> Using energy is surely wasteful when you don't have to.
I guess we have to define a need. Surly there will be a disagreement
among individuals.
> I wasn't referring to the cost to you, but to the planet. That's 117w more
> than a picture uses (after allowing for its manufacture, of course).
How can you disregard the cost of manufacture for a print? That's like
saying the price of petrol in the US has nothing to do with our defense
budget. I think my little photo frame can display many thousands of
photos for weeks and weeks for the price of a few prints. Even
considering the real cost of the display. Don't get me wrong, I do like
a few prints. Problem is lack of wall space in our humble abode. Now I
could do an addition...but that would be wasteful :)
Mike
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|