Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First "Carbon-Free" CPU Fights Global Warming

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the green-costs-green dept.

221

An anonymous reader writes "VIA is doing its bit to fight Global Warming by introducing the 'world's first carbon-free' desktop PC processor. The RoHS-compliant C7-D consumes 20W at 1.8GHz, and is accompanied by a 'Clean Computing Initiative' that aims to offset the chip's environmental cost. According to a LinuxDevices report, VIA has pledged that atmospheric carbon released during generation of the power needed to run the chip throughout its expected life-cycle will be offset by regional conservation, reforestation, and energy programs initiated or contributed to by VIA."

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is the first post. WOW! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096266)

In accordance with the Homosexual Negroes, I introduce you this:
 
  An Important Link [goatse.cx]

I'm doing my part (1, Funny)

internetstruck (1002239) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096269)

I recently purchased an HP Slimline computer to reduce my consumption of electricity, so I can offset the massive carbon output of my H3 SUV. God I love the smell of gasoline in the morning! I think more people should be doing their part to purchase computers that aren't overpowering the electrical grid, because who really needs 128MB of RAM or 3GHz to check grannies email?

Re:I'm doing my part (2, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096485)

Man, to offset the carbon production of a Hummer SUV you need more than that... perhaps installing solar panels, or donating a lot of money to conservation efforts...

Damn, even then I wouldnt be sure... perhaps seven years of penance as a Franciscan brother might do the trick.

FYI (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096982)

Sar-casm n. [answers.com]

You need a better power supply (4, Funny)

wsanders (114993) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096501)

It's the power supply not the CPU that makes the difference. My power supply separates the electrons made fomr non-renewable sources and returns those to the mains for the rest of the ignorant world to use, and then uses only the ones generated by renewable sources.

I also contribute to reforestation efforts in China - each $50 funds a slave laborer who can plant 100 trees a day as part of his "reeducation".

Re:You need a better power supply (1)

calumniate (777615) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096705)

great.. an energy efficient cpu! meanwhile you can buy a gforce 7950 gx2 requiring a minimum 400w power supply. Make that 600w.

Re:You need a better power supply (2, Interesting)

MoOsEb0y (2177) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096787)

You may be making a funny, but the power supplies used in computers can make a huge difference in how green they are. An example of good power supply design can be seen at the 80+ [80plus.org] group's website. The specification basically boosts the requirement for efficiency from the 70s to the 80s along with adding active power factor correction (a huge boon for building owners as that prevents the need for giant capacitors in the basement to save money on electric bills). The cost savings for a machine that is on 24/7 with one of these new supplies makes it pay for itself in just under a year.

I bought a 550 watt Enhance power supply based off of the list of vendors from that website and have been supremely impressed with what I got. My power bill has gone down by a several dollars a month and my living room doesn't get quite as scorching hot. Also, given the build quality (far superior to any power supplies named after woodland herbivores) I have no doubt that I will be able to use this supply for years to come. All the latest fancy power connectors are included (24 pin atx, 8 pin +12v, PCIe, sata, etc) and intelligently laid out.

Re:You need a better power supply (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096892)

Not even that. More than two thirds(!) of the energy of a computer are consumed during manufacturing, even with a long computer lifetime.

Needless to say, long computer lifetime isn't really in VIA's interest. But if you want to do anything for the environment (ok, not, as this is /.), use your old machine a few years longer.

Re:I'm doing my part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096554)

From TFR:

    "so I can offset the massive carbon output of my H3 SUV"

    "who really needs 128MB of RAM or 3GHz to check grannies email"

----

Who really fucking NEEDS an H3 SUV to drive their fat ass 1/2 a mile to pick up a cup of coffee?

Re:I'm doing my part (1)

ifrag (984323) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096677)

because who really needs 128MB of RAM or 3GHz to check grannies email?

Not for email obviously. I'd say to play HD-DVD's but I'm pretty sure those specs are too low for that anyway.

Re:I'm doing my part (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097050)

I recently purchased an HP Slimline computer to reduce my consumption of electricity, so I can offset the massive carbon output of my H3 SUV.

The 2006 Hummer H1 Alpha is supposed to get around 12 mpg. The H2 gets about the same, which is especially pathetic because it's a chevy tahoe. The H3 gets around 17 [fueleconomy.gov] (combined) and as such it's the least apt model of hummer you could have picked. Actually, the funny thing is, the Tahoe gets about 17mpg as well, and that's what the hummer H2 is based upon.

Secret! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16097066)

I can't see Slashdot promoting this as it doesn't help the world in a really positive manner. Lets have Slashdot promote something to improve the world!
. . . How about:

Victoria Secrets announces Carbon-Free thongs!!! (not available in 'plus' sizes...)
We can make the world a better place!

20W != Carbon Free (0)

ChrisGilliard (913445) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096272)

Yes, it's low, but it's still using energy. Depending on the source, it would be emitting CO2.

Re:20W != Carbon Free (2, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096291)

By "carbon free," they mean they're going to be making donations to various environmental initiatives to offset the carbon it uses. The article also shows a little chart showing that their chip uses less carbon over its lifetime than Intel or AMD chips. I'm not sure if that means it's far more efficient, or that they expect it to burn out quicker ;).

