Slashdot Mirror
Gates and MS Don't See Eye-To-Eye On CO2
Sam Machkovech writes "Bill Gates's speech at last week's TED Conference centered on 'moving to zero-carbon energy, and our need to reduce CO2 emissions 80% by 2050.' His choice of subject was an abrupt turn from The Gates Foundation's typical humanitarian topics, but he insisted that energy innovation is crucial to his Foundation's goals. A move by Microsoft today proves that Gates's old company has less interest in that carbon-neutral goal — Microsoft has begun campaigning against a bridge redesign that would result in more bus and transit options for commuters between Seattle and the company's homebase of Redmond, WA."
That a guy who has practically unlimited money and a seemingly sincere desire for world improvement(some of the "educational" initiatives that basically boil down to getting 3rd world kiddies using MS Office are arguably cynical; but nobody puts money into malaria research except for philanthropic reasons) and a callously profit-maximizing corporation with stockholders to appease might not be in complete agreement. However could this be?
Nothing in this is contradictory. Like most people, particularly those with power and wealth, he wants everyone else to do something to reduce carbon emissions while he flies around in his private jet and pumps megawatts into his electro-fortress. See also Al Gore's mansion and The Governator's private jet commute from Malibu to Sacramento. Contrast with Ed Begley Jr, who seems to practice what he preaches -- and is the exception that proves the rule.
The rich and famous are only required to appear as though they want a better future, or we would rise up and slay them. Good PR does more to protect their aristocracy than making sacrifices -- the PR is all that the serfs know of the nobles.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Nudge, nudge. That's the progressive way! Hey, can I ask that they not use my tax money to build HOV lanes, then tell me I can't use them?
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
It's interesting that the "conservative" view here supports government spending on a project that mainly benefits Microsoft employees.
If Microsoft wants a bridge that's best for their own employees, why don't they user their own money to build it?
If the entire state's (and federal) taxpayers have to foot the bill for this bridge, then it's completely reasonable for them to expect it to be environmentally responsible.
You are welcome on my lawn.
So Microsoft is Anti-Envriomentalist because it doesn't want to add public transit that most people wont use. Being a real environmentalist is being a realist too. Every choice you take has a trade off, Trying to push too green may cause a bridge that is not efficiently used. Thus creating a negative impact. Being green just to wave a flag to say Look I am green I am a good human being is often the worst thing you can do as you are not evaluating what you are doing and what tradeoffs you have.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Actually, public transit is heavily utilized here in the Seattle area and many people support the plan for more rapid transit options over the bridge because as it stands now, due to congestion, the buses are stuck in gridlock with everyone else. More dedicated lanes for buses means less sitting in traffic and now that the light rail is complete, people are already anxious to see its extension both north and east over Lake Washington. Finishing the bridge rapidly will only increase the costs to add rail to the eastside later (or more likely cause it to not happen at all, devaluing the light rail as a transit option for many) instead of just doing it now while they are already going to to be rebuilding.
Support a true independent artist - Leila Lopez
that is patently untrue. MS is not arguing against any plans for mass transit at all. They are arguing against yet again delaying the building of a bridge that is in dire need of replacement and has been for a long time, it is at the point where the bridge could actually collapse in bad weather or earthquake. Those arguing to change the plans yet again are potentially pushing the replacement of this critical piece of infrastructure to many years into the future and many pushing for the change are actually doing so with no intention of being better for transit or to be green, they are doing it cause they want to stop any bridge from existing to remove the traffic from there.