most popular:
2008 Holiday Gift Guides



most popular: Hot Home Wind Turbines


most popular:
$19k Electric Car in US


th comments
Dr. Gregory House said: "This is a brilliant idea. 60lbs is not heavy for an electric bike. Those who think this is too heavy should go back to sanding paint off their bicy..." [read]

Jennifer said: "Very stylish! I definitely can see myself riding this to work...." [read]

Jay Fretz said: "If "The motors do not drive the car, but kick in to provide a power boost...", then how can "Range on electric alone is expected to to be in the or..." [read]

Jay said: "Sad story indeed. Unless we get the good fortune of offspring, Man will have yet again driven a species to extinction. Something it seem to be ve..." [read]

said: "OK, why isn't the option of voting to NOT tax gas guzzlers? There can be no shift to more fuel efficient vehicles unless more fuel efficient vehic..." [read]

Deconstructing Wired Magazine's June Cover Story on the Environment

by Michael Graham Richard, Gatineau, Canada on 05.19.08
Culture & Celebrity

Wired Magazine and EcoGeek blog image

Our friend Hank over at Ecogeek has done a bit of deconstruction on Wired Magazine's June cover story (which isn't online yet). We haven't got our hands on it yet, but from what we can deduce, it seems like one of those contrarian "everything you thought was true isn't!" pieces with a few nuggets of truth.

They seem to fail to keep things in perspective and see the big picture (f.ex. they suggest cutting down the last few pristine ecosystems in the US to maybe reduce carbon emissions a tiny bit), and they seem to think that global warming is the only problem we are faced with. We're all for more mainstream coverage of green issues, but trying to be too clever can be counter-productive. ::WIRED's Call to Environmentalists: True or False

Comments (2)

UGH Wired. I don't understand why people on so many blogs care what Wired writes about.

They are like the GQ of technology mags, pretty to look at but pretty vapid on real substance. Wired always reports on what's hip and cool at the expense of what really matters, factual and well researched articles. In short they write sensationalism pieces instead of using their brand to educate and stimulate conversation.

Want to turn your brain off? Read Wired... want to think and grow read treehugger.

jump to top TheMonk [TypeKey Profile Page] says:

Apologist nonsense.

The cost numbers on nuke plants are fantasy. They assume things like the the plant will be built with tax backed bonds at below market rates , the plants will last 60 years without failure, that the price of uranium will never go up and that the plant and waste will be inturned at tax payer expense.

In reality, no plant has EVER lasted it's projected life. Some were shut down in less than a year after they were finished. Until recently, none have been finished on schedual. A recent retrofit in Alabama was finished on time but cost $2B - twice what they claimed and now has had multiple emergency shut downs the first year.

On the other had, we have thermo solar plants that have been in operation for 30 years with no major accidents, no emergency shut downs, no cost overruns, no fuel cost increases and they are expected to continue functioning indefinitely.

As for the SUV, you don't destroy it, you trade it to somebody who drives less and/or really needs it.

jump to top Ugly American says:

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

th ads
th top picks
th ads