Re:20W != Carbon Free (2, Informative)

grommit (97148) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096295)

So I guess you didn't bother to read the summary even? Specifically:

Via has pledged that atmospheric carbon released during generation of the power needed to run the chip throughout its expected lifecycle will be offset by regional conservation, reforestation, and energy programs initiated or contributed to by Via.

Re:20W != Carbon Free (2, Informative)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096301)

Talk about missing the point. The chip will have it's carbon usage compensated for by carbon offset purchases. Whatever the chip uses, VIA will pay for the same amount to be generated by wind power, offsetting the carbon that the chip uses.

Re:20W != Carbon Free (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096366)

VIA will pay for the same amount to be generated by wind power. . .

Do they contribute to offset the carbon use of the windpower as well? Generator coils don't wind themselves.

KFG

Re:20W != Carbon Free (-1, Offtopic)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096700)

Oh Yea! Let's here it for more extremism! I suppose that means that you cover your mouth and nose and close your eyes when someone in the stall next to you flushes and sends up a cloud of water, piss and crap into the air around you too? Oh... but I forgot, you need to shower too since that cloud likely landed in your hair and all over your arms and any other exposed skin. You'll also need to get a fresh change of clothes as well and run the dirty ones through the laundry. But wait, there's more! Are you sure the water you're showering and washing your clothes with isn't recycled piss with bits of crap in it? Didn't think so. Care to restate your position now Einstein?

Re:20W != Carbon Free (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096791)

Care to restate your position now Einstein?

Care to take another crack at trying to figure out what my position is?

KFG

Re:20W != Carbon Free (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096979)

WTF? He was just making a pun dude.

Re:20W != Carbon Free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16097144)

But it's Wednesday!/a [reelwavs.com]

A step in the right direction (1)

mollog (841386) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096365)

I underclock my Athlon CPU because even at 1GHz, it runs fast enough for web browsing, etc. To me, this reduction in heat generation is the next logical step in CPU evolution. And it comes at a good time. If they really want to impress me, get it below 15 Watts.

But I'm glad to see this trend. Along with the LCD displays, we're started to make a difference in power consumption. Good for VIA.

Re:20W != Carbon Free (2, Informative)

mlk (18543) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096607)

Unless I've miss read (or /. has miss reported) "VIA has pledged that atmospheric carbon released during generation of the power needed to run the chip throughout its expected life-cycle will be offset by regional conservation, reforestation, and energy programs initiated or contributed to by VIA." they mean "Carbon Neutral"

Re:20W != Carbon Free (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096916)

Heck all my CPUs are carbon free. They all plug into a nice nuke plant.

BTW RoHS means lead free. Just wondering if someone didn't know what it meant and confused carbon with lead.
Since that CPU is probably packed in paper and plastic box, the factory that makes it probably gets at least some of it's power from a carbon powered power plant. It gets shipped in a ship or plane burring fossil fuel. Well you get the idea that doesn't have a zero carbon footprint.

Generating CO2, yes, but ... (1)

Chris Daniel (807289) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097143)

The whole point of this particular CO2-"producing" processor is that your purchase of a unit adds that much more carbon-consuming effort, thereby compensating for the energy usage of the CPU. Sure, there are inefficiencies in between and all, but maybe they compensate a little for those as well?

Your mom != carbon free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16097260)

Life is a balance between perfection and disaster. Get use to it.

Perfection is boring anyway...

You didn't have me at hello (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096282)

At 1.8GHz, the C7-D has a THD (thermal design power, aka maximum power dissipation) of 20 Watts. This makes the chip far and away the most power-hungry in Via's C7 line



Very interesting (2, Informative)

mendaliv (898932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096283)

I was wondering how long it would take for another CPU company to make the argument that their CPU is better for reasons other than speed.

I know that AMD has been making the power saving argument for awhile (I saw ads in downtown Chicago at busstops in early July).

Here's info from the article about AMD's CPUs in comparison...
"AMD, meanwhile, is currently shipping "energy efficient" desktop chip models that typically draw 65 Watts, instead of 85 Watts. Additionally, the company offers "energy efficient, small form factor" models rated at 35 Watts, although only the single-core Sempron model in this category appears to be shipping -- the long-awaited, 35 Watt, dual-core Athlon64 X2 3800+ model is expected to ship to PC-makers in time to go into holiday-season PCs"

Re:Very interesting (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096402)

I was wondering how long it would take for another CPU company to make the argument that their CPU is better for reasons other than speed.

It's fat free as well, and vegetarians will be happy to learn that it contains no meat. Its Yin and Yang are in balance as well, so long as you use a quantum flux aligned power cord to the box.

Under certain conditions its phlogiston might be released into the atmosphere, but the smoke that goes along with it is magic, so no worries.

KFG

Gore (0)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096296)

First "Carbon-free" CPU Fights Global Warming

How come I have this nagging feeling that Al Gore was involved in this?

Cause you're a moron? (3, Insightful)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096335)

Just throwing that out there.

Re:Cause you're a moron? (1)

Trespass (225077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096604)

I thought it was because of Gore's relentless skills at self promotion, but if it feels better to just insult people, don't let me stop you.

Re:Cause you're a moron? (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096629)

but if it feels better to just insult people,

and exactly, what is neonprimetime doing? offering a compliment to Gore?

Re:Cause you're a moron? (1)

Trespass (225077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096674)

A left handed compliment soaked in irony, yeah.

Re:Cause you're a moron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096777)

If you don't have less on then you have _ _ _ _ _.

