of nothing less than desperation on their part. You see something similar in the behavior of the leadership of the biggest corporations and the banking industry. Sort of a "grab everything we can while the grabbing is still good" attitude.

I think this bodes well for the future of this country, but it's going to take some discomfort for us to get from here to there.

There's nothing at all wrong with the idea of voters (or workers, or students, or patients, or consumers) organizing. In fact, it's downright patriotic to do so.

Re:It's about votes, not pandering.

[tjstork]

If you like them blowing smoke up your ass, that's up to you.

I agree with this. Change comes from the bottom up. Candidates are whores and they will follow wherever they think the people lead. Really, the biggest challenge for the environment is to unlink it politically from the socialists that also tend to advocate environmental issues. If you come off like a commie telling a conservative that "yet again, evil fascist corporate america is ruining mother nature with its polluting christian crap", then, you aren't going to get anywhere. On the other hand, if you tell a conservative that a power plant is polluting the forest where he grew up hunting with his grandfather, then, he's probably going to be right there with you on that issue. Conservatives (faux ones in Wash excepted), are rural people, by their very nature, and appeals that target how the pollution affects their heritage are very powerful.

Re:It's about votes, not pandering.

[David Greene]

Amen.

There's a rebirth of social organization happening in this country. Unions like SEIU are finally throwing off the stale leadership of ineffective labor coalitions and are taking charge themselves. They're doing this by building leaders within their own ranks who are politically savvy and tuned into what power is really about.

And it's not just labor that is waking up. Faith-based community organizing is really taking off. Groups at the state level are engaging in serious power politics. And the right is taking notice. You know you're making an impact when an opposition group calls for a "<Name of your group> Watch."

This ain't your daddy's "Christian Right." The religious right is essentially a group of patsys co-opted to advance a conservative economic agenda. When you look at the actual issue campaigns of the religious right, almost none of the went anywhere. The only victory they might claim is a set of state constitutional amendments to ban equal unions for GLBT people. But even that was motivated by election politics, not the values underlying the issue itself. The religious right was and is being used by the conservatives. They're starting to wise up to that.

On the other hand, this new breed of faith activists is more than willing to take both sides of the aisle to task. There's a discipline to building public relationships with other people and especially with public officials. These groups and the new power-oriented unions understand what that is and that it is what is at the core of political power.

Interesting times, indeed.

Blogs are worth the paper that they're printed on.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Blog Action Day will be almost as effective as e-petitions.

Re:Today is pregancy and infant loss awareness day

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever read a newspaper? No? I guess that explains your ignorance then.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[ahoehn]

If you really want recycling efforts, then you need to make it easy for people, convenient, and ideally provide some incentive to them doing so. Brilliant! I happen to be a flaming liberal who gets all choked up at the thought of saving the endangered meadow foam, but I don't expect the rest of the world to feel the same way. Mr. alexhmit01 is right on the money. We have to make environmentalism an economic and social no-brainier.

I live in a region that consistently sends republican representatives to congress, but since the city instituted no-sort curbside recycling, nearly every house in my neighborhood recycles. We can never expect Joe Public to pay $10,000 more for a Prius because it saves the Polar Bear, but there's no reason that we can't convince Joe Public to buy a car that gets good mileage because it saves him money at the pump. We can't expect our co-workers to give up their comfortable air-conditioned vehicles for a sweaty bicycle commute, but if public transportation were faster and more convenient, they might well switch over.

Yes, there will always be a subset of individuals who get weepy when they drive past a newly clearcut forest, but they - ok we - can't expect the rest of the world to feel the same way. If we really want to "save the planet" we have to think from the standpoint of Joe Public, not Julia Butterfly.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[3waygeek]

If you really want recycling efforts, then you need to make it easy for people, convenient, and ideally provide some incentive to them doing so. Just like some states offer deposits with refunds for recycling cans/bottles, why not have a scale in the curb-side pickup of recycled materials, and give people a credit on their garbage bill.

The city I live does something like that. Any trash to be picked up must be placed in specially labelled bags (costing roughly $1.30 for a 32-gallon bag); recyclables are placed in bins provided free by the city and are picked up as part of the regular weekly trash collection. This directly encourages citizens to reduce the volume of landfill-bound trash generated -- either by recycling more of what they use, or by using less.

