Martin wrote:
Surely, it's how much fuel a person uses in total which determines
his/her 'transport' contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, not
the efficiency of one of the vehicles he may use?

I try not to use any. My system is hibernated every night - and I
don't drive. I recycle as much as I possibly can (I would do more but
our local council doesn't take high-density polyurethane (HDPE) which
is what the tops of the milk 'tanks' you can buy in most supermarkets
are made from). I refill my ink cartridges, and I never print unless
it's absolutely necessary, then the results, if not used, are turned
into phone pads.

You must save quite a lot of money doing these things. What do you
spend the money on that you saved? It's highly likely that you spend
it on things or services that consume resources.

Ultimately, to make a real difference, there simply needs to be less
of us on this planet.

Though I'm not planning to leave anytime soon myself...

Regards

Martin

I won't start on the 'less' vs 'fewer' arguement, except to say 'fewer' is
the correct word in this context as less is applied to things which cannot
be quantified - e.g. weight, time, etc.

Of the things I mentioned, only the ink cartridges affect me directly as I
live at home and the other savings are passed on to my parents who pay the
bills.

I tot it up every six months, and the last lot was donated to Afrikids, a
charity started by a girl I was at school with to provide educational
materials to children in, er, Africa (though she has extended her range and
has started sending supplies to build a school for street kids in Colombia,
Peru and Bolivia). Don't see how that impacts the planet (except in a
positive way) unless you count the paper used to print the cheque.

--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/