Re:Cause you're a moron? (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096784)

Hey, easy there, fella! He got a point, after all Al Gore doesn't just fight for the environment, but he also INVENTED THE INTERNET! OUT OF TUBES, MAN!

Parent: Troll, GrandParent: Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16097037)

How is the parent insightful? And why isn't the grandparent marked as funny? Al Gore certainly is involved in Global Warming, and he does have a rep for claiming he invented the internet, so it's definitely plausible that he'll claim he invented the environtmentally friendly cpu.

Re:Gore (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096899)

Doubt it, but if it was good for him. It is an excellent idea.

VIA green chip (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096304)

Imagine a Brazillian Mahagony beowulf cluster of those!

I dunno.
Looked better on paper.
*shrug*

Green Paypack (5, Insightful)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096310)

If I understand sustainability targets correctly, the total environmental payback period for chips is supposed to include compensating for the power/etc. used in manufacture, not just in operation. This is a great step, though; let's hope more industries take it and start looking at the next one.

Heck with Carbon (1, Insightful)

im_mac (927998) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096316)

I have a feeling that the chip's production generates more pollutants than the electricity needed to power to it. How about greening up the fab plant? Then I'll be impressed.

Re:Heck with Carbon (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096426)

No you won't. You'll find something else to complain about.

Re:Heck with Carbon (1, Insightful)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096627)

Please mod parent up.

Please mod me up too. Make me Insightful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16097016)

It worked for my parent, so why not me as well?

Re:Heck with Carbon (1)

hclyff (925743) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096593)

I have a feeling that the chip's production generates more pollutants than the electricity needed to power to it. How about greening up the fab plant? Then I'll be impressed.
Oh, thanks for sharing that "feeling" with us, it really convinced me.

Maybe it is less a "feeling" and more a convenient rationale for not giving a shit, don't you think?

only carbon? (4, Interesting)

spamchang (302052) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096362)

i think they're forgetting the heavy metals cost of gold, the industrial waste cost of the wafer fab process, the energy it takes to run a whole semiconductor assembly operation, and the huge environmental 'fixed cost' of constructing the buildings that make these processors. i wonder if there are plans to distribute these environmental costs and offset them as well.

but it is a start, and more companies could adopt the same attitude.

Re:only carbon? (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096497)

I think most of those environmental costs are already factored into what you pay, after all, gold costs money, companies pay to have their industrial waste disposed of safely, electricity isn't free, and you must pay to buy land and building materials. There are surely externalities that aren't accounted for, but they're pretty small in relation to the things that already require large wads of cash.

Y'know... (4, Insightful)

Otter (3800) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096382)

I'm certainly concerned about this stuff. (I'm reading this after returning from walking around the floor turning off lights in empty conference rooms.) But this "carbon-neutral" business, where those who can afford it can consume as much as they desire as long as they pay for it with offsets based on some extremely nebulous calculation, and those who can't have to do without -- reminds me of papal indulgences more than anything else. You can be a good person by sacrificing, or you can be a good person by giving money to a sanctioned recipient.

Re:Y'know... (3, Insightful)

amRadioHed (463061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096944)

So given the choice between:
a) A computer that isn't contributing to global warming
b) A computer that is contributing to global warming
c) No computer

You would take choices B or C?

My computer is oil-cooled, yours is a treehugger (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096387)

This global warming thingie is part of the democrat's scaremongering machinery. Al Gore lost the electorian, period. The god-blessed american public voted by its feet (or lack of using their feet thereof) that greenhouse effect does not exist. Tree-huggers should get a life: if you do not own a car, you never get any girls laid. Its the smell of gasoline that makes their pants slip. In a brave country of free V8's computers ought to be muscular and loud as well. The solution is ownership society, so every american can affors to buy an own oil well that feeds his/her diesel generator and helps run the dual-CPU, quad-SLI, RAID-10 PC needed to enjoy HD-DVD videos of KKK marches. Greenspace is a bunch of european sissies.

Re:My computer is oil-cooled, yours is a treehugge (0, Troll)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096664)

While I can smell the sweet pungent aroma of sarcasm dripping like syrup from your post, I gotta say two things:

You don't need an oil well to make your own diesel.

And, while Greenpeace aren't exactly sissies, I must state that they're insane. They make practical environmentalists (those who are environmental because it's better for personal finance and convenience) look bad.

Re:My computer is oil-cooled, yours is a treehugge (1)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097043)

Doesn't POST make Cereal? Why would you put syrup on cereal? ICK..

man-made Global Warming is unproven (0, Troll)

SpecialAgentXXX (623692) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096388)

Back in the '70's the big scare was Global Cooling. We were told that we would all freeze to death. Now the big scare is Global Warming. We're all going to overheat, melt the icecaps, and drown. These are all part of nature's climate cycles of cooling and warming trends. To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.

However, under the name of "Global Warming", there are large power-grabs between nations. Notice that China, the world's largest polluter, is excluded from the Kyoto agreement, yet the US is supposed to follow it. This allows China to grow their economy while it tries to destroy the US economy. The amount of pollution that we emit is small compared to China, yet we are pegged as the "world's polluter."

