backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by lewisc.. on Oct 8 at 4:27 PM


David Cameron promotes a switch to "green" energy sources
High-powered personal computers and other electronics under close scrutiny for the UK's carbon dioxide crunch

The United Kingdom has a problem. Although it signed the Kyoto Protocol proposed by the United Nations, it -- like every other nation country which did -- has been wholly unable to meet treaty commitments, and has actually been increasing CO2 emissions faster than the non-signatories like the United States.

Embarrassing ... but what to do about it? Pass more laws, of course.

To that end, a new plan is recommending sweeping new changes to force residents to reduce electricity consumption. Tops on the list? A ban on new sales of plasma televisions. Surprisingly enough, the plan comes not from the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties, but from a group organized by Conservative Party Leader David Cameron.

While plasma TVs are especially singled out, the plan also targets all items that use over an arbitrary level of electricity, including high-performance personal computers and some household appliances. Additionally, the report recommends banning the "standby" functionality on consumer electronics, which allows them to be quickly turned on by remote control. Some 2% of the island nation's electric usage is thought to be due to standby equipment power draws.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has already announced his ambition to eliminate the stand-by function on all appliances sold in the country, claiming it was part of British responsibility to "protect the environment."

Critics of the plan claim it will simply create a "grey market", where those with money will continue to be able to purchase banned items at higher prices.  But former Environment Secretary and plan chairman John Gummer says, "The imperative of global warming demands that we change [our approach] utterly - not just governments, but businesses, groups and individuals."

Even with the plan implemented, the United Kingdom is not expected to meet Kyoto Protocol commitments.  No word yet on what next will hit the ban list.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A long time ago
By Misty Dingos on 9/10/2007 2:46:31 PM , Rating: 5
It used to be great to be British. You pretty much set the global agenda. Really did run the oceans. Now you are known for a philandering prince and a princess that got killed in a car wreck. Oh and a cranky Queen. All the while your government takes away your rights one at a time.

Some politician decides to take your TVs away and what is your recourse? Write letters? Vote him out of office? Lobby to have the guy removed from office? How about this, march on the palace and throw remote controls at the walls until the building collapses?

OK I admit it I am overstating the case. But when is this guy going to stop? Well getting rid of the plasma TVs dropped electricity use. So why not just have a mandatory TV off time? No TV from say midnight and eight in the morning? That will really cut down on power use! Or mandating that everyone ride bicycles to work?

When he is done with the whole power thing he can start working on your health with mandatory exercise period everyday!

No not a good time to be British. In my opinion.




RE: A long time ago
By Fenixgoon on 9/10/2007 2:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
longer for the glory days of the empire?

a shame us "colonies" have overtaken the "motherland"


RE: A long time ago
By Fenixgoon on 9/10/2007 2:51:49 PM , Rating: 2
*longing


RE: A long time ago
By Ringold on 9/10/2007 3:27:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
a shame us "colonies" have overtaken the "motherland"


We're rushing to catch up in extremist legislation, fear not.


RE: A long time ago
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 3:32:19 PM , Rating: 3
All the pieces will be in place if the Democrats win the presidential election in '08. Congress is ready now. The public is brainwashed about global warming and the "sins" of the Bush Administration. 9/11 is but a distant memory for most Americans. The pendulum could swing back pretty far. Heaven help us.


RE: A long time ago
By Keeir on 9/10/2007 3:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The public is brainwashed about global warming and the "sins" of the Bush Administration.


Not really on topic, but something I found rather interesting just a few days ago as an example of the treatment of global warming by main stream media

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/08/16/china....

To paraphrase, a CNN reporter attributes a 2x deaths by lightning in China (2006 to 2007) to "global warming".


RE: A long time ago
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 4:14:53 PM , Rating: 5
That is a really interesting article if you read it closely. It comingles global warming with the news of a sharp rise in lightning strikes, but it never directly ties them together. All it does is jump back and forth between talking about global warming and lightning strikes. The reader is left with the impression the two are stongly related, even though the article never clearly states this.

Modern propaganda at its finest - great work Reuters and CNN!


RE: A long time ago
By Scorpion on 9/11/2007 10:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
They learn from the best at it, the conservatives.

Unfortunately what the problem is there are so many feeble minds who are incapable of reading an interesting scientific observation, that in fact does not link the two together. It merely is a notice of the observation. Why are your brains so feeble that since they are both in the article together, they therefore MUST be linked, otherwise this is no news!

The problem is there are so many psuedo scientists who don't even know what science. If I release a news report on how an industry shift in the chemical makeup of tires coincides with a rise in blowouts, that does not mean that they are causaly related. It says "Hey, this might need some attention"

Feeble minds.


