First "Carbon-Free" CPU Fights Global Warming

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."

Very interesting

[mendaliv]

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:

[cold fjord]

Transmeta's [transmeta.com] original claim to fame was low power consumption. Sadly they haven't done that well in the market.

Sun is currently making big claims for its new multicore servers, dubbing it CoolThreads [sun.com] technology. Their blurb is 5x the performance for 1/5 the power and 1/4 the space.

Re:

[monkeydo]

All of my computers are carbon free. Nuclear power. The hippies only have themselves to blame for carbon belching power plants.

Re:

[Ana10g]

But, if you let the smoke out, it won't work anymore! I let the smoke out of a machine once, and without the smoke, it melted!

Green Paypack

[Mateo_LeFou]

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.

only carbon?

[spamchang]

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:

[Ed Avis]

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...

[Otter]

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:

[amRadioHed]

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?

Re:

[shawnce]

So realizing that A is just a bunch of BS and the same as B... would you choose C?

Re:

[Otter]

1) You're asserting a) as though it's a fact. Global warming is hardly well-enough understood that a computer can be clearly balanced out by some number of trees on the other side of the world.

2) But let's say it could be done. If we're telling people who can't afford "carbon-neutral" that they have to do without or the world will come to an end, don't you see something creepy about eco-celebrities bragging about how they're spending extra to break even on their private jets? On the CPU level it's harmless,

It's nothing but PR fluff

[Sycraft-fu]

Basically because of the hysteria surrounding CO2 emissions these days, it's a convenient advertising point to the public. You claim to be "carbon neutral" and it makes people feel good. For that matter I'm going to bet that it isn't even the kind of thing that will be checked on all that well. You are very correct in the indulgence angle as most likely what will happen is the company in question will throw some money at an environmental group that claims to be doing whatever carbon offsetting thing they ar

Carbon chips

[gr8_phk]

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.

They may be able to offset the carbon output...

[Bryansix]

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

Re:

[Bryansix]

Both Really. Although the satire was directed at management.

Woo, I feel so smug!

[default luser]

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.

Re:

[MartinB]

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 do real-world comparison tests. Run similar tasks over a period of time on machines built on the

Re:

[default luser]

do real-world comparison tests. Run similar tasks over a period of time on machines built on the 2 architectures and compare the actual power demand.

Two reasons I can't:

1. I don't own a C7 system.

2. Regardless of how thoroughly I set up the test, there would be constant naysayers, and people with other ideas of how to erform the test. In other words, it wouldn't solve anything. Remember how it took almost a year for the computing community to realize just how much reduce the power consumption of the A64 9

Re:

[pod]

One of the concerns, which you don't, er, concern yourself with, is the environmental cost of manufacture.

Re:

[dbIII]

It depends entirely what you want to do with it. Not every application requires serious floating point operations and a lot of machines have a lot of idle time. There are form factor requirements too - I have a fanless 800MHz VIA system with a 60GB drive that takes up less space than an internal CDROM drive that I can plug into my TV to watch mpeg4 videos. A lot of other systems have the 170mm x 170mm motherboard size form factor. There are other CPUs in this league, like the XScale and the Geode, but c

-1, Wrong

[achurch]

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).

That's funny. I have a Via C3 box and an Athlon64 X2 box right here. One uses 30W when idle; the other, 75W. Care to guess which? (Hint: the systems and the numbers are given in the same order.)

Re:

[evilviper]

I have a Via C3 box and an Athlon64 X2 box right here. One uses 30W when idle; the other, 75W.

That surely has a lot to do with having a good power supply in the VIA, fewer hard drives, a lower-power graphics card, etc. Either that, or your Athlon64 has CnQ disabled for reasons I can't imagine.

Re:

[achurch]

By my measurements, the video card (a GeForce 6600) takes 15W when idle (I can't test the video on the C3 system because the video chip is built in). I do have one more hard drive on the Athlon, but it's a 2.5" drive like the others in both systems, and shouldn't take more than 5W even when active. I'd accept that the motherboard and associated hardware takes a fair amount of power to run, but since it's necessary in order to make use of the CPU I think it's fair to count that as part of the CPU's power u

Re:

[evilviper]

As for CnQ, I haven't been able to measure any difference in idle power usage whether it's on or off.

