Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 10:39 PM
Tue Nov 24
55 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us:
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
| AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
| AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
| AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
| AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/30/09
09/30/09
Do you even know what are you talking about?
Not trying to insult you but really.
09/30/09
After standing in a green house, inquire why its warmer in there then outside.
Don't come out until you realize something linking your being hot and some possible global warming.
If you think that global warming is some big hoax, you are ignoring every scientist ideals reinforced by evidence present, and listening to the most part at the ideals of old people who don't care because they will be dead soon and don't want to spend money on something like the "environment."
09/30/09
09/30/09
If I understand this correctly, they determine the EIS from "cost of all environmental impacts." Those impacts are made up of a bunch of factors, but four they called out to emphasize were "greenhouse gas emissions (including nine gases in total, with carbon dioxide the most important in many cases), water use (including direct, purchased and cooling), solid waste disposed, and acid rain emissions (sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and ammonia)." I'm not quite sure how they quantify the cost from that data, though - probably their own metric instead of any kind of dollar value.
As for the normalization, that's essentially a ratio between the EIS and the revenue so everybody is measured on the same scale. A larger company will pollute more by volume simply because they're bigger, but that doesn't mean they'll pollute more proportionately compared to a smaller company.
09/30/09
Put up with pollution now, let the economic machine work, and wait for efficiency, efficiency which will come long before any environmental doomsday, and which of course is already salient; just look at China as the polluter the U.S. used to be, and see how far we've come, how far China can go, and how unlimited the potential we have really is.
09/30/09
Either people have to be incentivized to spend that extra money on green tech, or Activision needs to be prodded, by govt regulation or piddling name-and-shame articles like Newsweek's.
09/30/09
/sarcasm
It's ignorant bullshit like this that is causing MASSIVE problems when attempting to deal with the issue of climate change and environmental impact. Mentioning China is just a cop out. Oh noes, they emit 21.5% of worldwide carbon, which is so massive compared to the US's 20.2%.
Saying that we can wait is insanely stupid. No use having companies if we pass the point of no return.
09/30/09
Trust companies to make things cheaper for people because they pay less on environmental protection costs.
Trust people who now have extra income (not really, though), to spend that money on environmentally friendly products, instead of Hummers.
Trust that environmental efficiency will come with no external promptings, because it's inherently the future.
Trust the economic machine that has collapsed on numerous occasions, especially when allowed to run free, to not collapse in on itself again and to work properly and efficiently.
As long as you trust plenty of completely bullshit concepts, this plan can't fail.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
Scientists? Why trust them? They have an enormous incentive to exaggerate global warming or any other environmental "threat," for the primary reason of gaining increased funding and greater relevance.
As far as China is concerned, you have to keep in mind that the U.S.'s GDP is almost double China's if you take the purchasing power estimate over the official exchange rate which is distorted by China's attempt to keep its currency low-value; if you do take that estimate, however, it's over three times as high. So, at worst, America has double China's GDP but still has lower carbon emissions, according to you. Sounds like a great deal to me.
We can wait. We won't reach the point of no return. If you unleash people's self-interest, technological innovation and pollution will grow, but technology will so outpace pollution that it won't be a problem for long. Making a half-hearted effort to "save the environment" by constraining human productivity is like a deer standing in the headlights; once you start to cross the road, go full speed ahead, don't stop.
@Ad-hominem:
1. They will make things cheaper by passing on the savings, or they will make more revenue by avoiding regulations. That money is invested, growing the economy, making everything better for everyone on average.
2. They will have more money, and they will spend it on things besides Hummers if it is rational to do so, and if it is not, why should they?
3. Well, if you consider rational choice to be "inherently the future," then yeah, but I don't think that it will "just happen" without any identifiable reason.
4. Only trust it (the economy) if it is free (laissez-faire capitalism); it has never collapsed because it was, and it will always function properly and efficiently.
All concepts check out. Evaluation Complete.
09/30/09
No regulation does not mean no laws. That situation entirely depends on what the agreement was at the time. If the company was there first, and someone simply bought the land without extracting any agreement from this company, then he has no right to force the company to stop.
If someone was already living there, and the company comes and buys up some land nearby and is physically transferring waste onto this person's property, then it is legitimate for the government to stop that action and force the company to repay whatever damage was done by it, but this is a matter of property rights, not "environmental justice."
09/30/09
And yet... we already know that without regulation that companies tend to form monopolies that then price gouge and abuse the customer. It's almost as if companies and the truly free hand of the market don't have consumers' best interests at heart... hmmm...
09/30/09
I should know..... I'm a scientist :/
09/30/09
1. The only monopolies ever to have existed were government sanctioned.
2. Price gouging is not a negative aspect of unregulated capitalism; it provides an incentive for suppliers to supply.
3. It is not abuse if the transferring of values is consensual.
4. Companies don't have the consumers' best interests at heart; they have their own, which is what they should have. Through a man's own self-interest and innovation, his achievements contribute to the well being of all men, at no cost to them. You should be grateful.
09/30/09
I find your attitude towards the world disturbing.