RE: A long time ago
By dever on 9/12/2007 2:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
The question was not "why are reader's linking them together?", the question was "why is CNN placing them together?" You're right, this should not be news. Why then does there seem to be a motivation to make it news?


RE: A long time ago
By Keeir on 9/13/2007 3:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is a significant flaw with your analogy.

The article in CNN/Rueters says this

"Lightning has killed 499 people in China so far this year, nearly 200 more than in the same period last year, and the country's top meteorologist blamed recent extreme weather on global warming."

This statement is written to imply that the China's top meteorologist says global warming is leading to increased lightening deaths (specifically in relation to this data point, see later discussion). Or has it become standard practice to discuss two unconnected ideas in a single sentence?

The CNN article could have and SHOULD have been written similar to such

"Lightning has killed 499 people in China so far this year, nearly 200 more than in the same period last year. The country's top meteorologist blames poor education of rural workers. A potential increase in extreme weather caused by global warming is also a concern."

Why is that the way it SHOULD have been written? Because here is the Xinhua article:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-08/17/cont...

Notice, there is NO mention of the increase extreme weather increased by global warming. But the note that 79% of death were directly attributable to people working in open fields and lack of adequate shelter.

Again the CNN/Rueters version of this story is truely showing a great deal of bias and assumption on part of the author and editors.

"The problem is there are so many psuedo scientists who don't even know what science. "

Yes, that is the problem, and they are writing the articles for most major news organizations.

I usually find Xinhua/Chinese news sources to offer a more balanced and objective reporting of global warming

for example this article

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2007-07/30/conte...

Yes, it assumes global warming is occuring, but it also deals fairly with potential outcomes. IE, could be good or bad, we just don't have enough data. I fear from my own observations, the same article in CNN/BCC/etc would explain how wars were caused by lack of food (skipping over the studys conclusion that periods of global cooling were responsible). Global warming will create lack of food (somehow). Global warming will cause the overthrow of civilization and modern governments! With some selective inclusion of the scientists actual remarks and all contributing scientist would appear to agree with this assesment.

Its a dark day when Media coming out of state-controlled outlets is of (apparently) higer journalistic quality than those that typically run on the pinicle of "Free-Press" news organizations.


RE: A long time ago
By Ringold on 9/10/2007 4:35:16 PM , Rating: 2
If I doubted Congress had any restraint in its hard-left proclivities before they evaporated today as the most staunch liberals in congress try to either back-pedal, cast doubt over Petraeus' credibility, or simply outright ignore both his and the ambassador's warnings regarding premature drawn-downs. Have yet to hear from the leadership but Reid clearly had his mind up even before the last election, facts on the ground or future dangers be damned.

Not sure heaven could help us, but having a President after 08 with a veto pen to keep an errant Congress from getting too radical would definitely help, and grid-lock in DC would be a boon to the economy.


RE: A long time ago
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 4:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you, Petraeus' testimony before Congress is a waste of time - it's clear that many lawmakers have already made up their minds, and so they exhibit a "don't confuse me with the facts" type of mentality.


RE: A long time ago
By arazok on 9/10/2007 3:18:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No not a good time to be British. In my opinion.


I've been to Brittan, and I'd summarize the country as follows:

1. After accounting for currency differences, everything is the same prize, but half the size. Houses, soda cans, cars etc are all itty bitty versions no the north American counterparts - for the same prize.
2. Photo Radar EVERYWHERE
3. You pay annual taxes for each TV you own?! Crazy.
4. You have to dress all posh to get into any sort of dance club, and when you do the "latest hit" is the same hit in N.A. you got bored of 8 months ago.
5. Every show on TV contained topless women, yet words like "damn" or "retarded" get bleeped on the radio.

No, definitely not the empire she used to be...


RE: A long time ago
By arazok on 9/10/2007 3:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
Horrible typos in that one. Sry.


RE: A long time ago
By Xerstead on 9/10/2007 3:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Photo Radar EVERYWHERE

It's a pain, they do so little for safety. Fine, put one outside a school and I'll be looking at my speedo for the 20 meters making sure i'm not speeding and hit the child instead. Driving arount some parts of London, it seemed there was a camera every mile and change of speed limit every mile offset by about 1/2 mile. Why? more money for the powers that be?
quote:
3. You pay annual taxes for each TV you own?! Crazy

This tax does cover the use of several TV's in the house. Even if you don't watch the BBC's chanels which are the only ones funded by this tax.
quote:
5. Every show on TV contained topless women, yet words like "damn" or "retarded" get bleeped on the radio

I must have missed those TV shows?