I don't have a blog

[Joe U]

Can I use my journal instead?

Or maybe I could find some kind of web log, I'll have to think of a cool name for web log first.

Blogging has a tertiary effect at best

[Phoenix666]

Blogging might influence dunderhead journalists who are too lazy to do any first-hand research or reporting to write a story, which might cause John Q. Public to write a letter to a politician, who might modify his behavior because of it.

But mostly it's masturbation. The schlubs at the blogs, for example, really think they're DOING SOMETHING. But at the end of the day they're just whining. If they're really lucky some politician might pretend to care, but politicians cater to those who have money and those who can deliver votes. That's it, and that's all.

It's no coincidence that most American politics revolve around the interests of corporations, the interests of powerful lobbies like AIPAC, and the interests of SEIU (the last and only effective union in America). If you're AIPAC, for example, and can deliver both money and votes, you're golden. They represent a fraction of a fraction of a fraction, but they vote and give money in lockstep. So hey presto! we're invading Iraq, even though the vast majority of Americans can't even point to that country on a map; They're also on the verge of pushing our government to attack Iran, though the vast majority of American voters want out of the first mess they created in Iraq.

So in reality, blogs are irrelevant. Are and always will be.

The key to results in democratic systems is to be able to execute swiftly and with near-unanimity. If, for example, Slashdot readers were able to initiate and execute a general strike to oppose, say, abuse at the USPTO, or the passage of the DMCA, you better believe the powers-that-be would sit up and take notice if their electronic trading systems handling billions of dollars went down. If you think about it, the sort of people who read Slashdot control the computer networks that are the nervous system of our modern world. They hold all the cards and could compel many changes in our world if they worked together.

But they don't, because Slashdot is really just a blog for geeks who post or vent and think they've done their bit. They take no actual action beyond that.

If they did, just imagine the possibilities.

Chew, and digest.

The Infinite Monkey Theorum

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Bloggers have proved false the theory that a million monkeys with typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of William Shakespeare.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

So not everyone is affected by the enviroment but you think everyone is affected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You think everyone is affected by the weakening US dollar?

Get a grip, seriously, that had to be the most stupid post on Slashdot in a long, long while.

You must be American and religious, it's the only explanation for that amount of stupidity, ignorance, and lack of perspective.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[NeutronCowboy]

People aren't sheep, people are autonomous individuals. Their willingness to spend their free time on your pet projects instead of their families is pretty limited. I don't see you offering free babysitting services or transportation for their kids to after school events to free up time for people to do what you want. I don't hear that you're donating money, you just want other people to do so.

My pet projects? I see. So you're the kind of person who leeches clean air and water off of the ones who actually care about the long-term future, not just next week or next quarter. Environmentalism isn't about what I want, it isn't even about you want - it's about what you might want in 20 years or what your kids might want after you're done composting. Everything else is just you complaining that you don't want to be bothered to make a sacrifice where the payoff isn't immediately visible.

Here's some other parts that crack me about your post. You want tax incentives to install solar panels, then claim that this will let the free market come up with a solution. You do realize that tax incentives are free market distortions, and that you pay for them, even if indirectly? You want free babysitting service for things that you ought to be doing (like, uh, participating in town hall meetings, for example), but can't be arsed to do. You claim that I'm not donating money (hey, that's what you get when you address readers directly), but want to make you donate - which is just you rationalizing your complete lack of engagement in anything that goes beyond your "family". It's so much easier to do when you think that no one else is doing it.

In short, as someone else pointed out, you're the worst of the NIMBY crowd - you want all the good stuff that comes with sacrifices (clean air, clean water, safe energy, safe roads, safe country, but you're absolutely unwilling to lift a little finger to help with that. Though I do find it amusing that you are happy to pay for these things with tax breaks - which ultimately come out of your pocket anyway. Your - very shortsifted - claim that family comes before idealism simply tells me that you value your comfort and your life over anyone else's comfort and life.

Asshole.

Flaming *in* the post?

[pycnanthemum]

When did it become okay to grab someone's submission from the firehose and burn it onto the front page? Taco's comments should be under the main post like everyone else's and not encapsulating a /. member's submission with a giant flaming insult! Or just don't post it at all if you don't find it worthy. Guess I haven't been paying enough attention around here lately.

