Starting this summer, Continental will offer passengers the ability to buy carbon credits to offset the environmental cost of their travel. Though airlines contribute to global warming, air travel is one of the most carbon-efficient ways to cross long distances.
[Continental's] program, being carried out with Sustainable Travel International and announced Wednesday, will let fliers calculate the so-called carbon footprint of their trips’ greenhouse gas emissions and buy carbon offsets online from Sustainable Travel.The nonprofit business then invests the proceeds in projects such as reforestation, renewable energy and energy conservation. For domestic flights, the cost of offsetting ranges from $10 to $30 or more per flight, according to Brian Mullis, president of Sustainable Travel.
Would you buy credits to offset your carbon footprint? Tell us in the comments. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER
Carrier to let fliers be kind to Earth [Houston Chronicle via Peter Greenberg]
(Photo: R@punseLL)
More From Consumerist
-
Court Rules Airline Doesn’t Need To Accept Cash For In-Flight Purchases
-
United Suing Passenger Complaint Site But Says It’s Not Because Of All That Complaining
-
JetBlue Fined For Not Telling Passengers They Can Exit A Plane Stuck Indefinitely At The Gate
-
Too-Tense Flight Attendant Booted From Flight For Telling Passengers To Leave Plane “If They Have The Balls”
-
Worst Company In America Round 1: United Airlines Vs. Carnival Cruise Lines
@Trick: Oh, global warming won’t destroy the Earth by any means. The Earth will still be orbiting the Sun in a million years, and heaven knows the cockroaches will probably still be here. An increase of several degrees won’t even wipe out the human race; nuclear war would do more damage than global warming would. We’re not talking about the end of the human race, we’re talking about the end of the world as we know it. Major farm regions turned to desert. More violent storms. Major cities and coastal areas underwater, and millions of refugees from those cities. Yeah, this is the worst case scenario, but nuclear war is a worst case scenario too and we still had those duck-and-cover drills.
You do use a lot of name-calling for someone who thinks his opponents whine too much. As for cash, any scientist who is willing to deny global warming is bound to get a lot of moolah from Exxon-Mobil and its ilk, who probably have more money than the NSF. The right likes to talk about “liberal elites” (one of their great PR victories), but the richest entities in the world are far-and-away conservative.
@asherchang:
Oh wait! Let’s see:
most of these agencies get their budgets from where? So let’s not pretend that they don’t have a vested interest in saying what the people that pay them want to hear.
I notice you also haven’t managed to provide any actual proof that these agencies have said that global warming is man-made. You’ve just posted a list of names.
I supposed you’ll next tell me that the satellites that measure an increase in solar radiation which explains the temperature increases on all 3 planets that are being watched must have been “tampered with” by “people like me” that “don’t want to believe”.
Widespread glacial retreat? Yup, in some areas. In other areas, ice flows are thickening and growing. In places where glaciers are retreating, archaeologists keep finding evidence of human habitation. In other words, there was no ice there at one time, then there was ice, now there isn’t again. But of course that’s probably more “evidence” that man caused the global warming by having lived there 3000 years ago in the first place.
The ONLY thing that “the debate is over” on is that we ARE, in fact, in a warming cycle. Man’s part (none) in it is only being preached by people that, based on their own private jet use and huge energy consumption, don’t believe it themselves, but are using it to fund their start-up companies selling “carbon offsets”.
So tell me about the “hole in the ozone layer” now. Never mind that we still haven’t figured out if it’s been there for millions of years, or only since the 1920′s. All we know for sure at this point is there was HUGE hysteria over it, and then over the next 20 years it turned out that it wasn’t really getting any bigger. It was just shifting around. No evidence found that there’s any reason to think man had anything to do with it, that man has any power to fix it, or that man has any influence on it at all.
Same thing with the ice age scare of the late 70′s and early 80′s. Science makes an observation, politicians spin it for their own benefit, and gullible jackasses fall for it and start preaching like a cult members (no offense to real cult members intended) at a recruiting drive.
No, I think I’ll wait for evidence that isn’t based on 10 out of 1000 results from a computer model.
