doady
Senior Member
Just because something is more environmentally friendly doesn't mean it costs more money and is less efficient. Usually it is the other way around.
But the list of environmental projects included above all cost a lot of money, especially since the existing systems are already in place and usually already paid for, less maintenence costs.Just because something is more environmentally friendly doesn't mean it costs more money and is less efficient. Usually it is the other way around.
Sorry, I went back to the archives and I remembered this quote of yours:
"I have no issue whatsoever with any individual who has concerns with the environment, or with the impact that human activity can have on it."
On that account, then, I was wrong. I apologize.
But I'm still scratching my head as to why you are jumping on Beez's wagon; increasingly, putting the environment behind economics seems to be like joining the flat earth society. You seem to lend your commentary to a disproportionate number of environmental threads, which sometimes comes off like Jesse Jackson jetting around between every civil rights case in the US giving his two cents. That was what I meant about being 'wilfully stubborn'.
You've said that collecting rainwater for toilets is 'impractical', but, every day, your average toilet mixes about a litre of nitrogen-rich urine with maybe a quarter of a pound of pathogenic fecal matter and then uses 60 L of drinking-grade water (if you have a low-flush toilet) to remove it to an overloaded sewage treatment plant. If cities had been plumbed separately from the start this kind of inefficient and, wasteful (pun) nonsense would not be on the map. If we must reduce every decision down to dollars and cents, there is even a case for doing this in the long run, ignoring the case for social responsibility, or even just good PR.
Your income is just barely sufficient to cover your housing, food and clothing expenses.
know their farmers...