Green
Steve Poole
via
Guys, may I suggest you drop the GREEN thing. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Plants need it to survive. CO2 is a trailing indicator not a leading indicator. In other words it goes up when the earth heats up not the other way around. It is a scientific FACT that when the earth warms, the oceans can not hold as much CO2 and that is the cause of CO2 increase. The earth in fact used to be much warmer. England used to have vineyards. The amount of man made emmissions for the entire planet does not even come close to the emissions from volcanic activity. This is all a lie and you guys look foolish propagating such silliness trying to get people to take you seriously as a company. The evidence is out there, listen to scientists on both sides of the argument and it will become clear to you. DON'T listen to politicians. I personally, and I am far from alone, would tend to avoid you guys rather than embrace what appears to be a great idea over this issue alone.
Comments are currently closed for this discussion. You can start a new one.
Support Staff 2 Posted by support on 11 Aug, 2009 08:09 PM
Hi Steve -
We're not obsessed with An Inconvenient Truth, but it seems like there's a lot of energy - polluting or not - wasted on something simple like moving contracts around on a deal. Is there a better example we might be able to use? We have not built our business on playing the Green card and it wasn't particularly our inspiration -- we were simply frustrated with the current state of the industry. We think that the efficiency our platform creates is worth noting - what is your suggestion for a better way?
Support Staff 3 Posted by support on 11 Aug, 2009 08:18 PM
Here's an interesting page I found about this: http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-...
Support Staff 4 Posted by support on 11 Aug, 2009 08:24 PM
And on the other side of the issue:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-12-18-jet-pollution-us...
and an older report from 1997 here: http://www.ehponline.org/qa/105-12focus/focus.html
"In 1993, aircraft emitted 350 million pounds of VOCs and NO x during landing and takeoff cycles, more than double 1970 levels, according to the NRDC report. These two classes of compounds are precursors of ground-level ozone, which can interfere with lung function. "During the summer . . . between 10% and 20% of all East Coast hospital admissions for respiratory problems may be ozone-related," says the NRDC report.
Airports are among the greatest sources of local air pollution. A major airport's idling and taxiing planes can emit hundreds of tons of VOCs and NO x annually. John F. Kennedy International Airport is the second largest source of VOCs in New York City. LaGuardia is among the major sources of NO x .
The VOCs emitted by airports may comprise a variety of toxic chemicals, according to a 1993 study by the EPA. Chicago's Midway Airport released more benzene and formaldehyde than most Chicago factories. But Jacob Snow, assistant director of aviation for planning and environment at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada, asserts that in the world of ozone precursor emissions, those from airports are of little consequence. "McCarran's VOC emissions [for 1993] were equivalent to those [produced by] the motor vehicles used by less than 9% of the nonattainment basin's households," he says. Similarly, a 1991 study by Argonne National Laboratory, funded by the FAA, concluded that "the impact of airport emissions on the surrounding air quality was not significantly larger than that of the background emissions. This implies that on a per-unit area of ground surface basis, the airport emissions are roughly comparable to those of the surrounding urban/suburban areas and roadways."
And, in fact, ground access vehicles such as passenger cars and buses just entering and leaving airports often exceed airplanes as the dominant sources of air pollution at airports. Nationally, ground access vehicles emit 56% of VOCs, while aircraft taking off and landing give off only 32.6% (including emissions from APUs), according to the EPA. Ground access vehicles emit 39.3% of NO x , trailing closely behind emissions by aircraft and APUs of 46.3%.
Ground service equipment is responsible for 10.9% of airport-generated VOCs and 14.3% of NO x nationally, according to the EPA. National figures for APUs were not available, but in southern California in 1990, APUs gave off less than 1% of hydrocarbons and about 6% of NO x , according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
In 1993, one out of five U.S. citizens lived in a locale where air failed to meet national standards for ozone. Thirty of the nation's 50 busiest airports are located in ozone nonattainment areas, and three of these are located in the dirtiest nonattainment area, the Los Angeles-South Coast basin. "
and a short research project here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~murty/planetravel2/planetravel2.html
Support Staff 5 Posted by support on 11 Aug, 2009 08:33 PM
So how about something more like this:
We create simple, green solutions, powered by technology. We increase tour revenue, decrease deal costs and reduce carbon footprint. Paper contracts alone sent by overnight express account for millions of pounds of air pollution annually.
or...?
6 Posted by Anonymous on 11 Aug, 2009 10:02 PM
You're wasting your time.? Trees/Paper are completely renewable.? We waste gas and deisel (non-renewable) trying to recycle the renewable resource.? Paper unlike gas DOES GROW ON TREES..? :)
7 Posted by Anonymous on 11 Aug, 2009 10:06 PM
No one is against conservation.? Hence the term?Conservative.?That is an entirely different subject.? It's the Al Gore's of the world who lie regularly who drive me crazy.? I am comforted by your response, thank you.
8 Posted by Anonymous on 11 Aug, 2009 10:08 PM
Again, I am comforted by your sanity.
9 Posted by Anonymous on 11 Aug, 2009 10:20 PM
Again, pollution and global warming are 2 separate issues.? The article below says respiratory problems "may be" ozone related.? That's secret code for "we don't have a clue".
What government is trying to do is use trumped up environmental issues to try to take control of peoples lives.? Obama and the congress are trying this in every aspect of our lives.? Study, Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro or Mao, the comparisons are surreal.? The only difference is that America has a constitution and a strong foundation that prevents the left from killing their adversaries.? But if you listen to some of the rhetoric, they would like to.
You can't (or shouldn't) pass legislation that takes away peoples freedoms using a hypothetical as an excuse.
You're obviously well informed, your web-site is perhaps trying to be politically correct.?
Support Staff 10 Posted by support on 13 Aug, 2009 05:35 AM
The simple answer here is: you can't please all of the people all of the time when it comes to the Green topic. ArtistForce has an incredible, efficient solutions that reduces the friction involved in transacting business in the live entertainment industry. Our customers save time, money and energy. If it turns out we make the earth a cleaner place to exist in the process - that is incredibly fabulous -- if it turns out that we don't - our customers still save time, money and energy. Everybody wins, either way.
support closed this discussion on 13 Aug, 2009 05:35 AM.
Anonymous re-opened this discussion on 13 Aug, 2009 12:02 PM
11 Posted by Anonymous on 13 Aug, 2009 12:02 PM
That's exactly the right attitude.