OMG TEH COMPUTER SAID THAT IF ALL THE DATA THAT I ENTEREDED INTO IT DAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE BAD WOULD BE BAD IF IT WAS TO TEH HAPPIN!!11!11!!!
@sixsnowflakes: I’m not entirely sure, though my guess is that they’re either simply comparing it in terms of the methane not being released (it being around 22x as potent as CO2 in terms of global warming potential), or via comparing it to burning another hydrocarbon, in that (at least according to wikipedia) it produces less CO2 per unit of heat released, along with it’s high heat per unit mass.
http://www.terrapass.com/projects/tour.biomass.html
info@terrapass.com or (877) 210-9581 if you want to ask them
@Trick: Yes, you caught us, global warming is just a conspiracy created by a hugely diverse range of scientists, experts, and politicians across party lines intended to deprive you of your SUV and ensure you get an Al Gore DVD for unspecified reasons. And to think, we would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for you meddling commenters…
After slogging though this thread, I firmly believe that mandatory logic classes are taught in primary, intermediate and high schools. Then tested before graduation. At the point of a rifle if need be. Granted, it won’t help us, since it’ll take 20 years before it impacts the level of debate here, but it’s a start.
@Trick:
Amen. Preach on and don’t let the haters sway you.
Once all you global warming terrorists get your way and we’re driving clean burning cars that run on corn, do you know what your next “cause” will be? Let me tell you. You will literally show photos of corn being taken out of the hands of hungry African children so us Americans can use it to feed our huge SUV’s to carry our 400 lb. butts to Wal-Mart and the like.
I know I’m being overly sarcastic in that comment, but on a more serious note, once you get your way with fossil fuels, the propaganda machine will say we’re stealing food from the hungry.
from the Financial Times (www.ft.com):
“Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df106…
series of articles on carbon trading:
http://www.ft.com/indepth/carbontrading
Global warming is partly caused by flatulence, right? And since Continental recirculates its air during flights, causing passengers to rebreathe everyone’s gas emissions, they’re already helping us save the planet. Thanks, Continental!
wow. is it really that much to ask to conserve a little bit? this isn’t even mandatory, it’s freakin voluntary. you know, like the jimmy fund or public television – if you don’t want to participate, don’t.
i am not a scientist, but i think it is pretty basic environmental science that as a species grows in density within its environment, pollution increases, eventually destroying the balance of the ecosystem. this is true of virtually any species.
what i don’t understand is our reluctance to change even the slightest bit, despite the economic advantages that await us. the development of green technology & industry has the potential to make & save people & companies billions of dollars every year. it could potentially create a few million new jobs in research, development, manufacturing, construction, sales & service – i don’t think a single sector of the economy would escape its impact.
if not for the trees, do it for the money.
@LAGirl: Yup, exactly. Unfortunately when someone accuses a cult leader of wrongdoing, the cult followers all defend their leader’s innocence in spite of the facts. I’m sure, as a result, asherchang will be calling you names shortly.
@asherchang: Please explain to me how oceans, which are composed by far and away H2O are actually releasing CO2. The molecular math doesn’t add up.
Incidentally, we haven’t always had this much oxygen. It was a toxic waste product released by plants when they took in life-giving carbon dioxide. See? Cycle of life.
Next thing you know you’ll be screaming about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide, how it causes sweating and frequent urination, how it’s being released as a waste product by industry into our environment, how once you’ve had it introduced into your system withdraw from it results in death every single time….
@sixsnowflakes:
Silver State stopped picking up recycling bins in southeast Las Vegas.
However, I’m done. You’re all fucking scary. I’m never reading the comments on this blog again.
Papal indulgences anyone?
I’ve been buying carbon defecits:
http://www.carboncreditkillers.com/default.asp
All the rain forests that you have seen have not affected by development, logging, or slash and burn- so what are you implying, that those things are not a problem?
Might as well say that since you’ve never seen a black swan, all swans are white.