Re:Flaming *in* the post?

[Kelson]

The irony is that it effectively makes this article a blog post by Taco about the submitter's statement.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent article just argued for the grandparent. While the grandparent painted things in harsh tones, they're a drastic view of what I think is true. The parent said (s)he knew all the environmental talking points, but did things when given incentives - that "sheep" paid attention to the financial motives.

Though people aren't sheep, we all respond to certain triggers. People respond to personal, emotional topics. City council meetings get heated when you're talking about blocking the neighbor's view of the ocean, or the mountains, or cutting down the old oak tree and they'll turn out in droves.

People aren't easily swayed from their paths. They might even know something is better, but choose the worse option. For example, people in the US generally think bigger cars are safer, and look more impressive, even though they know that smaller cars are more fuel efficient. The New Yorker had a good bit on this, written by James Surowiecki. We pass laws for tougher environmental standards because we know better, but won't do better.

It's true, most people won't change their habits, or pay much more, for more environmentally sound alternatives. Maybe people won't turn off the lights when they leave a room, or shorten their showers much, but handing out energy efficient light bulbs and low-flow shower heads is easy. Of course someone has to pay, and when the energy companies and water providers are paid for over-usage, why would they complain?

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Anonymous Coward]

If you really want recycling efforts, then you need to make it easy for people, convenient, and ideally provide some incentive to them doing so. Just like some states offer deposits with refunds for recycling cans/bottles, why not have a scale in the curb-side pickup of recycled materials, and give people a credit on their garbage bill. http://www.recyclebank.com/. Just started in my community.

Not an end unto itself

[Kelson]

This movement says that blogging is an end in itself; that writing about some injustice on the Internet will somehow magically make the injustice go away. If they were calling for bloggers to organize some kind of protest movement (much like the Committees of Correspondence organized protest against the British) that'd be different.

Not exactly. They have 3 ways to participate:

1. Post on your blog relating to the environment on Blog Action Day
2. Donate your days earnings to an environmental charity
3. Promote Blog Action Day around the web

#1 and #3 are about mobilizing people through the web. Not just to spew words into the ether, but to trigger discussion. #2 is about getting stuff done.

They don't claim that writing will magically solve the problems, they claim that writing will get people talking about the problems, which (one hopes) will eventually lead to more action.

In a way, it's a lot like the Star Count that's been running for the last 2 weeks. The idea isn't to make changes directly, it's to get people interested and get them thinking about the issue.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[qdaku]

The problem with the recycling is that many places run it at a loss. Do you know what happens to your recycling after it gets picked up from the curb? fyi, I'm aenvironmental engineer but the recycling loop has been awhile:

Cans and cardboard is a no brainer. But what about the plasic?

In the town I lived in (Kingston, ON) they collected all sorts of plastics. The problem is, however, separating the different plastics. There are systems that sort of work (near IR, etc) but they are finicky because the structure of the various plastics is very similar. E.g. Polypropylene (-CHCH3-CH2-) vs. Polyethylene (-CH2-CH2-). Sad fact is most recycling is hand sorted. Different plastics can't be recycled together, compounded by the fact that some things contain different plastics (a pop bottle is a different plastic (PETE I believe) than the cap). And when it's all said and done the recycling center bins most of it anyways --they can't sell it as it's cheaper to make a new batch of plastics from scratch than to recycle the oldstuff.

You don't want this stuff going into your landfills either. Landfills are damn expensive to engineer properly with today's regulations (at least in Canada) and sufferes from not-in-my-backyard syndrome. Plastics can take up a serious amount of volume in these places, lessening the working life of the landfill, and ultimately costing tax payers money.

Look into the recycling process from start-to-finish in your town someday, you'd probably be surprised at how much of the stuff that even goes to the recycling center isn't recycled. Where is the city going to get the money if they are already paying to a) pick-up b) sort c) attempt to sell with various degrees of success d) pay for disposal in municipal landfill (with the hidden cost of filling up the landfill more rapidly than traditional municipal solid waste?).

Cheers.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[qdaku]

Ugh. Riddled with spelling errors. That's what I get for being sick as a dog and not having my morning coffee. You get the idea though.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Anonymous Coward]

From the perspective of the animal, sheep are autonomous individuals. You most effectively control what they do by making what you want them to do the 'easy' thing to do. The same thing works with humans, decide what you want them to do and make that specific choice easy for them, and the herd will in aggregate obey you.

