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/

On Mon, 23 May 2005 03:09:31 +0100, "Miss Perspicacia Tick"
wrote:


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.

Though I don't want to continue the argument you don't wish to start,
I just wanted to say that my dictionary *does* define less as fewer...
but qualifies that defintion by saying that this hasn't yet been
accepted by pedants. Well the actual words were... not universally
accepted. ;-)

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.

Andy

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
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.

My use of the word "Less" was quite sensible. But that doesn't really
matter.

Let me say that what you are doing is very worthy, but I think you haven't
understood my main point. The paper used to write the cheque is of course
trivial. But pause to reflect on what happens next! The cheque is cashed for
money. The money is used to buy goods or services which CONSUME MORE
RESOURCES. Excuse me shouting, but I'm trying to emphasise the main thrust
of my argument.
The point is, that in a capitalist society, when an individual or company
manages to reduce energy usage, they simply save more money to spend on more
resources. There isn't much you can do about it, except perhaps take
currency and destroy it. If you keep it in a bank, they will invest it,
which means it is gobbling up resources while you sleep!
I agree that sending supplies to disadvantaged kids is a good thing, but
surely you must see that on a very basic level, this is consuming more
energy and resources...

Regards

Martin

On Mon, 23 May 2005 22:01:57 +0100, "Martin"
wrote:

Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
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.

My use of the word "Less" was quite sensible. But that doesn't really
matter.

Let me say that what you are doing is very worthy, but I think you haven't
understood my main point. The paper used to write the cheque is of course
trivial. But pause to reflect on what happens next! The cheque is cashed for
money. The money is used to buy goods or services which CONSUME MORE
RESOURCES. Excuse me shouting, but I'm trying to emphasise the main thrust
of my argument.
The point is, that in a capitalist society, when an individual or company
manages to reduce energy usage, they simply save more money to spend on more
resources. There isn't much you can do about it, except perhaps take
currency and destroy it. If you keep it in a bank, they will invest it,
which means it is gobbling up resources while you sleep!
I agree that sending supplies to disadvantaged kids is a good thing, but
surely you must see that on a very basic level, this is consuming more
energy and resources...

Regards

Martin



Absolutely right and crystal clear.



Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk