Eco-Friendly Photography? Inkjet/Digi or Silver? or ?

[paulr]

That's not the total issue, Paul. Don't forget the energy needed to produce the food

i didn' forget it. i'm suggesting that in order to find an energy cost for food that's sixteen times that of gasoline, you'd have to rig things pretty far in favor of that conclusion. keep in mind that for both food and gas, but much moreso for food, there's a huge range of potential energy cost.

[adrian tyler]

still sounds a bit wild to me too, say they ran the numbers against a veg-head, or someone who just has a little meat every now and agian.

i was recently working in a nucler power station and they had displayed a whole study of our "energy footprint", from primitive man to modern man. whichever way you look at it and no matter how eco-concious you are, we are way beyond this planets means.

[Greg Lockrey]

i didn' forget it. i'm suggesting that in order to find an energy cost for food that's sixteen times that of gasoline, you'd have to rig things pretty far in favor of that conclusion. keep in mind that for both food and gas, but much moreso for food, there's a huge range of potential energy cost.

And don't forget the gas that's needed to produce the food...

Here is the article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2195538.ece

And it's a British source so it has to be true...

[Ed K.]

A couple more thoughts:

• The corporations often respond to what people are purchasing. If nobody purchases enough of something, then generally corporations find no profit in making those things, so they cease production. This is one way the actions of individuals do make a difference.
• Carbon footprint is just one part of the picture.
• The lifespan of a product makes a lot of difference. Durable goods, if they are well-designed, can make a difference. For example, if one purchases a really great pair of scissors for 100 bucks to cut film, and then the scissors outlast that person, another person can use those scissors perhaps for a lifetime. But a cheap pair of scissors that lasts just a few months before worn out due to their poor quality and design - those scissors are quite wasteful. For my part, I bought a pair of scissors that cost $140 bucks. I'm pretty sure that if people need scissors 200 years from now, somebody will use mine. Otherwise, just melt them down and use the steel.
• I would rather not get into political discussions about capitalism here - all I can say is that capitalism did build much of the technology, so using it, is using a product of capitalism. In other words, it's not that bad - at least we have technology. To debate that sort of issue, I suggest we move that to a lounge if anybody wishes.
• The principle of reuse was mentioned, a good one at that. But what of others such as "reduce"?. Changing to a newer, faster computer because one's software is bloated and inefficient inside (doesn't matter which vendor - all, repeat all operating systems and major applications are bloated these days), and then doing that change every couple of years is not reducing. Reducing would be stripping out old code before releasing the next version of software - that takes time, but overall, it saves so much equipment. Having non-proprietary ink cartridge systems / tanks - that would be reducing. There are ways.

Does anyone think that silver darkroom work might actually produce less pollution overall if properly handled? Or carbon printing perhaps?

Again, good thoughts all. Keep those thoughts coming!