And like I said before, we’re running out of cheap-to-obtain oil. And you don’t guzzle bottled water every day of your life, do you? After all, water is essentially free- what you pay for in a bottle of water is the plastic, manufacuring costs and bottling costs, shipping (which includes gas usage), advertizing and other aspects of branding, overhead costs of the grocery store where you buy the water, and so on.
Just because we pay more per gallon for non-essential and overpriced convieniences and ideas, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t cut back on gas.
@dbeahn: If our oceans and rocks weren’t here to store our CO2, our planet would be like Venus right now.
I’m not saying that CO2 comes from water, I’m saying that large bodies of water store and emit it as a natural part of its cycle. You learn this in biology, geology, and astronomy. In fact, once a lake erupted in so much stored CO2 that it smothered and killed hundreds of surrounding people http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/smother.asp
And also, one of the arguments by you conspiracy theorists is that the ocean emits far more CO2 than humans do.
Everyone here should learn the basics of skepticism and logic.
Which means no usage of logical fallacies such as ad hominem or folk appeal.
And also, not believe a single word of what biased media offer until you verify it yourself with trustworthy facts and proof (and don’t let the pundits and demagogues try to skew or misinterpret the truth for you either)
This is what happens when news stations use the “balanced coverage”
clause of journalism ethics to give just as much weight to fringe groups and screaming nutjobs. Next thing you know, half the nation will believe in young earth creationism.
@asherchang: “Everyone here should learn the basics of skepticism and logic.
Which means no usage of logical fallacies such as ad hominem or folk appeal.”
And yet those are the 2 main ways that global warming cultists…oops, I mean “activists” use to “prove” that their religion…sorry…I mean “scientific condition” exists.
If it’s such a slam dunk, then why is it that every time a global warming cult leader is challenged to a debate, they reply “The debate is over!”. Of course it is. When you can’t supply anything other than computer models (folk appeal) and circumstantial observation (probability). As an example:
It has feathers.
It has webbed feet.
It waddles when it walks.
Therefore man must be causing the earth to warm! Oh, wait. In this case, I mean “it must be a duck!”
But it isn’t. In this case, it’s a swan, or a goose. Or a loon. We have no proof of what is claimed, just some morons going “THE DEBATE IS OVER, IT IS A DUCK AND WE MUST TEACH IT TO QUACK!!!”
Guess using your logic we should have ignored the civil rights fringe group, and the women’s suffrage fringe group, and the anti-slavery fringe group, etc. etc. et al.
What happens when mainstream media gives too much airtime to morons and mentally unbalanced people is we have a global warming hysteria that meets all the criteria of a religion. Certain things MUST be taken on faith, and anyone that questions these items of faith is attacked.
@asherchang: Oh, and if you READ the snoops article you linked, you’ll find that the CO2 in the lake was the result of volcanic venting, not because bodies of water naturally absorb CO2.
To put it another way, for you to post that link as proof that large bodies of water act as store houses for CO2 is a logical fallacy. The CO2 in this case was being pumped into the water by volcanic activity. A volcano, incidentally, vents more greenhouse gases and CO2 in a single eruption than man has produced since fire was discovered.
The Chinese Government is also skeptical about the ‘fake science’ that says melamine isn’t good for dogs and cats, and that diethylene glycol in their toothpaste is a bad thing.
They firmly reject the liberal cult, the ‘environmental fad’ and the obviously paid off and alarmist scientists who claim there is a problem.
Where are all the Consumerist commenters questioning the science about poisons in Chinese products? Questions about why the Chinese manufacturers and Government should change any of their behaviors relevant to these issues? Obviously you’ll begin using Chinese toothpaste as a protest against this ‘junk science’ which claims that environmental concerns are important? It is after all an economic priority at stake here, the market must THRIVE, right?
Maybe sending a few tubes of Chinese Toothpaste and related products to such people would count as my carbon offset?
The sheer weight of logical fallacies in this thread is overwhelming. Nearly every anti-environmental comment has been A) Personal ad hominem attacks against environmentalists B) Anecdotal evidence C) Emotional appeals or d) A long list of pseudoscientific articles.