I'm a conservationist. There are many ways to conserve the environment and have full economic activity. That is in stark contrast to the environmentalists and Global Warming theorists who want us to reduce and/or stop our economic growth.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

ubeatha (531412) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096457)

Even the Econmist has recognized global warming. Its time to give that line up.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096488)

Which line is that? Everything the poster said is 100% true.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (5, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096511)

Back in the '70's the big scare was Global Cooling. We were told that we would all freeze to death. Now the big scare is Global Warming. We're all going to overheat, melt the icecaps, and drown.

Weird, because when I was in school in the 80s, they were telling us about global warming (and the ozone hole). Of course global warming has been warned about since then, non-stop.

These are all part of nature's climate cycles of cooling and warming trends. To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.

Yes there are natural cycles, although the amount of carbon in the atmosphere seems to coniencide with global warming treads (as CO2 amounts rise, so does the temp). We're now pumping carbon into the atmosphere, more than has ever been present in the atmosphere. It stands to reason that more carbon will help warm the earth. To deny that is foolish.

However, under the name of "Global Warming", there are large power-grabs between nations. Notice that China, the world's largest polluter, is excluded from the Kyoto agreement, yet the US is supposed to follow it.

I can't speak to China and the Kyoto agreement, but just because one big polluter doesn't follow doesn't mean the other big one shouldn't. A reduction is a reduction. FWIW, nations have to agree to sign the Kyoto agreement. I doubt they'd not ask China. The US refused to sign.

I'm a conservationist. There are many ways to conserve the environment and have full economic activity. That is in stark contrast to the environmentalists and Global Warming theorists who want us to reduce and/or stop our economic growth.

This is perhaps one of the stupidist comments I've ever heard. They aren't trying to stop / reduce economic growth, they want that growth to happen in an environmentally friendly way. You seem to forget that something which slows growth in one area may trigger larger growth in others. For example, if you need some kind of filter on your smoke stacks, someone needs to build those.

You want to conserve only when it doesn't inconvience you in some way. I assume you have similar attitudes as those that tried to justify dumping any chemical waste into rivers. We've cleaned those up, and the economy hasn't tanked. Get a grip.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (3, Insightful)

hcob$ (766699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096702)

[emphasis mine]Weird, because when I was in school in the 80s, they were telling us about global warming (and the ozone hole). Of course global warming has been warned about since then, non-stop.
I believe that you should read his post more closely. You missed by a few years. And of course, the reason for everyone to go to school is so that they can learn how not to think critically and no one with a political agenda ever lies.

[emphasis mine]Yes there are natural cycles, although the amount of carbon in the atmosphere seems to coniencide with global warming treads (as CO2 amounts rise, so does the temp). We're now pumping carbon into the atmosphere, more than has ever been present in the atmosphere. It stands to reason that more carbon will help warm the earth. To deny that is foolish.
As I was once told in a logic class. For logic to work, you have to show that each step in your reasoning is true. Starting from a fallacy, you can prove anything. Also, it's a major jump to go from "seems to coniencide" to "causes". Based on that, it "stands to reason" that the rest of this statement should be viewed as an opinion, not a logical deduction.

This is perhaps one of the stupidist comments I've ever heard. They aren't trying to stop / reduce economic growth, they want that growth to happen in an environmentally friendly way. You seem to forget that something which slows growth in one area may trigger larger growth in others. For example, if you need some kind of filter on your smoke stacks, someone needs to build those.

You want to conserve only when it doesn't inconvience you in some way. I assume you have similar attitudes as those that tried to justify dumping any chemical waste into rivers. We've cleaned those up, and the economy hasn't tanked. Get a grip.
Reacting to a statement you see as outrageously false doesn't mean that you can reply and calling someone "stupid." His opinion is just as valid as yours, espescially since neither it firmly rooted in hard evidence.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096976)

I believe that you should read his post more closely. You missed by a few years. And of course, the reason for everyone to go to school is so that they can learn how not to think critically and no one with a political agenda ever lies.

My point was that the theory has been around going on 20 to 30 years now, unchanged. Unfortunately the OP never said how long they had been discussing global cooling. Funny your quipe about school; they actually DID instill critical thinking skills in us. As I said in another thread, many of the banned books were actually required reading.

As I was once told in a logic class. For logic to work, you have to show that each step in your reasoning is true. Starting from a fallacy, you can prove anything. Also, it's a major jump to go from "seems to coniencide" to "causes". Based on that, it "stands to reason" that the rest of this statement should be viewed as an opinion, not a logical deduction.

Well fine, but last I heard they had ice cores dating back millions of years. I guess millions of years of history can be discounted as not proven, but you'd have to throw away everything where we don't have that much evidience too.

Reacting to a statement you see as outrageously false doesn't mean that you can reply and calling someone "stupid." His opinion is just as valid as yours, espescially since neither it firmly rooted in hard evidence.

Fine. Prove my statement wrong. Find me one environmentalist who's stated goal was to stop or reduce economic growth. Until you do, I'll stand by my statement that the comment was stupid. And I'll call YOU stupid (and a hippocrate as well; before you tell someone else to read a post carefully, make sure you have) for not knowing the difference between my calling a statement stupid and calling a person stupid.

Kyoto is welfare (0, Troll)

HBI (604924) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096785)

Welfare for developing nations. It wasn't about pollution, it was about money changing hands.

China was specifically exempted as a developing nation as were many other countries. Let's call them the 'recipient nations'. The ones that were penalized were/are the 'donor nations'. Mainly the First World.