Come look at this Earl.

[rs79]

Nah. Zombie attacks.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Anonymous Coward]

"So you're the kind of person..."

So YOU'RE the kind of person who jumps to conclusions about a person's actions based on no evidence and a short, nonspecific response?

"Asshole."

Thanks for signing your post at least.

And by the way, being a fucking cunt is a brilliant idea, it will certainly win people over, you moronic fucking twat.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[SIIHP]

"Everything else is just you complaining that you don't want to be bothered to make a sacrifice where there may not even be a payoff."

Fixed that to make it accurately reflect reality.

When Libs are At Their Best...

[tjstork]

It's not from doing stuff like this. It's in the arts. You get a bunch of people marching and forming their little lib armies, and all that does is tick people off. But, when you get some talented lib lay it out for you in a story or a song or a classroom, and does it in a way that can reach you, people buy into that a lot more.

The bottom line is, putting up mass protests and collectively forming these big save the earth religions isn't going to save the earth. Handing money to somebody else to go save the earth isn't going to save the earth. It's going to be commercials like the famous Crying Indian of the 1970s, documentaries, education, and more that will cause people to believe that they are personally responsible for the environment around them and have a stake in it. If libs are right that democracies can't be established at the barrel of a gun, then it is also true that nothing can be established by the barrel of the gun... that all laws require some form of consent by the populace.

Therefor, laws don't make people stop polluting, but education will.

Does it still count...

[Blakey Rat]

Does it still count if I write a blog post encouraging people to pollute as much as possible, and basically piss all over the environment at every opportunity? Because that's how I feel after having "global warming" crammed in my face for the last six months.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Blakey Rat]

Everything else is just you complaining that you don't want to be bothered to make a sacrifice where the payoff isn't immediately visible.

Or maybe the payoff is that global warming is good for humanity in general by increasing food output, which is something environmentalists hardly ever talk about, and your recycling programs went counter to it. Or, much more likely, no matter what I do with my insulation, China's going to pollute the hell out of everything they can touch and it simply won't matter.

Maybe there is no payoff at all, ever think of that?

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Anonymous Coward]

"Your - very shortsifted - claim that family comes before idealism simply tells me that you value your comfort and your life over anyone else's comfort and life."

And so does everyone else, including you. Go ahead and lie if you like, but claiming otherwise won't convince us.

Re:Today is pregancy and infant loss awareness day

[Blakey Rat]

Is there anybody on earth who isn't aware that pregnancy happens?

You know what AC? FUCK YOU

[SIIHP]

"before coming out with a lame spelling or grammar flame."

There's nothing lame about questioning the professionalism of a writer, part of which is their ability to compose their thoughts and ideas.

If the subject is serious enough for me to care about, it's serious enough for a blogger to bother with spelling and grammar.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[dodobh]

That's ok. There's a few billion people in Asia who want your lifestyle, and will work for less than you can afford to cut your price down to. Don't worry, they'll probably move to the US some day.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[Maow]

People aren't sheep, people are autonomous individuals. Their willingness to spend their free time on your pet projects instead of their families is pretty limited. I don't see you offering free babysitting services or transportation for their kids to after school events to free up time for people to do what you want. I don't hear that you're donating money, you just want other people to do so.

My pet projects? I see. So you're the kind of person who leeches clean air and water off of the ones who actually care about the long-term future, not just next week or next quarter. Environmentalism isn't about what I want, it isn't even about you want - it's about what you might want in 20 years or what your kids might want after you're done composting. Everything else is just you complaining that you don't want to be bothered to make a sacrifice where the payoff isn't immediately visible.

Thank you - very well put.

Everyone = US?

[Roger W Moore]

Why not pick a topic that effects everyone now? Perhaps, politicians who flip flop (almost all of them), unjust wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe Iran soon), dollar devaluation and the fed who prints money and causes inflation, spend time blogging about politicians that the main stream media ignores (Ron Paul), or any number of actually important topics.