Well that's a very clear sign you've got a serious problem with CnQ. The difference should be MAJOR.

I'd suggest starting off by removing all but one stick of RAM, and any nonessential accessories (old problems I would expect to be fixed by now). Looking for BIOS updates and errata on the manufacturer's website can't hurt either.

You might also look here:
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article172-page1.htm l [silentpcreview.com]
an

Re:

[evilviper]

This makes it 2-3x slower per-clock than modern CPUs.

Absolutely right. I've been saying for quite a long time now, that was exactly my experience. C3s perform perhaps a hair less than half as fast as similarly-clocked AMD/Intel processors.

I replaced a 750MHz Thunderbird system with a Via C3 800MHz system (actually swapped the hard drive), and the performance dropped through the floor. I added RAM, external video card, etc., all in a futile attempt to get it up to speed. Shortly after that, I returned, b

Here's a more energy efficient processor.

[zymano]

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.

Re:

[Al Dimond]

s/use a language/perform tasks

(and for grammar's sake, s/fits/fit)

Carbon-free? What then? Nuclear?

[jgercken]

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:

[dagnabit]

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

Biggest element reducing power consumption?

[Trespass]

The fact that next to noone will use these chips.

Why do we need this?

[PingXao]

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:

[dbIII]

It's simple - global warming was accepted everywhere apart from by US Republicans who opposed it becuase a leading Democrat talked about it a lot. After one big hurricane a few people who originally opposed the idea stirred up a lot of hype. Now rational people who beleived the line they were fed before are questioning the hype and are tying it to the entire global warming debate that is really scientists vs creationists these days. The lazy end of the nuclear industry has weighed in and see global warmi

Re:

[evilviper]

Last year everyone blamed the incredible number of hurricanes on global warming.

By "everyone" you mean "nobody" right?

After Katrina, I'd turn on my TV, and every 15 minutes, the newspeople would be saying "The number of hurricanes has nothing to do with global warming, it's a standard 15-year cycle." I heard that so many times I got sick of hearing it. I heard it from news people, climatologists, meterologists, NOAA, etc.

I get the feeling the people spouting the blatantly obviously bullshit idea that the

They couldn't be green by normal standards

[pacc]

Via must have looked at ISO14001 and found that they had no control over
chemical use, water pollution and what their subsidiaries in china were up to.
But since you can buy certificates to clean their otherwize uncontrolled electrical
supply they decided that if they could buy a green corporate image for by getting
certificates a small fractional percentage of their production.

This smells like Chiquita's banana stickers, nowhere close being accepted by
any real certification system, but bragged about in commercials everywhere.
Chiquita - Going Green or Greenwashing Corporate Crime? [organicconsumers.org].

Everyone can make a difference by conserving power, but not by buying more stuff.

So....

[BluedemonX]

Is it good at fighting something that doesn't exist, or

Are they advertising it won't run OS X?

LOL

[__aahlyu4518]

You mean... like most people don't need a car as big as an SUV ? Besides for compensating some physical shortcomings...

Remember the old Sega commercials?

[kinglink]

There were commercials between two race cars, one using the SNES and one using a Sega system (with some crap similar to the "emotion Engine" sounds really good but really didn't do much different)

Anyways I'm thinking it's the same thing here. You have two F1 cars, Ferrari with the AMD/Intel logo and the Renault with the VIA logo. The light goes green, Ferrari flies down the road at close to double the speed, While the Renault is in persuit but the entire time you hear a speaker from the car "We're saving

Ri-ight

[xihr]

Because if you think global warming is a serious danger, then making your CPU more "green-friendly" will make one whit of difference, right?

yeah, but making the northbridge killed thousands.

[swschrad]

so the PC ends up being a mass murderer.