Basically, the main objection to the agreement, beside the palpable unfairness of constricting our economic growth while other nations are unfettered, is that to achieve economic growth one must pay for 'carbon credits' which ultimately means the money goes to nations on the recipient nation list, like China. So, i'm paying China for the right to pollute, and they take the money and spend it on forced sterilization or more firewalls. Or on a war with Taiwan. Or us.

The "best" part about Kyoto was that even if it worked, it wasn't going to reduce anything. Everyone knew this. We would be lucky if we tread water under this agreement, and it's likely that global emissions will increase under the Protocol. Specifically because of the exemptions for developing nations which was the identified reason the US would not ratify.

But come on, it was all a wealth-transfer scam, a soak the rich scheme on a global basis. If the US ratified this, it would be insane. Just because the EU is bent on self-destruction doesn't mean we have to follow them over the cliff. Paying people that hate you for the right to virtually exist as a nation is not very smart. As for the rest of the world, most of those nations are recipient nations. Approving the treaty meant windfall cash. Who is going to turn that down?

And if you haven't heard about global cooling you haven't read enough. It was all the rage in the late 70s and early 80s. Then the advocates pretty much turned on a dime and started talking about global warming in the same 'threat of doom' tone. If you look around, you can find lists of contrasting quotes from quite a few people. These are funny and I recommend them. Unfortunately, after reading them, environmental scare tactics aren't very effective against you.

Re:Kyoto is welfare (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097012)

So I guess what your saying is that the rich nations purposefully signed something which requires them to give away their wealth. Clearly you must think the rich nations stupid..

Re:Kyoto is welfare (1)

ckokotay (206080) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097021)

Thank you for posting a logical voice of reason in this forum. Such sanity has become so scarce on Slashdot, I have headed for Digg to wait the inevitable there as well...

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1, Flamebait)

The New Stan Price (909151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096962)

Most Environmentalists are socialist types. They hate the fact that we are not all "sacrificing for the greater good." Global warming is just another form of political correctness, where if you say anything against it you get shouted down by bitter people who want to control other people. It's the left's equivalent of the church lady. Kyoto was just a way for socialist countries to control us.

We are no longer in an ice age, so of course global warming is real. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the glaciers have been slowly melting for the past 10,000 years. Has it been sped up? I don't think anyone thought that the warming that has taken place on average for the past 10,000 years has always been linear. Are we contributing? Yes, we breathe out CO2. We have not had a good world war in about 50 years to cut down on the population. Fortunately, plants love CO2. We have more plants than we've ever had, and some more will soon spring up from the melting permafrost and ice caps. Of course, we've recently found that it is possible that live plants are giving off methane, a greenhouse gas. Animals give off CO2 and methane too. In fact, it's probably a good thing we aren't driving around in horse and buggy any more, as I think those horses were aweful polluters. You don't think that their waste got into the ground water?

Water vapor is also a huge greenhouse 'gas'. The more the ice caps melt, the more water vapor gets into the atmosphere and the more stored methane and CO2 get into the atmosphere. There's probably not a whole lot we tiny humans can (or should) do about it. We can try to "use as much as we lose" and keep balance, but that's just common sense. We don't need some bitter activist, some welfare scientist, or some corrupt U.N. "Hall of Justice League" to tell us that.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097164)

Most Environmentalists are socialist types. They hate the fact that we are not all "sacrificing for the greater good."

And all Germans are Nazis, and all blacks are violent, etc. etc. Thanks, good point.

Global warming is just another form of political correctness, where if you say anything against it you get shouted down by bitter people who want to control other people. It's the left's equivalent of the church lady. Kyoto was just a way for socialist countries to control us.

Global warming is heavily politisied, yes. That doesn't mean its not a valid theory. That doesn't change that fact that pretty much all relevent scientists believe it to be true. That also doesn't mean that people supporting the theory want to "control others" either. Perhaps it simply means they want to breath. You could argue that those that which to stop genocide are attempting to "control others" too. That doesn't mean you're right.

We are no longer in an ice age, so of course global warming is real. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the glaciers have been slowly melting for the past 10,000 years. Has it been sped up? I don't think anyone thought that the warming that has taken place on average for the past 10,000 years has always been linear. Are we contributing? Yes, we breathe out CO2. We have not had a good world war in about 50 years to cut down on the population.

So if the tempurate is not cold, it must always be climbing? Is that your argument? You also ignore that the ice caps have been melting faster than ever given the evidence we have now. No one is saying its your breathing that is creating a CO2 problem, its factories and cars. You know, the unnatural stuff caused by our use of nature.

Fortunately, plants love CO2. We have more plants than we've ever had, and some more will soon spring up from the melting permafrost and ice caps.

Unfortunately, the plants best at processing CO2 are also being cut down at an alarming rate. I'm not sure where you get this idea that there are more plants. We have less and less area taken up by forests every year. A little flower doesn't help as much as a 100 year old tree does.

Of course, we've recently found that it is possible that live plants are giving off methane, a greenhouse gas.

And its not the methane levels that the scientists are worried about.

Animals give off CO2 and methane too. In fact, it's probably a good thing we aren't driving around in horse and buggy any more, as I think those horses were aweful polluters. You don't think that their waste got into the ground water?

A car or factory put out significantly more CO2 than a horse. Horse waste usually decays on the ground, and is not dumped wholesale into rivers.