According to some of you, the IPCC, a collection of 4000 leading scientists from around the world, must know less about the climate than the commenters at The Consumerist. Why? Because you don’t like Al Gore? Because a few scientists in the 70s were wrong? Because little old humans are so tiny we couldn’t possibly change the world? Great logic, guys.
And classy, too.
@Christovir: It’s certainly no worse logic than yours, which runs something like this: “Hey, we’ve just discovered scientific evidence that the earth goes through cycles where it heats and cools, and we’re in a warming cycle. Since we’ve just discovered this, it must be our fault as humans!”
This was the same logic, incidentally, that was used when the hole in the ozone layer was discovered – and you’ll notice no one is worried about that anymore. Seems that as more data was gathered, there turned out to be no reason to believe it wasn’t a natural part of the planet’s cycle.
But hey, feel free to believe what you like – you have freedom of religion here
@dbeahn: The ozone layer was depleted by CFCs. CFCs were banned and the ozone layer started getting better once they were banned. There is no scientific controversy about that; it’s pretty simple.
It looks like I forgot to add Straw Man to my list of fallacies. Empirical evidence suggests this is not a natural cycle. These cycles certainly happen, but ice core data (and others) suggests the levels of CO2 are twice as high as they have been in 100,000s of years – and this is very well correlated with the industrial revolution.
Please see http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/online.htm for the real logic, instead of Straw Man attacks.
@noasalira: Great point. It’s very interesting to see how inconsistent people get on the environment- extreme precaution when it affects me individually and extreme brashness when it affects unknown others.
@asherchang: All of your comments have been spot on.
One thing I haven’t seen discussed yet in this article….. POPULATION!!!
Yes folks, the 900lb gorilla in the corner of the room when it comes to any environmental issue, is the sheer numbers of us. It really doesn’t matter if we’re all driving 100mpg cars in 20 years’ time, if there’s twice as many cars on the road! It doesn’t matter if you offset your carbon, because there’s another 3 people waiting to be born who will emit it for you!
One of the dirty secrets about China’s “population control” measures (i.e. limit the # of children per couple) is that while the number of people really shows signs of stabilizing, the number of HOUSEHOLDS is still growing at a massive rate. This is because China’s push towards a more werstern lifestyle is accompanied by people’s desire to have a place of their own. Thus, even if population growth is zero, families are becoming smaller and households more numerous… a family of 10 living in one house uses less energy than the same people living in 3 separate houses. 3 dishwashers, 3 heating bills, 3 cars etc. If we all continue to become urbanized as a species, then our energy needs will increase regardless of the number of us. Add in the increasing numbers of people and it rapidly becomes a nightmare scenario.
Until something is done about population, I am really very cynical that anything can be done at the individual level to stem human greenhouse emissions. The global political system has utterly failed to deliver any decent proposals on what should be done about the population explosion. The UN has been virtually silent on the issue. The warning signs have been in place for several centuries.
Add in the fact that lifespan has increased dramatically, and not only are you looking at more people, but each of them contributing a larger environmental footprint over the course of their 70+ year lives.
So, regarding carbon offsets – yeah, if it helps people sleep at night then fine, but the only real way to cut carbon is to not have children.
Someone comes up to you in a parking lot in a white van. They say “Hey man…your activities generate a lot of carbon dioxide. If you give me $50, I’ll go plant a tree to make up for it. Honest. No really….I promise.”
Do you give them $50?
Sorry, but I’m not going for that. And I’m certainly not going to let an AIRLINE broker the deal for me.
Carbon Offsets! One of the greatest scams ever! Think about it. The only commodity changing hands is your money to some enviroterrorist group so you feel better. Manufactures of prozac will be up in arms. God save the Queen.
re: gas & water costs, esp: “Also if we were really running out of oil, why is water still more expensive per unit? Most small 12 oz bottles of water cost somewhere around a dollar! OJ and Milk, also pricey stuff.”
Partly because we are also “running out” of fresh water. Overdevelopment in desert areas, such as the American Southwest, Southern California, parts of Australia, etc., has led to serious water shortages there. Draining of major aquifiers, such as the Ogallala in the US, is beginning to impact agriculture.