I would also add:
You can be better off living a lifetime on Benefits than having a decent job.
Forigners coming to our country get better/priority treatment over our own senior sitizens.
The government are trying to discourage using cars by increasing tax's and screwing with the road layout BUT Also increasing the cost of public transport way above inflation.


RE: A long time ago
By csl on 9/12/2007 8:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. After accounting for currency differences, everything is the same prize, but half the size. Houses, soda cans, cars etc are all itty bitty versions no the north American counterparts - for the same prize.


You forgot waist sizes.


RE: A long time ago
By lewisc on 10/8/2007 4:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
In response to this, and a reply above by Xerstead,I think I would like to come out in defence of the Empire.

1. Things aren't the same price. In fact, quite often they're more expensive than their American counterparts, and yet are somehow smaller! However, in terms of things like cars, I think this is more personal taste than because we don't want to 'supersize' everything.

2. Speed cameras do slow people down. They are only able to be installed in areas which have met an accident threshold.

3. As Xerstead rightly said, you ay once per household, and have to sit through much less advertising than you seem willing to put up with in America. The BBC has no advertising. Has to be funded somehow I'm afraid.

4. I'm not quite sure what is wrong with generally looking nice when you go out, and I think we'll just pass over the 8 month comment, as it is patently untrue. Compare charts if you want.

5. As many misspent evenings of my youth confirmed, there really aren't that many topless women on TV. And I think talking of topless women and censorship in the same sentance is probably a little rich coming from America, lest we forget Janet Jackson, and the public flaggelation which ensued.

There you have it, my two pence. Or should that be four, as everything is more expensive?


RE: A long time ago
By agentcooper on 9/11/07, Rating: 0
RE: A long time ago
By Ringold on 9/11/2007 12:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with how you frame is that virtually all economic activity (asides from, I suppose, day light hour prostitution -- burning the midnight oil would be a global warming sin) is included in your definition of an externality that impacts everybody. When you widen it that far and take direct action to curb particular types of consumption on the individual level (like banning plasma TV's) what you're really saying is that property rights and the right to do what one pleases is a sham if it's at all contrary to the public good. The public good being defined, of course, by the protesters. All of which being precisely what America's founding fathers indicated as a key threat to freedom; the masses using the power of the state to infringe upon the rights of the individual in a minority.

Perhaps in another 100 years the last libertarians will have been bred out of existance but for now this all smacks of Socialist top-down social engineering and needless invasion of liberty. As someone else said there are much larger fish that could be getting fried in the service of environmentalism.


RE: A long time ago
By SirLucius on 9/11/2007 2:06:20 AM , Rating: 3
But there are two things you're missing. 1.) Who defines the greater good? Your idea of what is ultimately right is probably different from mine. Who's to say you're right. Personally, I think that it should be up to the individual restaurant/bar if they want to allow smoking in their establishment. If you don't want to be around cigarette smoke, don't go. There would be plenty of places to cater to non-smokers. We clearly disagree here, but who's right or wrong. Who are you to say I can't smoke a cigarette at a private establishment you don't own. Who am I to say you should have to deal with my smoking? It's murky water.

2.) This isn't quite on the same scale as public smoking or trash burning either. The effect this legislation would have on global warming would be negligible, but the effects on individual rights would be far greater. Next thing you know, I can only watch certain media at certain times because it's in the "best interest for the public" or whatever other b/s reasoning these guys would come up with.


RE: A long time ago
By Christopher1 on 9/11/2007 10:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good question: Who defines the greater good? Answer: Only the person who is looking at the thing in question and only for themselves.

Really, if they want to cut down on CO2 production, power usage, etc...... put limits on the power that an appliance can use, stop buying the manufacturers arguments that "It would cost a lot to be energy-efficient!" (in most cases it would not!), and start telling people to turn off devices when they are done with them and have TV's, VCR's, Cable Boxes, etc. automatically turn off after say.... 1 hour without any interaction with them and have a countdown to turnoff. That might be generous actually, make it 30 minutes without any interaction.

I have my TV in my bedroom mothballed right now because it was using HORRENDOUS amounts of energy each day, and my father got a notebook PC and TV Tuner USB stick that I pre-empted with his permission and are using for TV viewing.

The computer, even running full blast, uses less than 1/10th the amount of energy the TV used, according to a wattage meter that I plugged both into.


RE: A long time ago
By Keeir on 9/13/2007 3:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really, if they want to cut down on CO2 production, power usage, etc...... put limits on the power that an appliance can use, stop buying the manufacturers arguments that "It would cost a lot to be energy-efficient!"


