1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Discovery Planet Green Channel coming June 4th.

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by FireMedic8039, May 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 5, 2008 #61 of 105
    Bluto17

    Bluto17 Legend

    138
    0
    Jan 31, 2007

    And know-what's-best-for-everyone-elses. :rolleyes:

    :D
     
  2. Jun 5, 2008 #62 of 105
    dmurphy

    dmurphy Active Member

    1,683
    6
    Sep 28, 2006
    I don't care much - if someone wants a "green" channel, so be it ... BUT ...

    Where is Holmes on Homes???

    The best home improvement TV show I've ever seen! And now, there's no network carrying it in the US!
     
  3. Jun 5, 2008 #63 of 105
    schlar01

    schlar01 Godfather

    335
    0
    Jul 16, 2007
    Changing daylight savings won't affect the energy use either way. It was just a pet project of theirs, but your comments are incorerct. No one can create more daylight hours. The number of hours of daylight are the same as they were before.

    No offense, but I don't believe your toilet story, either. Newer toilets do use significantly less water, which is an undeniable necessity if you live about half the areas of the country that are always suffering from drought. There isn't enough water to go around in the west, southeast, etc.
     
  4. Jun 5, 2008 #64 of 105
    rkr0923

    rkr0923 Guest

    499
    0
    Sep 14, 2006
    As soon as I saw it in my favorites list I blocked it.........give us FOXNEWSHD and TRAVELCHANNELHD.
     
  5. Jun 5, 2008 #65 of 105
    durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    I believe they'll have a small but enthusiastic audience of those who like to think humans are destroying the planet. However, I don't expect them to give the whole story of how human activity impacts the earth. Will they tell everyone the earth's optimal temperature and how we can keep it there? No, because the earth's climate has always changed. It has warmed and cooled many times before the Industrial Revolution.

    This whole movement is based upon models, not emperical data. As more and more evidence is compiled that proves the models to be incorrect, proponents are forced to create new models that allow for the irrefutable data but still provide a doomsday scenario. As an example, "climate change" has replaced "global warming" as the catch-phrase because emperical data shows that the earth is cooling.

    Eventually, people will tire of the constantly adjusting models and the increased costs and regulations of the movement. Downer programming telling everyone how evil they are can't pull in new viewers. I give it a few years before the channel reverts to Discovery Home once again.
     
  6. Jun 5, 2008 #66 of 105
    curlyjive

    curlyjive AllStar

    76
    0
    Jun 13, 2007
    Personally, I fear the personal freedom restrictions that are likely to come from over-reactionist legislation will far outweigh any environmental impact.

    If you want to use CFC bulbs fine, but don't FORCE me to. If you want a hybrid fine, but don't force me to get one....or punish me for not buying one.

    IF you think that government take over of the oil companies is going to drive gas prices down you are sorely mistaken.

    IF you can't see that the government passing this kind of legislation (like the bill before the senate now) will do anything but raise taxes and prices on products and services accross the board, you are in for a shock.

    Free market solutions work, but environmental zealots and politicians vying for votes are too impatient to let the free market work this out. Show me where the government has the constitutional charge to impose the kind of reforms it is cooking up? Their job is to REMOVE roadblocks to allow for maximum personal and market freedoms....not to legislate them away with bill after bill loaded with language that no one reads until it's too late. I don't know why people look to to federal government to solve every problem, but we should all have learned by now that they usually fail when try to do more then they are constitutionally charged with.
     
  7. Jun 5, 2008 #67 of 105
    Smuuth

    Smuuth Well-Known Member

    2,402
    63
    Oct 4, 2005
    Ironically, compact fluorescent bulbs are responsible for less mercury contamination than the incandescent bulbs they replaced, even though incandescents don't contain any mercury. The highest source of mercury in America’s air and water results from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, at utilities that supply electricity. Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent.
     
