H
Hydrogen
Guest
Using grains and other food crops for fuel is already driving up the price of those items.
Per the article at the beginning of this thread, it's costing the city at least a million, and that's just for the demo model.Why woulkd the 'idea' of collecting rainwater, cost millions?
In Canada we should be using wood fibre (cellulose) instead of food crops for ethanol production. With the high dollar killing our lumber exports, we'll have plenty of fibre available.Using grains and other food crops for fuel is already driving up the price of those items.
The question we need to ask in these trying financial times for Toronto is how does converting Toronto's buses to bio-fuels save the city any money?
Well, you can answer your own question by looking at the city's finances, costs and revenue. The city is not permitted to go into deficit spending, so if you want to afford to do "everything possible" to save the environment, where are you suggesting the city get that money from?Actually, the question we need to be asking is can we afford not to do everything possible in order to save the environment.
As for the the accused willful disdain for the earth and its people, since when do you get to speak on their behalf? That stance is a tad bit arrogant, don't you think?
My wagon is as follows....invest in the environment when you have the money, and find the money if you don't have it. I'm not saying put the environment behind economics. Look at it from a household's perspective. Your income is just barely sufficient to cover your housing, food and clothing expenses. You want to spend household income on the environment projects, such as low flush toilets and improved windows and such, but you first need to find some more money, or cut back on housing, food and clothing expenses, while still managing to pay for public transit, etc.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.
Andrea's the only one who seems to get it, that if you want the city to invest in the environment then you need to get the money to invest, likely through, as Andrea suggests, massive tax and user fee increases.