Or better yet:
Require Manufactures to provide 2 power (and cost) estimates on the side of every electric device box that consumes more than 10W. 1 estimate for 100% use for a year. 1 estimate for 100% plugged in with no use for a year.

The total cost of all of these measures should be relatively minor and gives control to the right choice-makers. IE allowing users to choose the benifits and cost.

I personally would like a total off switch by my front door that allows me to effectively "power down" my house for everything that is not essential for an empty house. Maybe every lower plug on the standard wall circuit. IE, lamps, chargers, TVs, computers, DVR/Cable boxes.


RE: A long time ago
By dever on 9/12/2007 2:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Were not talking about things people do in their bedrooms or say in public. This is like smoking in bars or restaurants
Let's see, you assume that because a private business such as a restaurant offers it's services to you and allows you on it's premises without much scrutiny, that the business is now "public." You assume that it is now owned by you and your commie buddies and not a private individual. You then assume that you should be able to dictate whether or not these businesses and their customers should be allowed to smoke on their own property. Complete socialistic nonsense. Smoking in a restaurant does not affect everyone negatively. You have no obligation or right to go into another's private establishment... it is a privilege. Think before you post.

PS: I've never smoked and don't plan to. But I do savor the frangrance of liberty above the foul stench of paternalistic government controls.


RE: A long time ago
By Ringold on 9/11/2007 9:07:18 AM , Rating: 2
It's not quite all bad. I heard this yesterday, but just came across some linkage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne...

The island isn't completely sinking in to the Left Sea. :)


RE: A long time ago
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 9:10:46 AM , Rating: 1
What, people will have to speak English in England - how dare them!

Personally, I'm brushing up on my Spanish - uno, duo, tres.


RE: A long time ago
By Polynikes on 9/11/2007 7:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
I've always liked and respected the Brits, (I've got some British/Welsh blood and Brit Rock rules) but I really pity you guys sometimes.


Photo Caption Contest
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 4:46:21 PM , Rating: 6
OK, that photo is just begging for some more interesting captions. Anybody have any ideas?

I'll start: "Finally Answered, How Many Politicians Does It Take to Boot Windows"




RE: Photo Caption Contest
By masher2 (blog) on 9/10/2007 4:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'd vote that post a six :)


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By arazok on 9/10/2007 7:14:46 PM , Rating: 4
"...and voila. I've just guaranteed our reelection."


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 7:58:05 PM , Rating: 4
"Hey, guys, check out this new site I found called DailyTech"


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By Captain Orgazmo on 9/10/2007 8:26:53 PM , Rating: 4
"Politicians celebrate as computer model indicates a 3% increase in votes in useful idiot sector of population due to proposed ridiculous new quasi-environmental policy. Minister of Sodomy, John J. Johnson (back, center) is so excited his toupee nearly flies off".


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 9:13:32 PM , Rating: 5
"Check out this high-res picture of Megan Fox on DailyTech! Wow!"


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By MMilitia on 9/11/2007 8:18:48 AM , Rating: 5
"Hey, some Nigerian guy just e-mailed me to tell me he could make my penis *this* big!"


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 4:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
"Hey guys, look, there's a picture of us on Michael Asher's blog on DailyTech!"


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By kingpotnoodle on 9/11/2007 5:17:22 PM , Rating: 4
"And if I just cut this and paste it... here... then it looks like Gordon Brown is kissing Bush on the cheek, I told you Photoshop is gonna win us this election"


RE: Photo Caption Contest
By Polynikes on 9/11/2007 7:11:25 PM , Rating: 2
CLEARLY it would take more than 4 of them.


Ban the Beef!
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/10/2007 1:53:48 PM , Rating: 3
I propose an English beef ban to combat global warming.

It actually makes a lot more sense.

Leave it to the government to come up with a "creative" solution like this one.

Seriously those laws are ridiculous and horrible for the electronics industry. I can't see them actually being voted into law, but the prospect is rather startling.

As you know I'm very interested in ways to prevent global warming. But if you look at it, the measures mentioned would make such an insignificant difference, when compared to something such as your choice of diet.

And you can't force consumers not to buy something, thats akin to prohibition, and just leads to black markets.

I'm a big advocate of Sun Tzu's philosophy of "pick your fights".

We environmentalists have commendable goals and morals, but we need to become practical in order to realize them. And practicality mandates not worrying about little problems when the house is burning down.

These small contributors just aren't worth the effort, and pain to try to ban and fight them. Focus on the bigger problems, once you solve them, you can get back to worrying about power efficiency in consumer electronics.