This is why the Great Lakes states and provinces have taken independent cooperate action to protect the Lakes from water export, because the US and Canada weren’t getting around to it fast enough and those supergigantic freshwater reservoirs are going to start looking REALLY TASTY to water starved regions very soon. That’s why many counties on major aquifiers (I’m on the Sankoty) now have agreements or state restrictions on export of water from the aquifier. We’re sincerely hoping that when everybody else runs out of water and is starving, we’ll a) still be able to drink and shower and b) be selling you all food at ridiculous prices because our agricultural water will still be protected.
Read about the impact of the lowered levels in the Ogallala on wheat farming in the Great Plains. Or read about the central agricultural parts of California vs. Los Angeles and the nasty political squabbles over scarce water that result.
@Christovir: Regarding this…”Name some legitimate climate scientists who have published in peer reviewed journals refuting climate change. According to recent meta-analyses, over 99% of peer-reviewd articles suggest humans are altering the climate.”
To use “peer reviewed journals” is the battle cry of any scientific “group” today to feign off opposing science. If you are in the opposing group, you can’t get in the peer reviewed journals – that’s bull crap! So, it’s a circular argument – if you are in the journal, you agree with everybody and you must be right. If you aren’t in the journal, then you don’t agree and you must be wrong. If you are going to pull out the “peer reviewed journal” argument, you might as well say “everybody’s doing it.” My response to that, just as it has been of old – if everyone jumps off a bridge are you going to jump off too?
I get so sick of hearing that defense of this indefensible scientific area.
@castlecraver – you are right that there is data that the earth is cooling. But this isn’t A=B, B=C, so A=C. Just because there is a warming trend on the earth does NOT mean that we are the cause of it. That’s the big crux of the issue. Saying that people who “don’t believe in global warming” are just nuts isn’t really the answer to the question. The actual question is, are we the cause? That’s where the real scientific debate is, and if you read or hear anyone that supports the global warming position without acknowledging that, you can be sure they aren’t “shootin’ straight.” The reason that’s the real question is b/c I (and many others) don’t want to pay new taxes, or extra fees based on junk, political science connections. I have always lived a very minimalistic lifestyle in terms of energy, but I use it when I have to because of the way our society is designed. I don’t want our govt (EU can do what the heck it wants) to penalize all the citizens for something that isn’t our fault – and how many countries would never do this anyway (China, etc?). As we add more and more costs to our citizens and companies, it makes us less economically viable in the world market when compared to those countries that don’t. Take for example the articles on this site with the food and human-use products coming in from China – they have almost none of the oversights or protections on things like we do. So they keep shipping their cheap crap all over the world, endangering people, and undermining countries like ours in those economic arenas. But for those kinds of things, govt protections are needed. There is no proof that we need environmental protections related to global warming. We’d just be hurting ourselves if we go that route and there isn’t a real reason too.
@dbeahn: And you sir conspiracy theorist sheep follower of rightwing nutjobs’ demagoguery, please SHOW where this made up incidence of a scientist saying “The debate is over!” took place. That is an extraordinary claim you make. Can you verify it with an accurate source?
And it’s not just computer models (which I have never even heard of), and “circumstantial evidence” (which is more relevant to the “other planets are warming too” counter-argument against global warming).
Multiple empirical studies show that the earth is warming at an alarmingly rapid rate (and remember, we’re supposed to be on a cooling cycle right now). Here are some of them:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measure…
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.htm…
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18725124.500…
@ericole: And I’m assuming that you’re a scientist and you know this for a fact. Cuz, you know, it’s not at all possible that you’re just a layman talking out of his ass about stuff he doesn’t know, calling every scientific institution an evil suppresor of dissenting voices and calling the whole majority of scientists who know that global warming is real and anthropogenic and real a huge global group of cospirators.
@ericole: For all that talking, you haven’t done much convincing or proving. Sure, correlation does not mean causation. But there is enough proof that global warming is anthropogenic.
And you say that anyone who’s trying to get us to stop global warming is ignoring the “are we causing it in the first place” question.