Carbon Isn't Free

[Doc Ruby]

Ofsetting the carbon pollution during the operating phase of a product's lifecycle is a great start. Especially because it will get us talking about the real cost of the rest of the cycle, Like the carbon pollution from the energy consumed and waste produced by manufacturing and delivering the product. And then maybe even some in "discarding" the product.

Its probably too late for this to get modded, but.

[tetrahedrassface]

Well this is timely for me. Too bad I didn't get to this article when it first posted. But, I recently investigated the Chicago Carbon Exchange for a number of reasons. First of all as a landowner with close to 500 acres of planted pines in plantation form, I wanted to find out what criteria some of these Carbon Offset schemes are founded on.

A quick check of several carbon neutral sites, where they propose to offset your carbon output for a fee dependent on how much driving you do etc..., left me feeling as if it were a scam of some sort. They offer no real assurance that your money is being placed into long term land/biomass projects. IE, the data is not publicaly verifiable. Its just their word. "pay us 88 dollars and you are Carbon Neutral!!" The sites/entities proclaming carbon offsets should be required to have verifable data to those that join.

I saw no evidence of that, and it is needed.

So some digging was in order. A quick call to the Chicago Carbon Exchange, and subsequent dialog with a nice enough bloke in charge of the offsets regarding the siging up of our ranch up in carbon offsets struck me as odd. The exchange currently favors pine plantations with poplars, vs native hardwoods. Native hardwoods live longer and are a a climax species for my area (East Tennessee).

The fellow said that our pine planataion could qualify for listing with the carbon exchange, but they really want actively managed plantations vs. unmanaged tracts of woodlands (even if they are recoverving from clear cutting).. I tend to disagree on the track of these offset schemes, because even the Carbon Exchange wants the timber to be harvested.

The whole process is just getting started I will admit, but it needs some serious thinking through on their part. The trees when mature are harvested. Which emits C02, and then proccessed, and then that carbon slowly degrades back into the atmosphere.

It really doesn't make sense. They should really be trying harder for longer term preservation with native species into climax ecosystems, with selective logging.

Now, about the late comment, I would have posted earlier but I have been running a business all day, and came home to plant yet another acre of white pines for a seperate christmas tree thing we are trying at the homestead...(yep /me = hippie, geek, rancher, musciaion type)

So please folks treat it as more than just feel good, pass the buck public image/advertising.

And demand verification from the offset folks, don't just take thier word on it.

Peace out, D

Re:

[eln]

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:

[grommit]

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:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

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:

[eno2001]

Flamebait!? You dissapoint me mods! This was quite obviously humor at it's finest. Even if you don't think it's funny, I think anyone in their right mind would register it as a troll and not flamebait. You want flamebait? Here's some: YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:

[SpecTheIntro]

A word of advice: generally, telling someone that your joke was funny is not going to make them think it actually was. I agree with you, though; flamebait doesn't really fit.

Re:

[eno2001]

Oh I'm well aware of that. I just like how much it irks certain kinds of people. Getting annoyed by someone saying that something was funny when maybe it only was funny to the poster or might not have even been funny at all is extremely silly. So when I get the down mods for saying that something was funny when I can't reasonably expect a lot of people to agree with me or even better, posters telling me why I'm not funny is endlessly amusing to me.

A step in the right direction

[mollog]

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:

[buswolley]

Ala Nintendo Wii. http://ps3.joystiq.com/2006/09/13/psa-nintendos-in ternational-press-event-schedules/ [joystiq.com]

Re:

[mlk]

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:

[LWATCDR]

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.

Cause you're a moron?

[Reality Master 201]

Just throwing that out there.

Re:

[Trespass]

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:

[WindBourne]

but if it feels better to just insult people,

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

Re:

[Trespass]

A left handed compliment soaked in irony, yeah.

The other way of seeing it

[ichigo 2.0]

Either the GPP is trying to be funny and his post means what you understood it to mean, or he is bashing on Gore & global warming and by implying that only he could come up with something that sounds as dumb as 'First "Carbon-Free" CPU Fights Global Warming'. I'm guessing this is the reason the GPP isn't modded, and why the GP is modded up by those who subscribe to the latter interpretation.