RE: Ban the Beef!
By PlasmaBomb on 9/10/2007 2:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I propose an English beef ban to combat global warming.

It actually makes a lot more sense.


How so? *hands spade*


RE: Ban the Beef!
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/10/2007 3:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
A beef cow produces far more carbon pollution in its lifetime than the production of electricity to power a big screen tv, over the same time span.

This was noted in Michael Asher's quote sometimes put as the article quote here at dailytech.

Dairy may be slightly better, simply from the standpoint that you can get thousands of gallons of milk from a healthy cow over its lifetime. However, again it is a significant problem.

I was being fascious when suggesting a ban, though because as I noted banning something simply leads to black markets and crime.

However, I would think that raising public awareness on this fact and working to cut the per capita intake via public awareness campaigns and cutting back on the cattle farming subsidies would be good steps.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By zinfamous on 9/10/2007 3:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
*facetious

but to expand on your point here, most people don't consider what kind of physical space is required to raise one head of cattle, from birth to slaughter...let alone several thousand of them. (And I'm not a vegetarian; I love the hell out of meat). While the "solutions" are costly and difficult--cutting production exponentially, raising costs for farmers and consumers--the impact on global warming that banning certain types of meat production is far greater than banning high-end electronics would be.

To that end, I say we pick on McDonald's: Ban the clown and reclaim some 20% of the Brazillian rain forests :)

(and watch our rate of heart disease plummet over the next 50 years...a welcome side-effect)


RE: Ban the Beef!
By Christopher1 on 9/11/2007 10:49:37 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that won't do anything. Johns Hopkins Hospital recently did a study on people who ate fast food regularly, and were astounded by the results (I know of them, because I took part in the study).

They found out that people eating McDonald's regularly had LESS of a chance of heart disease than people who didn't eat at McDonald's regularly.
Really, heart disease does not come from what you eat. Most people with heart disease have genetic factors that make their arteries clog up faster or more than other people's do, and changing their diet will do little or nothing to change their risk of that.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By ted61 on 9/10/2007 5:27:26 PM , Rating: 1
You just have to love anyone who cites masher2 as a source.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 9/10/2007 6:06:45 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Ban the Beef!
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 6:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
I think that's a great quote, myself.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By ted61 on 9/11/2007 10:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with citing Masher. His articles are the best.

I have no doubt that Masher can back up everything he writes with a valid reference.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By TomZ on 9/10/2007 3:04:29 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We environmentalists have commendable goals and morals, but we need to become practical in order to realize them. And practicality mandates not worrying about little problems when the house is burning down.

Good points. It's pretty telling that in modern times the term "practical environmentalist" sounds like an oxymoron.

You are right that only through practical approaches can environmental goals be met. Proposals need to take into account (amongst other things) the economic well-being of people and businesses, otherwise they have no hope of being successful, because at the end of the day, environmental proposals that cause economic hardship won't get any traction at all.

Based on this view, the UK proposals are patently stupid.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By Pythias on 9/10/2007 4:20:49 PM , Rating: 3
I say we kill every living thing on the planet, so the Earth can be about its business.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By acer905 on 9/11/2007 12:54:35 PM , Rating: 3
Not every living thing, just the humans. You have to remember, without us the earth could never warm up or cool off. Nothing can become extint without our direct interference. And besides, even without cars to release CO2 there are still 6.7 billion people breathing it out every day. I say ban professional sports, or any sort of physical activity, because it makes you breath harder and faster and by doing so release more CO2. Everyone should either be a) laying around all the time, or b) dead. That way we wouldn't be polluting the air with CO2. And then after a few years all the plants will have cleaned the entire planet of all CO2 and the earth can finally be at peace, just like Mars.


RE: Ban the Beef!
By Christopher1 on 9/11/2007 10:54:57 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, it would heat up and cool off without our interference. That thing about nothing becoming extinct without our direct interference: bullshit! There have been many species that have gone extinct without human interference, going back to the Ice Age. We just don't know about them, so we can't name all of them.

I realize now that your posting was meant to be an indictment of the environmentalists, and I say "Good on ya!" I was once an envirofreak, but when I realized after doing copious research in high school that most problems in the world were NOT from humans and that humans could not be causing them..... I gave up on environmentalism.


Talk the talk for votes
By arazok on 9/10/2007 3:36:57 PM , Rating: 1
I used to work at a refrigerated warehouse that's exterior walls consisted of 1 sheet of aluminum. My current office's roof is a sheet of steel, with 1/2 inch of tar/stone on the roof. My drycleaner isn't allowed to use Perc as a cleaning solvent because of "environmental concerns", even though the perc is 100% re-captured and recycled - yet the rail road is allowed to use the same chemical to power-wash it's trains, and the runoff just runs off onto the ground.

