Or use http://www.ecofont.com/
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.
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.
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.
(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.)
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.
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?
It is not zero sum because of depleting of soil's carbon pool and other resources.
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)
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.