Quote Originally Posted by Simon R Galley View Post
costs significantly more to produce ... being eco friendly is not always cheap....but it is the correct thing to do.
I'll grant it is the correct thing to do.

But I will also posit that the lowest cost solution is often also the least polluting. Pathological exceptions abound, of course. If something now takes more labor you have to factor in all the pollution that the labor creates - not the direct pollution, which is trivial - but the indirect pollution. One man-year of labor produces, as a side effect, one family-year's worth of pollution: one years worth of gasoline, electricity, garbage, household waste, sewage, tires, scrapped automobiles ...

Making pollution costs money: It doesn't grow on trees, you know.

Now just to figure out what to do with all the UPU's - "Unemployed Polluting Units."

On Topic: When Kodak packaged 35mm in foil they first inserted the cassette in a cardboard tube. I used to think it was for crush resistance but it may have allowed them to use automated bagging machinery as it kept the film tongue from getting caught in the machinery. Crush resistance wouldn't have made sense: the tube was far more crush-able than the cassette.