Environmental laws are passed to get votes from idiots. When they start banning crap you never heard of, then you'll know it's a real problem.




RE: Talk the talk for votes
By zinfamous on 9/10/2007 3:57:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When they start banning crap you never heard of, then you'll know it's a real problem.


...like Dihydrogen Oxide? ;)


RE: Talk the talk for votes
By rmaharaj on 9/10/2007 4:14:44 PM , Rating: 3
Don't make me dunk you in hydrogen hydroxide!


RE: Talk the talk for votes
By novacthall on 9/10/2007 4:26:42 PM , Rating: 4
I'll have you know dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) kills untold thousands every year, far greater than any other deadly chemical, and yet its use is still COMPLETELY UNRESTRICTED.

Some quick facts about DMSO:

- Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
- Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
- DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
- Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
- Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
- Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
source: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

For more information and to educate yourselves to educate your representatives, please visit www.DHMO.org.

DISCLAIMER : Yes, I know what it is. And you don't have to be a chemical engineer to figure it out.


RE: Talk the talk for votes
By novacthall on 9/10/2007 4:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake: "DMSO" above should be "DHMO".

DMSO, while not nearly as deadly as DHMO, is still nothing to be trifled with.


RE: Talk the talk for votes
By acer905 on 9/11/2007 1:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
... I never realized there was a website. lol. thats awesome.


interesting...
By Oregonian2 on 9/10/2007 8:11:43 PM , Rating: 3
You know of course that disallowing standby modes on things will just lead to folk leaving things turned on all the time. I'll bet that enough folk would leave things turned on all the time to more than compensate for those who turn things off and that the net power usage would be significantly increased. I'll also bet that even those who proposed it know this to be true too but that they're doing it to look good and it's a posturing thing of some sort.




RE: interesting...
By Ringold on 9/11/2007 1:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
Lets look on the bright side.

Once all these draconian laws come to pass, where a VCR with a stand-by mode becomes as big a social taboo as cocaine, there is going to be money to be made by those smart enough to import these black, dastardly, polar-bear killing electronic death machines from countries that never did and never will give a damn and servicing the black underworld market of.. dare I say it.. convenient electronic goods!

Imagine it. Budding young capitalists in the first world cutting their small-business teeth by receiving an unmarked shipment from Taiwan, loading up their government issued electric scooter, and heading across town to where the elite upper crust lives and delivering their shameful quad-layer HD-DVD players to their back door, taking cash as anonymous payment. One generation delivers news papers as a kid, the next, carbon dope. Almost enough to bring a tear of joy to my eye from a cold, smog-filled heart.


RE: interesting...
By Keeir on 9/11/2007 5:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
Since M. Asher did not directly link to the proposal, I can't comment on the exact form of standby that the proposal suggests banning. I may guess that this address the "fake-off" standby problem where turning something "off" doesn't turn the item off at all as in no electric draw or even reduced (significantly) electric draw. This potentially could significantly reduce electricity consumpstion (0.X%) if people knew when items were drawing power and when items were not drawing power. IE, I have alot of electric devices on a single power strip that I can completely cut the power too easily. I almost always ensure I do so before I go to bed at night(since why the heck do I need my TV/Tivo to be instant on when I am at work?).

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-2.html

Some numbers 65 Watts (estimated power consumption in standby) over 18 hours over 250 days a year * .10 cents per KW/h adds up to only $29.50 dollars saved... but thats 29.50 would have returned me almost no benifit


RE: interesting...
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 5:46:16 PM , Rating: 3
While it's true that standby mode does waste power, the solution is to drive device manufacturers towards lower power consumption. For example, pass a labeling law that states that all devices are required to disclose their standby power so that consumers can compare them. This approach is already used in other areas, e.g., electric appliances, to help consumers understand the power consumption and cost.

On the engineering side, there's a lot that can be done in the typical device to reduce standby power. For example, replacing transformer-based cell phone chargers with smarter circuits that cut input power consumption when the phone is not plugged in. They would cost a little more, but maybe consumers would think it is worth it?


RE: interesting...
By Keeir on 9/11/2007 10:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For example, pass a labeling law that states that all devices are required to disclose their standby power so that consumers can compare them.


Yes, that is probably the "best" solution in that it will be the most effective without removing choice. But without reading the actual text of the "ban" mentioned by M. Asher, I can't know if its an actual out and out ban, or a ban on calling this high-power standby as an "off" state.