Re:Heck with Carbon

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:

[Fordiman]

Please mod parent up.

Re:

[Abreu]

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.

Re:

[Afrosheen]

The H3 is awesome. It's the only vehicle in the world that, at a filling station, if left idling while pumping gas into it, it will never fill up.

Re:

[Cramit]

Actually the H3 is a move in the right direction...I hate soccer mom hummers; but at least they are getting smaller with each number. I might even be interested in a H8 or H9.

Re:

[Rosonowski]

You joke, but I understand that to have been the case with a number of early automobiles.

Re:

[evilviper]

The H3 is the smaller, more fuel-effecient version of the Hummer.

Perhaps you mean the H1 or H2...

Re:

[Afrosheen]

Dude, fuel efficient and Hummer don't belong in the same sentence. It gets 16/20 or 17 combined, which, for a Hummer, isn't bad, but it isn't good either. Believe it or not I know a thing or two about cars. :)

You need a better power supply

[wsanders]

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:

[MoOsEb0y]

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

Re:

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:man-made Global Warming is unproven

[plague3106]

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:

[hcob$]

[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 carb

Re:

[plague3106]

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 anoth

Re:

[hcob$]

they actually DID instill critical thinking skills in us

Next time I shall endeavor to use my [sarcasim] tag. My apologies.

Fine. Prove my statement wrong.

Actually, I believe the burden of proof would be on you to prove there there are NO environmentalists that call for a reduction in economic activity. Just as the burden of proof would be on the grand poster for his equally unsubstantiated claim. I just wanted to point out the difficulty of disproving an unsubstantiated claim with yet another unsub

Re:

[plague3106]

Next time I shall endeavor to use my [sarcasim] tag. My apologies.

Ahh.. easy to miss sarcasm in text. I apologize also.

Actually, I believe the burden of proof would be on you to prove there there are NO environmentalists that call for a reduction in economic activity.

Again, that's NOT what I said. I said their main objective is not a reducting in economic activity, which is what the OP was said. If they are calling for a reduction in economic activity, its a means to a goal, not their goal in and of itse

minor point ...

[cascadingstylesheet]

>>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.

Um, minor point here, but the 70s are not the 80s.

Re:

[dasunt]

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.

If you know your geological history, you wouldn't have made this claim.

The second atmosphere of earth was mostly carbon dioxide. (The first atmosphere was a mixture of hydrogen and helium, while the current (third) oxygen-rich atmosphere came from cyanobacteria.)

I give the above example first since the three atmosph

Re:

[plague3106]

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:

[MartinB]

China was specifically exempted as a developing nation as were many other countries... palpable unfairness of constricting our economic growth while other nations are unfettered

More accurately: this is avoiding the unfairness of us having polluted to high heaven and back while getting through the stage of economic growth that developing nations have not yet reached or completed. It avoids the charge of us pulling up the ladder behind us.

The "best" part about Kyoto was that even if it worked, it wasn't

Re:

[A beautiful mind]

You're an idiot and it scares me that such idiots' say matters when deciding about global policy. I hate to get screwed over because of your idiocy. It's not selfish but stupid, as sensible policies would force innovation and thus economic growth, not decrease it.

Re:

[derubergeek]

...sensible policies would force innovation and thus economic growth, not decrease it.

Your brilliant debate skills aside (see ad hominem [wikipedia.org]), you're actually making the case for the person you so eloquently responded to. The keyword here being sensible. If you truly believed that Kyoto were a sensible policy that would stimulate innovation and growth, then you would have no problem with it being applied to everyone equally.

Or, perhaps you're arguing that it's meant to penalize the lesser economies by excludi

Re:

[BluedemonX]

Actually, the guy has a very valid point. Most of the people who go into Environmental Science are hippy Sierra Club activist types who want to "save the planet". They haven't got the lack of objectivity to look at life and say "does it need saving?"

