XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, alt.tv.stargate-sg1   
   XPost: uk.media.tv.misc   
   From: your.name@isp.com   
      
    wrote in message   
   news:ukn5a7-7e.ln1@librarian.sky.com...   
   > And verily, didst Your Name  hastily babble thusly:   
   > > Yeah, right. They've been saying that for decades.   
   > >   
   > > Even if (extremely unlikely) the iPad and clones meant an end to paper   
   books   
   > > / magazines / newspapers, you'll probably find that it causes even more   
   > > trees to be chooped down to be burnt to generate electricity or   
   something   
   > > ... just like so-called "green" cars are actually no better, maybe even   
   > > worse, for the environment than petrol / diesel cars are.   
   >   
   > The thing that gets me with all the recycling crap is...   
   > "Recycled paper, it's better for the environment!"   
   > No   
   > No, it isn't.   
   > Why would it be?   
   > If you grow a forest specifically to be harvested and turned into paper,   
   > constantly planting new trees as mature ones are shopped down, NEW paper   
   is   
   > greener. Trees stop absorbing CO2 once they mature, all the CO2 they take   
   up   
   > goes into growth, that wood is made of CO2 and water and little else.   
   >   
   > So new paper is a VERY good carbon sink, unless it's burned.   
   >   
   > OK, recycle metals and plastics, but cardboard and paper... pointless.   
      
   It probably uses more chemicals and pollution (compared to new paper) just   
   to make the recycled stuff white enough to use as well.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)