RE: interesting...
By dever on 9/12/2007 2:58:20 PM , Rating: 2
Even better than a "law" would be third party, private enterprises that reviewed products and gave ratings. If a good rating was given, manufacturer's could license the use of the rating for their product packaging and marketing.


By BernardP on 9/10/2007 2:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Suggested reading as a counterpoint to the rhetoric of global warming ayatollahs. I hope this has not been posted before.

The Fraser Institute is a highly credible Canadian think thank. Go to this page:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?...

and dowmload the Independent Summary for Policymakers, in .pdf format at the bottom of the page. It is a critical review of the latest IPCC report on climate change.

Have a look at the list of Authors on page 4 and 57
Have a look at the list of Reviewers on page 55.

These people are clearly not a bunch of right-wing conspirators paid by oil companies.

The document is meant to be read side-by-side with the IPCC report, but is also very interesting by itself.

If anything, the Independent Summary minimally establishes that the science of global warming is far from settled.




By TheDoc9 on 9/10/2007 4:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
You can't help but admire what money CAN buy. The Clinton's alone have raised BILLIONS over the last year or more for their global warming initiative and there's no telling who else is throwing money in the pot.

http://www.forbes.com/leadership/2006/09/21/leader...

Now whether that money will actually go to brainwashing commercials and radio time, or whether it will go to engineers to build more efficient devices we can only guess.


By TomZ on 9/10/2007 4:21:22 PM , Rating: 3
Just to be fair and complete, the Clinton Global Initiative focuses more widely than global warming:

http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNIT...

Global warming is certainly a part of it, but by no means all.


By Ringold on 9/10/2007 4:40:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be more concerned about who's throwing money in to her election campaign.

Like the thousands from the homeless folk living in shacks near the end of a runway at LAX.


By Ringold on 9/11/2007 1:04:06 AM , Rating: 3
One could mod me down, yes.

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?sho...

(Original source being WSJ, but I know not everyone subscribes)

Or could use Google to verify what they're reading.

And then, with the truth in hand, use either memory or more Google skills to discover that this instance is just a drop in the bucket as the Clinton's have a long, storied history of interesting campaign contributions, both monetary and in other forms.


what are they trying to do
By richelmontro on 9/11/2007 7:20:43 AM , Rating: 2
Bring us back to the stone age....lol




RE: what are they trying to do
By TomZ on 9/11/2007 9:08:48 AM , Rating: 2
Answer: yes, at least from the perspective of some extreme environmentalists. There are some people who believe that there are "too many people" in the world, and they want to turn back the clock in that regards. I'm sure that those who remain living in caves would be part of the plan.


RE: what are they trying to do
By masher2 (blog) on 9/11/2007 10:19:23 AM , Rating: 2
You might find this quote interesting:
quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!

Environmentalist Stewart Brand, writing in the Whole Earth Catalog.


My UK angle on the Global warming stuff.
By jabber on 9/12/2007 5:12:19 AM , Rating: 2
As a brit I find myself more and more politically dis-infranchised as each day comes. There isn’t one party that is there to support the average income earning, law abiding, tax paying, common sense, mind your own business, guy on the street. They have pushed us all into a grey area of politics so we no longer bother to vote. The political parties then only have to target the politically motivated minorities which they know will vote for particular issues that require only lip service rather then any actual effort.

As for the brit political take on global warming? Hmmmm well what do we keep hearing? -

Don’t use TVs, don’t buy fancy goods that have to shipped around the world, don’t but exotic food, don’t buy or use big cars, don’t fly anywhere, don’t do this, don’t do that.

A few years ago that would be called Socialism. But that word is not marketable so those folks that used to preach the word of socialism, have now jumped on the global warming bandwagon. Unfortunately folks are falling for it because they think it’s for a good cause.

I don’t really worry too much about it. Sure I’ll go along with a bit of recycling and switching stuff off because it could save me money. And other species/environments should not be unduly bothered by us to extinction. Will it save ‘our’ world? Probably not.

What I hate is the arrogance of humans that makes us think that we are the ‘chosen’ superior species to lord it over this planet for eternity. We’ve been around for the blink of an eye and if nature or we decide to obliterate us from the face of the earth then so be it. We’ll just be an odd brief footnote in the history of this young planet for archaeologists of the next successive dominant species to write about. I bet the dinosaurs though they were doing pretty well for 50 odd million years.

The planet and the universe are ever changing. Get over it.




RE: My UK angle on the Global warming stuff.
By TheGreek on 9/13/2007 3:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We’ve been around for the blink of an eye and if nature or we decide to obliterate us from the face of the earth then so be it.

