🚀 go-pugleaf

Gary Hibbard <garyhibb@teleport.com> writes:

>Well, it seems that the price of the recycled paper must exceed that of 
>new unused stuff. I can't blame a business person for saving money and not 
>loosing customers who are into recycling. I don't see this as the fault of 
>the business person. A good question is why is the new stuff cheaper?

While I can't blame businesses for using the most cost-effective solution
possible for thier supply needs, what bugs me about it (and probably what
offends the original poster) is the cynical attitude about recycling
that the company promting the faux-recycled product has.

Recycling is a good and necessary thing.  Apparently to some it's nothing
more than a marketing gimmick, which I suppose is fine, as long as they
*actually*use* recycled product.

To do else is ethically suspect and just a tad dishonest, IMHO.

There are some items I choose because they are recycled.  If some company
started merely using things that *look* recycled in order to please me
and the other consumers to whom this is important, I'd drop them like a
hot stone.

And the new stuff is cheaper because it costs less to make things out
of raw materials than it does to extract usable materials from waste
and use them instead.

...Justin the Blue

--
  As Seen On | Justin the Blue * SunDial Earth Station * eagle@agora.rdrop.com
  ___ _    _ | The revolution's being televised: see alt.religion.scientology
   |   \  /  | President-for-life:Golden Gate Bridge Club
   |    \/   | Better living through the Lambert Conformal Projection * KSC