7 Jul
2010
7 Jul
'10
10:28 a.m.
Excerpts from andy baxter's message of 2010-07-07 10:08:09 +0200:
On 07/07/10 08:55, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
I didn't even think that far, both minerals and non-renewable energy
sources are exhaustive, so my question more or less was: what's
exhausted first?
Eventually both will need to be 'renewable'.
Which reminds me of a little strange idea I had:
Get the people to strive for renewability instead of profits.
Competition for something worthwhile that benefits everyone, doesn't it
sound nice? :)
--
Regards,
Philipp
--
"Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen
offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan
The only problem with old gear is power
consumption. I don't know what's
worse from a purely ecological point of view. Most power is still
generated from non-renewable sources.
I think it's pretty hard to say - any comparison of this sort ends up
comparing two or more quite different problems (e.g. global warming from
fossil fuel use versus local water pollution from copper mining). People
try to put numbers on this sort of thing, but the methods they use are
often pretty suspect.
andy