  8. Jun 5, 2008 #68 of 105
    curlyjive

    curlyjive AllStar

    76
    0
    Jun 13, 2007
    Ironically, or perhaps not, there is a trade off for every technology. So the idea that there is some Utopian source of power or ways to manufacture things without any environmental impact is insane. Sometimes the trade offs are worth it, other times not. But the overall costs of forcing these kind of changes across the board is going to be unbearable for consumers.
     
  9. Jun 5, 2008 #69 of 105
    ActiveHDdave

    ActiveHDdave Godfather

    461
    2
    Sep 15, 2007
    You will buy an hybrid or an horse when gas cost $15 a gallon with rationing
     
  10. Jun 5, 2008 #70 of 105
    steve053

    steve053 Godfather

    363
    2
    May 11, 2007
    Except that in many cases the polution and HUGE output of energy to create the hybrid battery are worse than the additional polution output from an non-hybred vehicle.
     
  11. Jun 5, 2008 #71 of 105
    mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    HUGE, really? I'd love to see the numbers to back that up. I guess oil is much more environmentally friendly after all, and has the added benefit of funding terrorists.
     
  12. Jun 5, 2008 #72 of 105
    Bill Broderick

    Bill Broderick Icon

    2,309
    166
    Aug 25, 2006
    Long Island

    No. It's not.
     
  13. Jun 5, 2008 #73 of 105
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,868
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    I now get Planet Green on local Comcast VOD.
     
  14. Jun 5, 2008 #74 of 105
    cartrivision

    cartrivision Hall Of Fame

    3,862
    0
    Jul 25, 2007
    Save your breath. It's useless to try to talk sensibly and logically to the anti-Al Gore crowd. Gore is one of them lib-ruls, so everything he says must be a lie.
     
  15. Jun 5, 2008 #75 of 105
    SPACEMAKER

    SPACEMAKER Freethinker

    3,183
    16
    Dec 11, 2007
    Mason, MI
    I better not hear one single complaint out of any of you neo-cons the next time a Fox News thread gets hijacked.
     
  16. Jun 5, 2008 #76 of 105
    dodge boy

    dodge boy R.I.P. Chris Henry

    4,231
    0
    Mar 31, 2006
    FOX NEWS is a waste of bandwidth to anyone with an I.Q. above 70. :D
     
  17. Jun 5, 2008 #77 of 105
    rustynails

    rustynails Godfather

    314
    0
    Apr 24, 2008
    GIVE ME A BREAK! I suppose you go with the liberal media at CNN.
     
  18. Jun 5, 2008 #78 of 105
    jacksonm30354

    jacksonm30354 Icon

    618
    0
    Mar 29, 2007
    Atlanta
    Free market solutions work only for the shareholders. A corporation is not going to do the right thing, it's going to do whatever gives the shareholders the best return on their investment. Corporations are in business to make money, not to promote the common good. That is why government regulations become necessary.

    Companies could make a profit keeping plants open here in the U.S., but they make a larger profit outsourcing to countries where workers will work for wages below the poverty line here in the US.

    You should be free to open a business, but there have to be limits imposed by the government to keep that business from taking advantage of the populace for short term gains of the company/shareholders.

    There is nothing in the constitution that entitles anyone to buy a Hummer either. It is a waste of limited resources that are a value to the country as a whole (world even). Just because you can afford to buy it, doesnt mean it should be produced and sold.
    We have the problem now that with all the SUVs on the road, people are afraid for safety reasons to buy smaller cars.
     
  19. Jun 5, 2008 #79 of 105
    ercjncprdtv

    ercjncprdtv Legend

    162
    1
    Feb 11, 2008

    CNN is beating Fox in the ratings my friend!
     
  20. Jun 5, 2008 #80 of 105
    SPACEMAKER

    SPACEMAKER Freethinker

    3,183
    16
    Dec 11, 2007
    Mason, MI
    Don't confuse the Fox fans with facts. They worship falafel Bill so do you think they really care about anything logical or factual?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page