Perhaps the reason they picked the environment is because that does affect everyone? Sorry to burst your bubble but most of the rest of the world does not go around on a daily basis worrying about unknown US politicians, the value of the US currency, who it is planning to invade this month and the economic policies of its government. Sure the US does have impact beyond its borders but usually far less than the actions of the local government. Only really major events or changes in the US are worth noting for their local repercussions and, unless you happen to be in Iraq, Afganistan or Iran, these are not really good examples.

Amazingly though, irrespective of your position on man-made global warming, having stable environmental conditions really is important to all of us wherever we are on the planet.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[SoulShakeDown]

wow, I subscribed to this site solely to tell you that your statement hear is probably the most short sited, selfish ignorant post I have ever read. I don't even know how to go about ripping your comments apart without taking it one stupid sentence at a time.

"I am NOT an environmentalist. I will NOT sacrifice my lifestyle for "the greater good." I am focused on my family first, idealism is a WAY distant second."

You say your a family man, and your kids are important to you, have you heard simple point that they will learn in 1st grade? It has something to do with preserving the world so our kids can enjoy it... Beyond the obvious things like California and most other coast lines in the world, I hope you don't mind that they will never see the Great Barrier Reef, or be able to visit primary rain forest. Have you ever heard of asthma? How about pneumonia or maybe something called cancer? Do you know why rates of these are always increasing, despite billions of dollars in medical research to prevent them? Wait, I'm sorry, you probably don't believe in medical research because it is a little too idealistic to actually try to cure disease. Plus, I'm sure your kids will never get sick, so it doesn't relate to you.

When it comes to smoking cigarettes, do you still believe people should be able to smoke in businesses such as bars? Then how about in restaurants, or schools. A piece of modern history for you; a few decades ago, some people had the crazy idealogical idea that we could prevent illness and allow our kids to grow up in cleaner environments by banning smoking indoors in public places. Do you know how many people protested these restrictions with selfish ignorant ideas and attitudes like: "I will NOT sacrifice my lifestyle for "the greater good."

Hey, if they don't have kids, why should they care about smoking in the face of yours? But I'm sure that you find these smoking regulations outlandish and protest against them.

You then spend the next 2 paragraphs explaining that services should be spoon fed to people in order to make them realistic. Where do you think the roofing and insulation technology that is now saving you money comes from?? Maybe from people who realized that were realistic (not idealistic) ideas and put some money into pet projects that are changing the world for lazy ass cheap people like you.

"If you really want recycling efforts, then you need to make it easy for people, convenient, and ideally provide some incentive to them doing so. Just like some states offer deposits with refunds for recycling cans/bottles, why not have a scale in the curb-side pickup of recycled materials, and give people a credit on their garbage bill."

So... not only are you not willing to pay for any environmental services, but you want the government cut your payments in addition to coming door to door to pick up you recycling. Considering your lack of idealism, I think your well thought out idea of having the garbage men weigh every person's recycling container, then calculating discounts for every household is brilliant. I am now guessing that you are an economist of some sort, because I'm sure that adding thousands of man hours would really lead to us all receiving huge discounts.

By "making it easy... and convenient", do you mean that they should do more than come pick up commingled containers and paper from your curb. Is it really difficult to separate these things out? As you don't seem to know, the states that give deposits on cans and bottles, charge consumers the price of the deposit on the front end. Again, a practice you would clearly disagree with, because it might cost you a few more cents, and then you would actually have to put some effort into getting them back.

Your probably the person that complains daily about high gas prices that make owning you Suburban too costly. It is a lovely dream you have that one day someone in a hummer will come babysit for you (smoke some cigars while reading to the little ones) and take your kids to soccer practice on a field made of pavement and garbage because it was someone else's job to preserve the world.

Way to go slashdot...

[operagost]

You can almost hear the sound of the vacuum created by bloggers thinking that their words matter when the people with control don't even know how to read the tubes

Slashdot's really doing its part to dispel that whole "elitist geek" reputation.

Re:Stop the anti-people ideology and you'll succee

[NeutronCowboy]

Yup - I was going for the asshole approach here. Congrats on reading comprehension. You know why I went for that? Because I wanted to make crystal clear that if someone is going to fuck with my future, my family's future and my kids' future because they're too short-sighted to understand the long-term costs and impacts of their activities, I can be a far bigger asshole (and more vindictive) than they ever dreamed.