Water vapor is also a huge greenhouse 'gas'. The more the ice caps melt, the more water vapor gets into the atmosphere and the more stored methane and CO2 get into the atmosphere. There's probably not a whole lot we tiny humans can (or should) do about it. We can try to "use as much as we lose" and keep balance, but that's just common sense. We don't need some bitter activist, some welfare scientist, or some corrupt U.N. "Hall of Justice League" to tell us that.

Again, its not water vapor levels which the scienists are worried about. No one said to stop ice caps from melting, they are saying not to speed up the process by putting out more than can be absorbed back into the system. We aren't keeping balance, and that's the argument. You seem particually dense. If your post was an attempt at humor, it failed miserably..

Hm... (1)

iion_tichy (643234) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096550)

These are all part of nature's climate cycles of cooling and warming trends. To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.

I think you might be a bit behind with your information - for a while there were doubts, that is true, but at the moment the consensus seems to converge on "manmade" again (ie temperatrue rises faster than can be explained with ice age cycles or whatever). OK, it's not a proof, but that doesn't disprove it's manmade, either.

I'm a conservationist. There are many ways to conserve the environment and have full economic activity. That is in stark contrast to the environmentalists and Global Warming theorists who want us to reduce and/or stop our economic growth.

Who says that economic growth == more pollutants? I think to build a more energy efficient technology is economic growth, too. Everybody is better off: people are happy, because the air is breathable, they save on energy costs (not all of them are induced by environmentalists), and China will be wanting it, too. Also, another question: so since you are convinced that manmade global warming is unproven, are you actually convinced that human activity has no effect on the climate whatsoever? I think that is highly doubtfoul. In Europe you can see examples where Romans have turned flourishing landscapes into deserts (several hundred years ago, no machine exhausts needed).

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096569)

Perhaps global warming is not proven, but very, very few things are actually proven. There is, however, a prepondeance of evidence showing that global warming is occurring. One has to laugh at using the term convervationist and full economic activity in the same sentence. Talk about total opposite concepts. Full economic activity implies a maximal rate, convervation implies the opposite.

Restraint is an obvious implication of converservation.

As to Kyoto rules applying differently to the US and China. The US already went through its period of industrialization (polluting the world extensively in the process). The US has produced its wealth, it can afford now to clean up. China on the other hand is in the process of industrializing. It only makes sense that the get some consideration to the ability to grow economically just like the US did.

Apparently, from your comment it would appear the your belief in full economic activity is only reserved to that of the US. Others are not allowed the fairness of having the same aspirations or opportunities.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1, Insightful)

erikvcl (43470) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096715)

I completely agree with your post 100%. It's a shame that someone can't express his opinion on Slashdot without it getting modded as "Flamebait".

Although Global Warming is a reality, it IS unproven that the global warming is a result of man's activity and not part of a natural cycle. The fact is that the air is cleaner now than it was in 1970 and we're recycling more and driving far more fuel efficient cars. Even the SUVs of today that everyone complains about are more fuel efficient and less polluting than the station wagons and passenger cars of 20 years ago.

I'm sick of all these so-called environmentalists railing against clean nuclear energy. If they really care about the environment, they'd support developing nuclear power and clean coal-based power plants.

It's definitely true that China is the largest polluter -- if we really cared about global warming, we'd work with them to help them curb their emissions in a way friendly both to the environment and economics. Kyoto was a joke: one of the few things I support G. W. Bush on was pulling out of it.

I fully agree with your view of being a conservationist. I've always seem myself this way. It is definitely possible to have full economic activity in both first, second, and third-world countries and work towards stewardship of this earth. It's not easy, but possible.

In my opinion, Kyoto, RoHS, global warming, hybrid cards, etc. are all red herrings that distract us from the real issues of this planet. So go ahead and mod me flamebait, you G.D. Slashdot lemmings, but at least I have the courage to express my opinion with my real username and take the karma hit.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096970)

Preach on, brother!

Globalcooling never had serious scientific support (1)

spineboy (22918) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096725)

Check out the Wiki article on it - yes there were a few people behind it - a few percent of the atmospheric scientists, but it never had the overwhelming support like global warming does.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (2, Informative)

cthrall (19889) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096738)

Regulating restrictions on emissions can create new jobs as well. Somebody has to design those cleaners/scrubbers/etc.

The amount of pollution that we emit is small compared to China

Not that small. [wikipedia.org]

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16097137)

Also, pay attention to the time axis. The US still has greater CO2 emissions according to the chart, and will continue to do so until somewhere between 2015-2020 (again, acoording to the chart).

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

Fordiman (689627) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096856)

I suppose you're correct in the sense that there is no directly proven link to C02 vs. Temperature (which is why the global warming scare carries as much weight with me as the scare concerning micro black holes and world destruction), but the CO2 levels are higher than they should be according to geological records. It doesn't hurt to try and curb that, seeing as the predicted effects are dire and that there may be potentially worse unknown effects.

Meanwhile, note that the US has not signed Kyoto, but instead has opted for a marketable permits system for reducing their CO2 emissions. This is good, as it promotes economic efficiency (those who can reasonably afford to reduce do. Those who can't, pay another way). It's bad because of the low-income area issues, but lets face it: factories in low-income areas would be shirking anyway, thinking they'd get away with it. Still, all of them have to eventually reduce, as the permits dry up.