That’s a pretty extraordinary claim- and highly incredulous, and it begs many questions, which you don’t seek to answer.
And then you say that we shouldn’t have to pay new taxes and buy new things for something that isn’t our fault. But that is assuming that it isn’t our fault. Sure, China is pretty environmentally irresponsible, but that doesn’t say anything about whether we should stop messing with the natural processes of the earth.
@dbeahn: I only posted that link to show that
a. Carbon dioxide IS stored naturally in oceans, and
b. Carbon dioxide isn’t a “good” thing. It’s something that sustains plants, but it can do destructive things too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink
in this article it shows how oceans are natural carbon dioxide sinks that emit some of the gases that they absorb. (and now the oceans are losing some of their ability to absorb CO2)
but you following comment:
“A volcano, incidentally, vents more greenhouse gases and CO2 in a single eruption than man has produced since fire was discovered.”
is incomprehensibly ignorant, as I can’t see how that Snopes article can possibly imply your statement at all. The article never even mentioned a single thing about human-made CO2.
Honestly this whole debate has just become stupid. Does it really matter if humans are contributing to global warming? No. Regardless of what the causes are, it doesn’t hurt to be eco friendly. The article is about carbon credits. I think both sides of the argument can agree that these are mostly worthless. People and companies need to take responsibility for their actions. Throwing money at a problem doesnt necessarily fix the problem. Money helps in situations where not everyone can do their part, like Cancer research and world hunger, but not with fixing the environment.
My demotivational poster says it best :”if your not part of the solution then there is good money to be made in prolonging the problem”
Correction…
I wrote: @castlecraver – you are right that there is data that the earth is cooling.”
Duh, I meant “warming” – sorry to confuse the issue!
@asherchang: You wrote, “I’m assuming that you’re a scientist and you know this for a fact. Cuz, you know, it’s not at all possible that you’re just a layman talking out of his ass about stuff he doesn’t know,” Once again, the assumption on online commentors is dead wrong. Actually, I am a scientist/engineer. When I read scientific studies and reports, it isn’t as a laymen. And yes, there is MUCH empirical proof that the holy grail of “peer reviewed journals” is a way to lock out dissenting voices. This is documented daily in all types of ways. A very easy way to get examples of this is to follow the creation/evolution debate – it is VERY similar to this “global warming/did we cause it” debate. Here’s a recent example someone sent me:
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=3210
The sarcastic wrap up to this article is, “Isn’t it nice to know that we have so much scientific freedom of inquiry in this country, and that so many of our scientists keep such open minds?”
To respond to:
@ericole: “For all that talking, you haven’t done much convincing or proving. Sure, correlation does not mean causation. But there is enough proof that global warming is anthropogenic.”
I like the big word, those are always impressive.
This is ONLY a single example to prove my point – that “peer reviewed journal” publication is not the final answer to a scientific question. People who come back and say “that’s only one case!” are being ridiculous. This is an online comment area for an article, not a research paper where I am going to spend hours of my life culling through all the data I have amassed. I have no desire to spend time posting it on a website to try to make the 20% die-hard believers of human-caused global warming to change their minds.
@asherchang. I found this and just had to share. It’s not a science article, but is related to the “peer reviewed journal” type of mentality. That mentality might as well be called the “majority rule, ” and is in play in the Microsoft/Apple debates and articles that regularly appear online and in print. The end of the article gets to the point I’m making:
“The world has very different expectations from Microsoft and Apple. If Microsoft can scrape something together and call it a product vision, we applaud and hand them a silver star, knowing that it probably won’t ever get released, and that even if it does, nobody will buy it apart from the minority of fans who adore the company’s ability to entertain them with mediocrity.
When Apple releases an actual product, the critics come out of the woodwork to explain why it won’t sell, why it won’t matter, and why everyone should just move along because there’s really nothing to see here. Inevitably, Apple’s introductions are welcomed in the market place by actual consumers, who can’t get enough of products that work well without a struggle and actually solve real problems.”
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/5E7E2BAB-C…