I could have also pointed out the incoherence of arguing the paramount importance of family, yet neglecting to plan for their future (which is what environmentalism is all about). I guess I decided that this kind of dickery didn't warrant a civil response.

No, you do not.

[khasim]

Your bloc must be like-minded on all issues.

Incorrect. You only need to all agree to vote for issue X. That's it.

For example, how much overlap is there between pro-choice and pro-copyright-reform? Anti-war-on-drugs and pro-death-penalty? Pro-gun and anti-war-in-iraq?

Who cares?

And you've missed the point. This is not about "anti" anything. Once you get into "anti-" you've lost and you're back at "pandering".

And politicans aren't one-issue candidates. They can mix and match their issue orientations as they see fit.

Yes, they can. And your bloc will not vote for them then.

It's really that simple. You bloc votes for the candidate that will support what you support. If the candidate does not, then you IMMEDIATELY switch to a different candidate.

Preferably to their own convictions, yes, but let's face it: it's primarily a function based on to whom they are indebted.

I'm getting the feeling that you don't understand politics at all.

Yes, corporations try to buy politicians.
And the politicians use that money to try to buy votes. They do this by buying commercial time on local stations.

If your bloc cannot be bought, then you've broken that system. You represent the power, not the corporations.

I mean, it looks good on paper and all but a candidate needs to evaluated as a whole and not as a one-issue make-or-break, or else your bloc is a lump-of-votes to whom he can simply promise things with a snarky one-liner.

There is something about this "voting" that you do not grasp.

If the politician does not deliver the vote, then the bloc will support a different candidate in the next election. ...a different candidate. ...in the next election.

The elected official that did not deliver the vote will lose the next election and be replaced by someone else.

I don't know if I can make that any clearer for you. It's about voting and our election process. If you do not understand that then you will not understand the concept of a voting bloc.

Huh? The bloc can represent more than one issue? Then you sir, have a political party complete with your platform of ideals. I bid you good luck taking on the two in control, you'll definitely need it.

While a bloc can "represent more than one issue" that is not what I said.

That is what is known as a "straw man".

Try to address the points that I made. Or don't. All you're doing is making my case for me.

Nothing you post here will have any effect compared to a single hand-written letter that I send to my officials from Washington state. Which is why they vote, pretty much, the way I want them to vote.

You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still the facts and all your arguments are worthless.

Enjoy your "blog day".

Re:No, you do not.

[Attila Dimedici]

You can argue with the facts all you want, but they are still the facts and all your arguments are worthless.

His arguments aren't worthless, for two reason. The first and more important one is that he drew you out to expand on your original point and so clearly lay it out. I think you make a very good point. Additionally, people need to realize that voting bloc politics cannot try to address every problem with the current laws, it must pick one or two issues that tie together and focus on those. There have been groups that started out well, that failed to accomplish much because they forgot this basic principle.
I would add one point to your already well made argument, laws should be passed and applied at the most local level that they can practically be enforced. The fewer number of people it takes to effect the outcome of a vote the more likely that those who really understand what is at stake can change the outcome of the vote.
I really think your point about forming a voting bloc with others who all stay focused on a limited number of important issues is very insightful.

:-/ hu

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fuck's sake.

The negative contribution of blog action day

[liegeofmelkor]

C'mon... the environment?! Are bloggers trying to fail??? At least choose a topic where we can (mostly) all agree in the blogosphere like labor conditions in foreign countries, child porn or racism. If you tell everyone to blog their hearts out on the environment, you'll be lucky to get enough serious contributors to neutralize the rather vocal minority that thinks everything is just fine with the environment. More likely, these jackasses will swamp the blogosphere and do more harm than good. You might as well be asking people to blog about their favorite flavor of Linux instead of the environment... at least the winning bigots won't do significant damage as a result.

Remember, the Written Word still matters

[xPsi]

and can influence people's ideas and opinions. I'm assuming anyone posting on slashdot believes this implicitly. If you are posting on slashdot and don't think it has some merit on some level, why bother? Granted, most blogs are pretty annoying. Nevertheless, I think it is generally a good thing to have a forum to express individual ideas. As long as there is a way for the end user to select and filter, I say blogs are a good thing.

No blogging allowed in Wiki-land

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good time to remember that Wikipedia thinks that blogs are crap. Only "reliable sources" are to be used over there.