Please share that attitude with some local veterans of WWII and tell us what they think of your stand. What a bunch of fools all those prior generations were, self sacrifice to make a better life for the next generation. Give up nothing no matter what, that's the true spirit. There's nothing like fighting for a cause, and you've fought so long and hard for you and yours.

Can anyone imagine how this generation would behave in another Depression or World War with rations, etc?

quote:
Don’t use TVs, don’t buy fancy goods that have to shipped around the world, don’t but exotic food, don’t buy or use big cars, don’t fly anywhere, don’t do this, don’t do that.

Get a clue - Read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnIn...


By jabber on 9/14/2007 7:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
Thats the kind of arrogance I was talking about. You can mess with nature but you cant beat it. It will get you in the end. If your number is up as a species there is nothing you can do about it.

Plus bringing in that old 'what the war vets did for you' stance does smack as a bit desperate in this instance. They were fighting against Nazi ideology (thanks for doing that, I do appreciate it by the way) not to save humanity as a species so it can live on for eternity. Who is to say we are not a evolutionary dead end?

Would it be a bad thing for the universe if we died out? No one would notice to be honest.


rofl
By djkrypplephite on 9/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: rofl
By porkpie on 9/10/2007 2:54:07 PM , Rating: 1
It seems like everyday the enviro-whackos strike again. What's next, a ban on everything but wind-up toys?


RE: rofl
By marvdmartian on 9/10/2007 3:07:11 PM , Rating: 3
Wouldn't work. The tree huggers would then come out and state that the heat generated by the spring winding down was generating too much heat, and that was causing global warming. Never mind the 3rd world developing nations that are burning dirty oil & coal, without regards to what they put in the air, at a phenomenal rate.

I propose we all trade in our cars and tv sets and other energy consuming things for rocks. Then we can all be like Fred Flintstone!


Someone fill me in
By onelittleindian on 9/11/2007 12:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not exactly an expert on British politics but its the Conservative Party proposing this BS? Is that a typo or is England further gone that I thought?




RE: Someone fill me in
By Ringold on 9/11/2007 4:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct.

David Cameron as far as I can tell is trying to push a somewhat unwilling party to the political center (by European standards) in order to try to win elections for the first real time since the Iron Lady. I'm not sure how much it's working but he is aggitating some of the real conservatives of the party.

I'm not a fan of caving to liberal ideology just to win elections but they're just trying to survive I suppose..

I could have it a little wrong, I'm not British nor fully understand British culture/politics, but that's how it looks from this side of the pond.


Fed up of all this bull****
By WayneG on 9/11/2007 2:13:36 AM , Rating: 3
What the **** is wrong with our government bodies? Why is it that they must find scape goats in everything that we do and find new ways to tax us to make us pay for living comfortably? Congestion charge is taking the piss, but this is getting rediculous... no more plasma screens? I'm actually shocked and disgusted at the same time. Someone really needs to elect me to be government a lot of things would change, we'll start with the house of commons I think... Next thing we'll see is a tax based on the amount of food we consume to ensure that our diet isn't affecting the natural balance of nature.
I give this law and all laws like it a straight **** off. I will be buying more plasma TVs (I won't use standby but I'll leave it on at all times) and polluting the environment from driving to my neighbours who live 20m from me. I wish there was some scientist who really had balls and of course an immaculate reputation to disprove all this nonsense once and for all.




By Blackraven on 9/11/2007 12:42:25 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously, this is stupid.

I mean, do they really want to put Pioneer out of business over there? That would be unimaginable.

Heck I mean right now, Pioneer plasma TVs (from 6th gen) are ROHS-compatible in Europe (and now the rest of the world as well). Power consumption figures of it are on an on-going downtrend (around 20-30w less per newer generation) and that they are also lighter in weight.

What more could they want?!?!?

It does show that they are not tackling the problem with the right means. If they want to stop global warming, why don't they ban dirty coal or encourage citizens to buy less beef products (as shown by masher and his study).

Look. I am not a plasma fanboy (as I bought a Samsung LCD TV recently) but seriously, why should a ban be imposed when the plasma TV companies are in fact trying to reduce power consumption and heat in their TV sets.

Seriously, the intention (to stop/reduce/reverse global warming) may be good but the plan (to ban plasma TVs?!?!?!?) is fucking stupid.

/rant over




By TheGreek on 9/13/2007 2:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
You can't explain to a person who buys a huge TV and then consumes over 500 watts/hr to watch the evening news that he's an idiot, even though the purchase alone proved that outright.

This concept is beyond the comprehension of the locals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdependence


One Trick Pony
By Shuxclams on 9/10/07, Rating: -1
"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki