4 ms·

Or use http://www.ecofont.com/ http://www.ecofont.com/

by ozh 13y ago

colechristensen 13y ago
This feels very much like greenwashing, selling you a product that makes you feel like you're doing something positive for the environment which actually has extraordinarily minimal impact. I'm sure there are a thousand things a person could do to lessen their impact before toner usage becomes a priority. I would be very irritated if anybody handed me something with compromised readability (letters filled with holes) to save a fraction of a penny in toner.
- collyw 13y ago
  There is a word for it, "greenwashing". I have noticed this numerous times, where something is sold as green, but at the end of the day, it produces more consumption, not less. Biofuels are a perfect example in my opinion, as they are just burning more crap and polluting the air. Only if the fuels are grown on what was previously concrete does the whole green argument about biofuels make any sense.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Eh? Your criticism makes no sense. Burning a fossil fuel means taking an existing source of captured carbon and releasing it into the air. Using biofuels means burning the fuel, releasing carbon into the air... then recapturing the carbon in the next batch of fuel to be grown. Plants don't just spring out of the ether - they're made of carbon, taken from the air. It's a zero sum game, unlike fossil fuels. No concrete required.
    - collyw 13y ago
      So a tree is growing before biofuels were developed. Say biofuels did not get developed, the tree is still there converting carbon dioxide to oxygen and hydrogen. (Generally a positive thing for the environment). Now someone develops biofuels. Convert the tree to biofuels, and burns them. One less tree, more CO2 (generally a bad thing for the environment). Whats difficult to understand about that? Now if you plant another tree on what was a piece of concrete, and burn that, THEN you have a zero sum game. I imagine most of the biofuels are being grown on lands which previously had (non-biofuel) plants growing rather than on concrete.
      - maxerickson 13y ago
        Trees and plants are a short term carbon sink, rotting releases most of the carbon back into the air. (So a tree does store carbon as it grows, but there is probably a sensible separation between a few hundred years in a tree and geologic carbon. "Biochar" is one idea towards sinking carbon, the charred material doesn't rot as quickly.)
      - vacri 13y ago
        Stop being fixated on reclaiming concrete. If you clear a section of forest for crops and burn the harvested wood, you have one carbon release. Now you grow crops for biofuels, you capture some carbon back. Convert to fuel and burn it, another carbon release. Grow crops again and you have sequestered the carbon again. Overall, you get the net effect of one large carbon release. But you can't do the same with fossil fuels - all fossil fuels are carbon releases, and that carbon is never recaptured by the process. The 'green argument' is that after setup, there is little in the way of new carbon being introduced, which is very much not the case with fossil fuels. Separating your recyclable garbage doesn't mean you don't still generate non-recyclable garbage and throw that out, yet doing this has helped reduce strain on landfills and has had a host of other benefits. From your argument here, because we don't turn recyclables back into the original oil or wood they came from, it's not worth doing.
        collyw 13y ago
        Well fossil fuels were plants a while back. I guess it is a balance between having the carbon in / on the ground, or in the air in CO2 form. Encouraging people to burn biofuels will only put more of it in the air, or is there some evidence of less fossil fuels being burnt since biofuels were developed?
    - anonymfus 13y ago
      I had similar misunderstanding before reading comments from biologist http://www.reddit.com/u/Unidan http://www.reddit.com/u/Unidan on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1a16ga/earths_northernmost_regions_have_greened_due_to/c8tbjbd http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1a16ga/earths_north... It is not zero sum because of depleting of soil's carbon pool and other resources.
      - vacri 13y ago
        I think you're overemphasising Unidan's comments. Unidan is talking about plantations of trees, not crops (edit: trees have a much greater reach and ability to pull nutrients from the ground). Yes, if you clear a forest for the crops the first time you get a net release, but after that, you're basically recycling carbon. True, you might get a small amount of carbon drawn from the soil, but the vast bulk of a plant's mass comes from carbon in the air. In any case, it's still far, far better than having the entirety of the carbon in the fuel pulled fresh from long-term stores - the maligned 'green argument' above. (edit: I am also a biologist by training, though not an ecologist as Unidan claims)
  - colechristensen 13y ago
    >There is a word for it, "greenwashing". Yes, that would be the 6th word I wrote. >Biofuels are a perfect example in my opinion Biofuels are an awful example because biofuels are complicated. The carbon accounting for growing bio-fuel crops vs. food crops vs. not farming, vs. managing the land for environmental purposes.... the pollution accounting by replacing petroleum with bio-fuels... the complex production costs and effects. Some biofuels are certainly better than others, but I don't think anybody with domain knowledge would propose none of them have positive impact. Reducing fuel consumption is a separate issue from choosing the best fuel source, conflating the two isn't productive.
dghf 13y ago
Or just print everything in 75% grey?
sweedy 13y ago
funny enough, they have not even written their own FAQ or manuals with this font

