That should be environmentally, not governmentally but either is more or
less true...
P. J. Alling wrote:
> Actually, you have to ask how much it costs governmentally to produce
> the batteries in the first place. If you're going to do that math to
> start with that is.
>
> Boris Liberman wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 12/27/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Developing sustainable low or non-polluting energy sources enabling travel
>>>> is preferable to not going anywhere, or making everyone live within
>>>> people-power distance from their employment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I agree that non-polluting energy sources are preferable, but I'd
>>> advocate shorter distance from home to work for a far more practical
>>> reason; traffic jam. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Shame on you ;-). Shite - I still will have to do my morning jam routine
>> today. By the way, in the office they agreed that I'd work from home
>> up until jam is over and only then arrive. It makes my air somewhat
>> fresher everyday ;-).
>>
>> As usual, gentlemen, one has to take into account the pollution that has
>> to be produced in order to produce these so called non-polluting energy
>> sources. Take for example hybrid cars. I am afraid that if all these
>> batteries it carries are disposed improperly - much damage will be done
>> to the good old Mother Earth.
>>
>> However the doomsday will come anyway, regardless ;-).
>>
>> Boris
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler.
--Albert Einstein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
