It probably cost them significantly more than the value of the materials they recovered - otherwise everyone would be doing it.
But I don't think they did this only for the publicity. They're probably hoping that it will eventually become a cost-effective, worthwhile practice for them and others. I commend them for taking the risk and pioneering the effort on a significant scale.
However, I generally hate the concept of the "carbon footprint," because it may spur thinking that's completely backwards. I realize I'm more sensitive because my natural inclinations come very close to this warped way of thinking already. It's good that I conserve resources, and I love to buy used. But my problem is that in the process of conserving I can become passive, failing to fully leverage the resources I have (or am able to attain) to create more new resources for positive change.
So while the carbon footprint idea has good intentions, it also has a warped side. That warped side is the concept that I'm just a bother on the earth, and my main objective is to spoil it as little as possible before I leave. But the reality is that the earth was made for us to do things in it and with it and for each other. Each of us can add to the environment - and here the environment is not just air, land and water. The environment is also people and societies and how we make their lives better. We can help a grandmother by assisting her across the street, but we can also help by designing mobile phones or applications that allow she and her grandchildren to better share their lives with each other.
Often the good we do profits us as well. I think this is where people get confused - attributing the work we do to selfishness or survival alone.
I believe our main objective is to make sure we leave a big footprint on this earth.
But I don't think they did this only for the publicity. They're probably hoping that it will eventually become a cost-effective, worthwhile practice for them and others. I commend them for taking the risk and pioneering the effort on a significant scale.
However, I generally hate the concept of the "carbon footprint," because it may spur thinking that's completely backwards. I realize I'm more sensitive because my natural inclinations come very close to this warped way of thinking already. It's good that I conserve resources, and I love to buy used. But my problem is that in the process of conserving I can become passive, failing to fully leverage the resources I have (or am able to attain) to create more new resources for positive change.
So while the carbon footprint idea has good intentions, it also has a warped side. That warped side is the concept that I'm just a bother on the earth, and my main objective is to spoil it as little as possible before I leave. But the reality is that the earth was made for us to do things in it and with it and for each other. Each of us can add to the environment - and here the environment is not just air, land and water. The environment is also people and societies and how we make their lives better. We can help a grandmother by assisting her across the street, but we can also help by designing mobile phones or applications that allow she and her grandchildren to better share their lives with each other.
Often the good we do profits us as well. I think this is where people get confused - attributing the work we do to selfishness or survival alone.
I believe our main objective is to make sure we leave a big footprint on this earth.