Shall I practice willful ignorance of the metaphor here and ask why you only make buildings in one color?

You are seeing/hearing language change right in front of you. Like watching "collectable" replace "collectible." That one used to really bother me, but conventions change, and that is life. We all know what green means now. We are getting used to what carbon means.

Two more important points:

1. No one can "make you" feel guilty. Is there something you feel bad about?

2. Regardless of how right you may be, you are not in control of the way other people use the word carbon. You can only control your own use of the word. If you start adding the 'dioxide' back in, maybe other people will too. Or maybe they will just give you weird looks, like the looks I give people who insist on pronouncing 'Feng Shui' as though they were native speakers of Mandarin. (Do you do that too???)

Choose your battles carefully, or you're going to be a very unhappy person.

Carbon neutrality is about offsetting atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane with equal masses of sequestered carbon compounds.

Since carbon dioxide and methane are such a large part of the global warming problem, the processing of carbon compounds into carbon dioxide (and vice versa) is what "carbon neutrality" is about.

So, "carbon" here refers to carbon as an atomic element of each of these different compounds, not to molecular carbon.

One of my own pet peeves along this line is an escalation of language, as in news stories. No one commits murders, they commit brutal murders. It's as if the word murder doesn't convey enough evil or tragedy on its own. Butif someone does something even more horrible, they no longer have a way to express that it is more savage than the murders they describe at other times.

That's the most obvious example, but the same thing happens in other ways. And while I imagine this puts me in the running for curmudgeon of the year, I think the way that use of language desensitizes us is important.

I can't stand it when I hear politicians refer to military abuses as "a few bad apples." Don't they realize the expression ends with "spoil the whole barrel"? Arrrgh! Precisely the opposite of the point they're trying to make!

These aphorisms are important because they convey traditional folk wisdom that is meant to be teachable. To use them incorrectly shows not only astonishing ignorance, but contempt for the very wisdom the phrase is trying to impart! Imagine listening to a White House spokesman say, "We've done a full review of our egg resources, and we are confident that we can accurately predict the future chicken population."

In the apple metaphor, the phrase is a stern warning against the danger of engaging in casual groupthink. The point is that without vigilance we are dangerously corruptible, which seems to be proven true in too many cases.

...or it that ect.? :-)

On the learning curve question/debate/discussion...I always thought saying something "has a steep learning curve" meant that it required a steep learning curve, i.e., you have to gain a lot of knowledge very quickly. So the image of climbing that knowledge vs. time graph makes sense to me. I don't think I've heard of people having a steep learning curve; I think it (almost) always refers to the task or challenge. Or maybe I'm just lucky that I haven't come across really bad usage.

On the language thing...I've been an editor for years, and my pet peeve is people correcting each other's spoken grammar. Or being "outraged" by common misuse. I used to be something of a nitpicker when it came to grammar and usage, and my ears still grate when I hear an "over" that should be "more than", but language evolves. The purpose of language is clear communication, not a test of someone's knowledge of the rules. So let if it's not confusing you, let it go.

(And a big sarcastic thanks to all of you who write to publications to inform them of "the rules" when they make a mistake or let slip a typo. It's very helpful for professional editors to be reminded of the difference between "it's" and "its." Just a humble request from a longtime copy editor: Please keep the smug "gotchas" to yourself. Bask in your superiority without sharing it with us. We put a lot of words out there, and we usually get it right. We know when we made a mistake.)

Note: I'm still a traditionalist when it comes to print, but I'm not going to stop someone mid-sentence to correct their grammar. THAT makes me want to scream.

We can argue all day about the accuracy of "carbon" (and I'm sure we shall), but the greater point is that words have meaning. Correct and precise use is important. Ignorance and imprecision leads to unnecessary brou-ha-has such as that over the word "niggardly," dangerous feel-good legislation, even violence.

Cary does a pretty good job addressing the letter-writer's concern.

For an excellent discussion of the importance of language on thought, please read George Orwell's, "Politics and the English Language," which can be found here:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Unfortunately, Cary was a little indulgent when he veered off into his oblique rant about the Gawker.

Remember, the high road is always best.

I hate it when signifying motherfuckers don't use words literally. I mean, literally, I explode! And stop fornicating with your mom! I'm getting nauseous (2nd definition) climbing this steep un-learning curve!

I do. And the yellow ribbon means we remember they're over there with car bombs and 120 degree heat.

I don't support sending them. I support their getting back in one piece. And impeaching the lying jackass who sent them.

Whichever side of the decision to send them you're on, I think we all agree they should come back safely.

...by someone who only wants to argue about the semantics of words. If we are discussing global warming, and some cad interjects "It's Carbon-Dioxide, not Carbon", the comment has no bearing on the issue we are discussing. Suddenly, everyone veers off into a discussion of the Carbon Cycle and why Carbon is the proper term. In casual conversation, it only matters if there is some possible confusion over the overall topic of conversation. That's my pet peeve... along with the use of "exact same".