As a practical environmentalist, I'm kinda for individual conservation. I'm saying use LED or compact flourescent instead of incandescent. I'm saying slap some solar on your house, if you can afford the initial costs (you know, rather than buying that hummer). I'm saying stick a brick in your toilet tank (the water offset is greater than you imagine). Grow your own vegetables, if you've the time and correct shade of thumb. Get a solar-assisted water heater. If you're not a gamer/3d modeller/someone else who needs a muscle computer, buy a mini-itx based solution (usually uses under 80W in total).

I'm not saying stop driving, I'm saying stop buying Hummers (or as I like to call them, the 'Short Bus').

<tangent>No, seriously. What the hell is the point of a hummer? They're expensive to buy, expensive to drive, rediculous looking, too big to effectively drive in the city, and overall just a badly designed vehicle.</tangent>

Good ideas for future developments: When DEFC based vehicles are released, seriously consider it over an ICE based vehicle (don't let the product die out, creating another 30-year gap between electric vehicle solutions). If you can find one, get/build a fuel still and flesh out your gasoline with it (saves on garbage and gas price. Yes, you can burn ethanol in your tank. No, it's not as efficient, but it's not gonna damage your car). Do a lot of short 1-2 person trips? Get a cheap motorcycle; you burn less fuel, pay less in insurance.

I dunno. It's like, anymore, it's more economically efficient to be ecologically sound. Still, people aren't doing it. It fucks my head up.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

asylumx (881307) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097115)

I agree with some of your points, especially that Hummers and similar vehicles are taken out of context and lost much of their value when driven in suburbia. They are a waste of money both in base cost and in gasoline and upkeep costs. I drive a VW Beetle and would have gotten the diesel version to save even more gas, had I been able to find one used -- people don't want to get rid of them because they're so good!

People tend to overbuy for their purposes, "in case" their purpose changes in the future, which to me seems rational yet ridiculous at the same time. All of the solar-powered or assisted equipment that you mentioned is a great idea but the base cost is unfortunately too high for most people even though the savings could greatly outweigh that. Getting a motorcycle is an OK idea but at the same time, cyclists are more prone to injury in the case of an accident.

I'm certainly not against doing things to keep our environment clean & healthy, but I really would prefer not to be bullied into it by politicians. Seriously, if they want to tell me not to pollute the air, maybe they shouldn't do it from their private Lear-jet or with their limo-SUV parked behind them.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

Elkboy (770849) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097018)

That humans are causing global warming is as good as proven. That you heard rumors of global cooling back in the 70s has absolutely nothing to do with it and is a logical fallacy. The "natural cycles" argument isn't a support for your case since it can go both ways. The worst case scenario is a natural heating trend boosted by human emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol's problem is that it isn't efficient enough. In 2005 there were talks about extentions and changes in the agreement, and to adapt to the development of countries such as China. China has signed, ratified and begun implementing the protocol already.

That the US emits less CO2 than china is nothing but a lie — the US is the world's #1 polluter by a good margin [nationmaster.com] . Not by capita [nationmaster.com] (only #5), but that's basically a counting trick. What matters for the environment is the actual amount of CO2 pumped out.

Reducing CO2 emissions and increasing energy efficiency does not necessarily mean economical doom. There's millions to be earned and saved and big companies are already doing so. Then there's also carbon trading, which is also profitable. The problem is that big oil and the politicians in their pockets don't get their hands on all that money, so they protest and call it all a hoax.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097090)

And yet, the global cooling was short-lived and pushed by journalists (basically, the grocery store newspaper rack). I do not recall the science world pushing that it was an issue. In fact, just the opposite. Other than a few crackpots, allmost all kept quiet.

Now, as far as tieing global change to killing our economic growth, well history is against you. Nearly every time, that a better solution is found, it spurs economic growth. In particular, the only real way to stop the CO2, is to quit producing it. That means walking away from oil,coal and moving to nukes and/or alternatives. The interesting thing is, that it will produce companies like tesla-motors. Companies like GM and Ford are already dieing because they have grown too big, take a short-term look at profits, and no longer care to respond to the little guys, except when losing money. Change is good. Trying to hold back progress and be conservative will only sink America and the world.

Carbon chips (2, Funny)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096390)

I'm still waiting for chips made out of diamond semiconductor. It'll be hard to label them "carbon free" when they're made from the stuff.

Re:Carbon chips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096812)

waiting for chips made out of diamond semiconductor. It'll be hard to label them "carbon free"

A far better pursuit would be heading out to a strip club at lunch with a few diamond chips, trying to find a "silicon-free" resident there.

They may be able to offset the carbon output... (2, Funny)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096392)

but what are they doing to counteract all the hot air they keep expelling?

Bullshit contains carbon ... (1)

HaveNoMouth (556104) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096441)

...and therefore it can't be called "carbon-free" until they eliminate the x86 instruction set too.

Re:Bullshit contains carbon ... (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096684)

Transmeta did that, and look where it got them: bankrupt.

First it was Pb free... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096464)

First it was lead-free chips, now carbon-free? Get it togethor guys! You don't even know what element you want to be rid of! lol m i rite?

-AC with obviously strong critical thinking and knowledge of semiconductor production.