"Global warming is caused by man, and increases in temperature on the planet are manmade. I can prove the nighttime temperature of the Earth has gone up 0.01 C in the past decade. Therefore I prove Global Warming is caused by man." Spot the logical fallacy.

The g

Globalcooling never had serious scientific support

[spineboy]

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:

[cthrall]

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:

[cthrall]

Always an interesting topic.

Definitely.

The old regulations that called for coal plants to install scrubbers when expanding capacity seemed like a fair trade to me. We could still burn coal with greatly reduced emissions. I guess to me, the cost associated with upgrading the technology is completely worth it.

I think there would be an impact economically, and that's what the current administration uses an excuse when discussing environmental regulations, but nobody can explain what the potential impact would

Re:

[Fordiman]

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 inst

Re:

[Fordiman]

Funny thing: no matter how much of a computer geek I am, I can't seem to grasp these new fangled car-computers.

Re:

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:

[khallow]

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.

My take is that this sort of argument isn't constructive. Yes, there are "big scares". But we shouldn't dismiss a theory just because it's been hyped up by a "big scare".

If o

Re:

[neurojab]

Yeah, there are some sucky things about Kyoto. China shouldn't be given a free pass to pollute.

To say that man's activity is warming the earth is unproven.

Here's what I don't get about the global warming naysayers: Which part of the science behind it are you disputing?
Are you denying the research that's proven that CO2 levels have risen rapidly since the 1940s?
Are you denying the causal correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature?
Or are you (like many naysayers) flatly denying that billions of h

Re:

[BluedemonX]

RE: Here's what I don't get about the global warming naysayers: Which part of the science behind it are you disputing?

The greenies are the one that need to PROVE their assertions.

They're the ones suggesting we need to abandon Western Civilisation because of this bugbear. They've reclassified carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Next thing you know, when they realise water vapor is the bigger problem, will "water" be a pollutant?

RE: Are you denying the research that's proven that CO2 levels have risen rapidly sinc

Re:

[neurojab]

when there's tangible evidence, we'll act.

Exactly what would be tangible evidence, in your opinion?

We can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's tangible.
We can measure the global temperature over time. That's also tangible.
We can experimentally prove that CO2 causes warming in the lab. Seems pretty tangible to me. We know the mechanism, and we've measured the inputs and outputs.

The part you're having trouble with is in thinking that CO2 levels are the ONLY cause of temperature change. Tha

Re:

[BluedemonX]

Thank you for correcting this.

But why "ignore the cooling between...." it would seem to me that carbon dioxide emissions started going up quite a bit between 40-80 so wouldn't the earth have been getting hotter during this period?

The point I was trying to make is this - that we really have no clue what the hell is going on, pretty computer doom and gloom video game to the contrary.

Re:

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Only shrub's oil industry cronies are saying this.

Re:

[Aladrin]

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.

Re:

[Ant P.]

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

Re:

[DragonWriter]

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

Re:

[Trespass]

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

Re:

[Creepy]

yeah, well he's right - Bush has proven without a reasonable doubt that the evidence doesn't show whether there is or is not global warming at this time and until we can prove it undoubtably, we should not put any unnecessary restrictions on campaign funde... er, I mean big businesses.

For that matter, Al Gore is an idiot*, so don't believe everything he says - I'm pretty sure he's secretly in league with law breaking PETA militants. George Bush's far superior IQ** always prevails.

* compared to a genius mon

Re:

[Fordiman]

Wow. I got trolled for that? What's slashdot coming to? Very strange moderation.

Eh. Mods: it's all in good fun, I assure you.

Re:

[MartinB]

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.

I see that you're no gourmand who appreciates a *really* good egg.

Re:

[Trespass]

Maybe Monster Cable will make eggs soon.

Re:Carbon-Free Joke - a.k.a. Uneducated Marketing.

[dbIII]

The advertising is misleading, since the CPU ACTUALLY CONTAINS CARBON WITHIN IT. Do they think that we are idiots?

No - just some sort of dope.