Or use http://www.ecofont.com/ http://www.ecofont.com/

by ozh 13y ago

Or use http://www.ecofont.com/ http://www.ecofont.com/

This feels very much like greenwashing, selling you a product that makes you feel like you're doing something positive for the environment which actually has extraordinarily minimal impact. I'm sure there are a thousand things a person could do to lessen their impact before toner usage becomes a priority. I would be very irritated if anybody handed me something with compromised readability (letters filled with holes) to save a fraction of a penny in toner.

collyw 13y ago
There is a word for it, "greenwashing". I have noticed this numerous times, where something is sold as green, but at the end of the day, it produces more consumption, not less. Biofuels are a perfect example in my opinion, as they are just burning more crap and polluting the air. Only if the fuels are grown on what was previously concrete does the whole green argument about biofuels make any sense.
- vacri 13y ago
  Eh? Your criticism makes no sense. Burning a fossil fuel means taking an existing source of captured carbon and releasing it into the air. Using biofuels means burning the fuel, releasing carbon into the air... then recapturing the carbon in the next batch of fuel to be grown. Plants don't just spring out of the ether - they're made of carbon, taken from the air. It's a zero sum game, unlike fossil fuels. No concrete required.
  - collyw 13y ago
    So a tree is growing before biofuels were developed. Say biofuels did not get developed, the tree is still there converting carbon dioxide to oxygen and hydrogen. (Generally a positive thing for the environment). Now someone develops biofuels. Convert the tree to biofuels, and burns them. One less tree, more CO2 (generally a bad thing for the environment). Whats difficult to understand about that? Now if you plant another tree on what was a piece of concrete, and burn that, THEN you have a zero sum game. I imagine most of the biofuels are being grown on lands which previously had (non-biofuel) plants growing rather than on concrete.
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      Trees and plants are a short term carbon sink, rotting releases most of the carbon back into the air. (So a tree does store carbon as it grows, but there is probably a sensible separation between a few hundred years in a tree and geologic carbon. "Biochar" is one idea towards sinking carbon, the charred material doesn't rot as quickly.)
    - vacri 13y ago
      Stop being fixated on reclaiming concrete. If you clear a section of forest for crops and burn the harvested wood, you have one carbon release. Now you grow crops for biofuels, you capture some carbon back. Convert to fuel and burn it, another carbon release. Grow crops again and you have sequestered the carbon again. Overall, you get the net effect of one large carbon release. But you can't do the same with fossil fuels - all fossil fuels are carbon releases, and that carbon is never recaptured by the process. The 'green argument' is that after setup, there is little in the way of new carbon being introduced, which is very much not the case with fossil fuels. Separating your recyclable garbage doesn't mean you don't still generate non-recyclable garbage and throw that out, yet doing this has helped reduce strain on landfills and has had a host of other benefits. From your argument here, because we don't turn recyclables back into the original oil or wood they came from, it's not worth doing.
      - collyw 13y ago
        Well fossil fuels were plants a while back. I guess it is a balance between having the carbon in / on the ground, or in the air in CO2 form. Encouraging people to burn biofuels will only put more of it in the air, or is there some evidence of less fossil fuels being burnt since biofuels were developed?
  - anonymfus 13y ago
    I had similar misunderstanding before reading comments from biologist http://www.reddit.com/u/Unidan http://www.reddit.com/u/Unidan on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1a16ga/earths_northernmost_regions_have_greened_due_to/c8tbjbd http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1a16ga/earths_north... It is not zero sum because of depleting of soil's carbon pool and other resources.
    - vacri 13y ago
      I think you're overemphasising Unidan's comments. Unidan is talking about plantations of trees, not crops (edit: trees have a much greater reach and ability to pull nutrients from the ground). Yes, if you clear a forest for the crops the first time you get a net release, but after that, you're basically recycling carbon. True, you might get a small amount of carbon drawn from the soil, but the vast bulk of a plant's mass comes from carbon in the air. In any case, it's still far, far better than having the entirety of the carbon in the fuel pulled fresh from long-term stores - the maligned 'green argument' above. (edit: I am also a biologist by training, though not an ecologist as Unidan claims)
- colechristensen 13y ago
  >There is a word for it, "greenwashing". Yes, that would be the 6th word I wrote. >Biofuels are a perfect example in my opinion Biofuels are an awful example because biofuels are complicated. The carbon accounting for growing bio-fuel crops vs. food crops vs. not farming, vs. managing the land for environmental purposes.... the pollution accounting by replacing petroleum with bio-fuels... the complex production costs and effects. Some biofuels are certainly better than others, but I don't think anybody with domain knowledge would propose none of them have positive impact. Reducing fuel consumption is a separate issue from choosing the best fuel source, conflating the two isn't productive.

dghf 13y ago

Or just print everything in 75% grey?

sweedy 13y ago

funny enough, they have not even written their own FAQ or manuals with this font