Ding! Ding! (1)

ajenteks (943860) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096469)

Fight Announcer: [interviews C7-D] It was chaos. C7-D, you went the distance. You went the 15 rounds. How do you feel?
C7-D: All right!
Fight Announcer: What were you thinking about when that buzzer sounded?
C7-D: [yelling] Clean Computing!
Fight Announcer: What were you thinking when the 15th...
C7-D: What? Clean Computing!
Clean Computing: C7-D? C7-D?
Fight Announcer 2: [taking the mic] Ladies and Gentlemen, your attention, please.
Clean Computing: C7-D? C7-D!
Fight Announcer 2: Tonight, we have had the privilege of witnessing the greatest exhibition of guts and stamina in the history of the ring!
C7-D: Clean Computing!
Clean Computing: C7-D. C7-D!
Fight Announcer 2 : [reads the results] Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a split decision.
[Fight Announcer 2 continues; indistinct]
C7-D: CLEAN COMPUTING!
Clean Computing: C7-D!
Fight Announcer 2: ...for Global Warming!

Does it have... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096515)

...pirates inside?

Re:Does it have... (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096625)

Oh come on. This SO needs a funny mod. For those that don't get it, http://www.venganza.org/ [venganza.org] and scroll down a couple screens. There's proof.

Woo, I feel so smug! (3, Informative)

default luser (529332) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096524)

It's sad how few people realize their "efficient" Via CPU is not so efficient?

Clock-for-clock, the optimized WinChip core (yes, even the C7 uses the very same core) can only process one integer and one floating-point instruction in parallel. This makes it 2-3x slower per-clock than modern CPUs. So, while you're still waiting on your Via C7 to crunch those numbers (at 20w), a Core2 Duo or A64 X2 system can do it in 1/4-1/6 the time (at 35w), and clock down to low-power state (3-5w).

So, I hope you feel good about how much carbon Via saves building the chip, because not only does it uses more power than competing processors to do the same amount of work, it takes longer too :D

Via's day in the sun is over. They were faced with the poor performance of the Winchip core, and instead of redesigning it, they touted the low power (which is true) and efficiency (which is not true). Intel and AMD responded with innovations like real-time voltage and frequency adjustment, and all of a sudden Via is scrambling just to try and keep up.

Here's a more energy efficient processor. (2, Insightful)

zymano (581466) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096526)

The parallel processor : Also known as a graphic cards ,stream or vector processor.

You will need to use a language that fits the architecture.

They are way more efficient that general processors.

Carbon-free? What then? Nuclear? (2, Funny)

jgercken (314042) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096595)

Myself I power my whole setup off a giant water wheel under my sink faucet. Sure I use 5000 gal of water a day but the energy savings to the environment is worth it.

Re:Carbon-free? What then? Nuclear? (1)

dagnabit (89294) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096762)

5000 gallons of water is nothing. I power my office with a generator that runs on bald eagle heads and Faberge eggs.

RoHS is everywhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096626)

At my, um, "major semiconducter company", there's all sorts of initiatives to go green. This is no reason to choose Via.

Biggest element reducing power consumption? (2, Funny)

Trespass (225077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096632)

The fact that next to noone will use these chips.

Murder Neutral? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096796)

So if somebody has a child, then kills a person, does that mean the court will let them off the hook because their net life taking was 0?

Re:Murder Neutral? (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096935)

No, because unlike atmospheric greenhouse gases, people aren't fungible. I would think most people, even ACs, would realize the difference without asking.

Re:Murder Neutral? (1)

Trespass (225077) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096987)

If you were wearing the right uniform, they'd probably celebrate you as a hero.

PWRficient processors are 5 - 13 watts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16096824)

and multi-core to boot. PWRficient processors [pasemi.com] .

i love these things (0, Troll)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#16096868)

This reminds me of the organic eggs that cost so much in stores. Here you have something that is the same/inferior but it makes you feel good, so pay more than you would for it.

Why do we need this? (2, Insightful)

PingXao (153057) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097051)

Last year everyone blamed the incredible number of hurricanes on global warming. "Something must be done!" they demanded. Climatologists said we were entering a period of increased hurricane activity that might last a decade or more. The clamor grew to DO SOMETHING about global warming.

Well somebody seems to have taken care of the problem. After all, the number of hurricanes is way down this year, isn't it?

It makes me wonder. Why does anecdotal evidence in support of global warming gloom and doom predictions played up so much, but when that evidence fails to emerge the following year nobody wants to talk about it? At the very least it makes the "killer hurricanes every year" prediction by global warming enthusiasts absolutely BS.

I think global warming deserves serious attention. I am in favor of the Kyoto accord. Having said that I fear that for every wingnut who values profit over human life there is an equally deranged nut on the other side of the political spectrum who spouts nonsense because, out of ignorance, they don't know any better.

Re:Why do we need this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16097114)

Maybe it takes more than a FEW MONTHS for the climate of a planet ravaged by years of pollution to fix itself after we pollute slightly less.

fighting "global warming" (0)

Azeron (797264) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097088)

The only known, and time tested way to fight carbon emissions is by stopping consumption. (well that our switching to nuclear power) And since our population gets getting bigger and bigger, that means that every year we would keep getting poorer and poorer.

Oh good grief (0, Troll)

inviolet (797804) | more than 7 years ago | (#16097196)

There should be a fee for producing any carbon-free device.

Atmospheric carbon is our one and only defense against the next ice age, which we know is coming and which we know will wipe us out.

Not to mention the fact that warming the planet will yield more useful land in northern climes than will be abandoned in equatorial climes.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>