carbon

Carbon positive, but the fuel generation is carbon negative, so it balances out.

The entire notion of reducing a person/company's carbon footprint is based around shifting the dirty work somewhere else.

The EPA estimates that the average passenger vehicle emits 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year.

It's increased usage is one of the key reasons the US's carbon output is down over 10% since 2005.

The overall carbon dioxide output of coal-fired electric power plants exceeded gasoline by more than 30 percent in 2010.

The X1 Carbon is essentially an ultrabook close to the new macbooks in most of its features.

An interesting idea related to this: Would high income people pay extra to buy gas from a carbon-neutral gas station?

Our work reduces carbon emissions and improves the reliability and efficiency of the electrical grid.

Currently about 50% of the carbon ends up in sinks like oceans and some forests.

There are potentially many benefits aside from the cost of raw materials and the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.

I've seen too many over-enthusiastic write-ups for bio-solar technologies that don't include the carbon cost of the inputs.

The trees transform some carbon dioxide to wood and to part of the soil.

Both are carbon-neutral once you get past the "have the centralized energy source" step.

A better headline would be "How I push all my carbon footprint to other people to make myself feel good."

After that $14,000 "subsidy" the 500e still a $32,500 car, which will appeal primarily to people who are likely replacing an already efficient late model vehicle for a tiny net carbon savings.

From the linked pdf: "We have limited our studies to nuclear power because its capital costs are lower than wind and solar-electric power, and it has significant environmental advantages over fossil energy sources, which are not carbon-neutral."

Personally I couldn't be more happier with my X230 and many co-workers use the X1 Carbon.