[Hydrogen]

Using grains and other food crops for fuel is already driving up the price of those items.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Why woulkd the 'idea' of collecting rainwater, cost millions?

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.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Using grains and other food crops for fuel is already driving up the price of those items.

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.

 

[Hydrogen]

Many (though not all) biofuels actually create more greenhouse gases (N2O) than traditional hydrocarbon fuels.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

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?

Actually, the question we need to be asking is can we afford not to do everything possible in order to save the environment. Because if we don't, there is no point in saving money, because we won't be here to spend it.

 

[Hydrogen]

That's a rather dire conclusion. Based on such a gloomy assessment, one could suggest shutting society down altogether so as to save the environment.

 

[Hipster Duck]

No offense, Hydrogen, but having read your posts for over a year I can only take it that you have a cavalier, if not contumacious attitude toward saving the environment.

You diss Al Gore, you don't believe in global warming, you think the TTC should not strive to get its power from green sources and now, for some reason, you are admantly against using rainwater to flush sewage away from a public toilet.

What prompts you to show such wilfull disdain for the earth and people who go out of their way to save it? I mean, I don't believe in spending charity money on little league sports, but it's not like I'm down at the mall every Sunday harassing children selling chocolate almonds for their hockey team.

 

[Hydrogen]

Disobedient to authority? What "authority" am I being disobedient to? Al Gore?

Please.

I don't have disdain towards either the earth or the people. No offense, but that's your willful misinterpretation speaking. If you have read this thread you would have noted that I have not made any argument against using rainwater to flush sewage away from public toilets.

The TTC can try to get its power from so-called green sources such as solar and wind (the article in question never mentioned hydro or nuclear power), but it will pay a very high price for such sources. That cost will be passed onto the user - that or some other portion of the system will have to go without the funds. Mass transit is already a net plus for the environment, making it more costly to satisfy desires to look green will have financial implications for an already cash-strapped transit system.

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? When did you get a corner on pronouncing what is correct conduct and attitude? If you have been reading (with obvious inaccuracy) what I've written as you so claim you would note that I find many of the arguments for environmental gloom and doom way over the top. There is considerable evidence to support this point of view, and just because you choose to ignore it does not mean that this evidence does not exist.

 

[Zephyr]

Here We Go Again

I am trying, really trying, not to dive into this conversation ... the water appears to be polluted.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Actually, the question we need to be asking is can we afford not to do everything possible in order to save the environment.

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?

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Toll the roads - no one gets off the 401, the DVP and the Gardiner without paying. Raise the car registration tax, and double that for 2d cars. Press the federal and provincial government to raise the laughably low gasoline taxes.

 

[Hipster Duck]

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?

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.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Hipster Duck]

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.

I understand that too. I'd be perfectly happy if user fee increases went directly toward environmental initiatives. Better yet, I would support Pigovian taxes like some of the ones AP mentioned to help pay for these kinds of green programs.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Coupled with that is the fact that people are going to have to change their behaviour. Walk more, drive less, use less plastic, know their farmers, use more natural products.