<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Alternative Energy Research vs Weight Loss Products {Infographic}</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/</link>
	<description>Clean Tech News &#38; Views: Solar Energy News. Wind Energy News. EV News. &#38; More.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:49:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/#comment-101756</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=28521#comment-101756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[sure, decent points. but, basically, the secrets to weight loss are not
secrets, completely simple, and CHEAP. exercise (free); eat simple,
wholesome foods; and don&#039;t eat too much]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sure, decent points. but, basically, the secrets to weight loss are not<br />
secrets, completely simple, and CHEAP. exercise (free); eat simple,<br />
wholesome foods; and don&#8217;t eat too much</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alexandra Radu</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/#comment-101755</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alexandra Radu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=28521#comment-101755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well if you think about it, americans are stuggling with weight loss and since they are a powerful state you should considerthe fact that they dont want their people to die and remain just a little hand of persons because then how can they be one of the most important powers of the world, sites such as http://biggestloserclub.com.au/ seem to have a goal in making people less fat so that means that they are trying to help you to live longer right?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well if you think about it, americans are stuggling with weight loss and since they are a powerful state you should considerthe fact that they dont want their people to die and remain just a little hand of persons because then how can they be one of the most important powers of the world, sites such as <a href="http://biggestloserclub.com.au/" rel="nofollow">http://biggestloserclub.com.au/</a> seem to have a goal in making people less fat so that means that they are trying to help you to live longer right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/#comment-101318</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=28521#comment-101318</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I appreciate your comments and don&#039;t deny this is a bit of apples &amp; oranges
here. I thought the same, of course. It puts things into context, though,
which is why i found it interesting. And the truth is, we go up in arms
about taxes (for things like energy research) and yet waste (yes, i&#039;m going
to be outright again and continue my previous assertion) money on things
like lottery tickets (which are a total rip-off of an idea and make the poor
poorer), tanning (I&#039;m sorry, not necessary), weight loss (when people could
just use their legs a little more and eat whole foods, &amp; eat less).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate your comments and don&#8217;t deny this is a bit of apples &amp; oranges<br />
here. I thought the same, of course. It puts things into context, though,<br />
which is why i found it interesting. And the truth is, we go up in arms<br />
about taxes (for things like energy research) and yet waste (yes, i&#8217;m going<br />
to be outright again and continue my previous assertion) money on things<br />
like lottery tickets (which are a total rip-off of an idea and make the poor<br />
poorer), tanning (I&#8217;m sorry, not necessary), weight loss (when people could<br />
just use their legs a little more and eat whole foods, &amp; eat less).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/#comment-101317</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=28521#comment-101317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with Daniel.  The scale is neither linear nor properly logarithmic. 

The presumption of the author is breathtaking.  I may not choose to spend my money on some of those things, but who is to say what are ‘non-essential products and services’?  Overdraft Fees are not exactly discretionary payments for many people.

Spending on Lotteries is in large part redistribution of wealth, as the gamblers receive money back as prizes, and the beneficiaries would otherwise have to raise funds by some other means; only the administration costs are actually ‘spent’.  

In the President&#039;s 2012 budget proposal released in February, the Administration recommended spending $8 billion on “clean energy and technology programs”, from a total Department of Energy budget of $29.5 billion (http://www.energy.gov/news/10064.htm).  This seems to have been left off the so-called ‘infographic’.

Spending on research does not automatically lead to scientific developments.  Some problems do yield to ‘blood and treasure’, but sometimes spending all the money there is will hardly accelerate progress. 

Hydrogen research globally has been running at nearly $1 billion per year for the last decade or so; the US government has spent billions on it.  To date, it has produced precious little to show for this.  There are those who would argue that even $0 is too much, and the money would have been better spent on tanning, psychics and weight loss.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with Daniel.  The scale is neither linear nor properly logarithmic. </p>
<p>The presumption of the author is breathtaking.  I may not choose to spend my money on some of those things, but who is to say what are ‘non-essential products and services’?  Overdraft Fees are not exactly discretionary payments for many people.</p>
<p>Spending on Lotteries is in large part redistribution of wealth, as the gamblers receive money back as prizes, and the beneficiaries would otherwise have to raise funds by some other means; only the administration costs are actually ‘spent’.  </p>
<p>In the President&#8217;s 2012 budget proposal released in February, the Administration recommended spending $8 billion on “clean energy and technology programs”, from a total Department of Energy budget of $29.5 billion (<a href="http://www.energy.gov/news/10064.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.energy.gov/news/10064.htm</a>).  This seems to have been left off the so-called ‘infographic’.</p>
<p>Spending on research does not automatically lead to scientific developments.  Some problems do yield to ‘blood and treasure’, but sometimes spending all the money there is will hardly accelerate progress. </p>
<p>Hydrogen research globally has been running at nearly $1 billion per year for the last decade or so; the US government has spent billions on it.  To date, it has produced precious little to show for this.  There are those who would argue that even $0 is too much, and the money would have been better spent on tanning, psychics and weight loss.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paulo</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/#comment-101295</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paulo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=28521#comment-101295</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shame on our collective fat asses!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shame on our collective fat asses!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel</title>
		<link>http://cleantechnica.com/2011/06/23/alternative-energy-research-vs-weight-loss-products-infographic/#comment-101287</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Daniel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 23:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cleantechnica.com/?p=28521#comment-101287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ Totally apples and oranges.  One is the amount of money that the US government spends on research in those areas, and the other is total consumer spending.  Also the scale is nearly unintelligible.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Totally apples and oranges.  One is the amount of money that the US government spends on research in those areas, and the other is total consumer spending.  Also the scale is nearly unintelligible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