The thing is most people who share your views of "Making a half-hearted effort to "save the environment" by constraining human productivity is like a deer standing in the headlights" are delusional.
Here's a little suggestion, go to the third world and live among the underbelly of society and live in a polluted area as many third world areas have become due to unchecked corporations and growth. Live near one of those acclaimed "SEZ zones" and not as a manager but as a worker working there.
You'll find that self-interest mostly only works for those that have the oppurtunities and that enviromental effects of not worrying about pollution are devastating.
Just do it for a year, you'll go away with your views changed. I promise you, its harder to be so so cold when you see so much poverty, you'll want to help them, not go on about "self interest" and such. The truth is they are getting the short end of the stick not becasue of their lack of skills but because of where they were born. They suffer the effects of enviromental destrucation not you. They suffer from the problems of "lassez faire". I don't believe in communism or anything, but unchecked capitalism not good either. Personally capitalism has many benifits, but there has to be a balance. You can't sustain total capitalism, it just doesn't work.
09/30/09
ENVIRONMENTAL
DANGERS
ARE
A
PROBLEM
Technology is expanding, more people are being born and the likes, and this is all great, but at the current rate of population increase the earth will not be able sustain itself for 2 thousand more years. Not even 200. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out, just do math. As it stands, we can barely support the 8 billion people comfortably, and 16 million just wouldn't work, period.
Nothing is being blown out of proportion when it is said if we do not find a solution soon, it will be to late to actually do anything about the problems our generation has to face. I don't know how old you are, but I will still be fairly young when all of this becomes a issue, so I care, and I care a lot.
@BigManMalone : When I build a spaceship and go to Mars you can't come because you will just end up letting the exact same thing happen that is going to destroy this pollution ridden planet we live on now.
09/30/09
/sarcasm
09/30/09
The system I advocate is what would allow you to build that spaceship. Also, "fair prices" are whatever people are willing to pay.
10/01/09
You have it all wrong. You're the misguided soul not allowing them to break out of their miserable situations. You think I don't have sympathy? You think I don't care about them? You think I think that they "deserve" to be there and were not simply unfortunate enough to be born into their circumstances? That's not the case at all.
The system I advocate is the only way to improve the conditions of the impoverished on a permanent basis. No other way will ameliorate their situation better or faster.
10/01/09
10/01/09
I was simply using "point" in his context. We won't reach the point where pollution outpaces pollution-countering technology if we abide by the right system.
The fact that someone has an agenda is irrelevant; it all depends on what that agenda is, whether it is moral or immoral.
@SinghS:
On the whole it helps by allowing technology and techniques to develop that make life better for all people, not the least of which are the poor. But take a specific example:
If you regulate companies that pollute, you restrain their revenue. If they have less revenue, they have less to invest in improving their business, so food prices stay the same, or even worse, go up. If you let them go, they will compete with their competitors to become more efficient, and then prices will fall because productivity has risen; it takes less to make more. If they become more profitable but don't lower prices, the competing companies will, once they become as productive, and then food prices will again fall. If neither company lowers its prices, but raises productivity, then they now have more to invest in other companies, some of which will unavoidably benefit the poor by making some good or service better or cheaper or more available.
09/30/09
I know is not him, but hey it's a chance to blame him for something more ^_^
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
Somebody recommend this for multi-tap, this man (or woman) deserves a gold star.
09/30/09
09/30/09
I'm even doing my bit by recycling this bloody awful meme, reusing it and making it into a useful way of educating people that recycling works.
10/01/09
Comment of the week no doubt about it.
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
09/30/09
I think it will please him, actually.
He'll just slather that puppy down with more refined oil and concentrated orphan tears.
08/27/09
I must say though, while I respect that some people may not agree with the way Greenpeace conducts itself as an organisation, the issue they are raising - decreasing toxic waste - is difficult to logically argue against. Clearly,the less toxic waste being produced, the better off we are.
It seems many of the opposing views to the article are simply focused on their hatred of Greenpeace.
08/26/09
I want to thank you for your well-written article. The angles you cover are helpful and comprehensive. You -do- offer solutions (keeping a company in charge of their own recycling especially makes a great deal of sense). I found myself wishing people would require and listen to articles like these instead of soundbyte commercials, as I honestly found the soundbyte version offensive and annoying, and ignored them. Understanding the deeper story, however, made the issue mean a whole lot more.
08/26/09
I believe that to solve these issues, mature, well-reasoned dialogue is needed, which is why I am happy to see Guest Op-Eds such as this on occasion on the Kotaku site. I certainly consider such posts a much better solution to reaching active consumers than pithy, immature, and illegal antics like the ones Greenpeace recently pulled on HP.
I believe that solely focusing on negative publicity about companies and corporations will not do much to win over gamers. The industry is taking steps towards greener solutions, such as lower power consumption and digital distribution, which is worth acknowledging.
I believe that we can ultimately find solutions to these issues if we all work together and keep a level head. And I do believe it is important to keep looking for new ways to innovate.
08/26/09
[current.com]
60 minute episode on ewaste and China. This really shouldn't be a conservative/liberal issue. We need to take care of our home.
08/26/09
Then I started reading Kotaku comments. :D
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09