I definitely agree that that's an upper bound!
Can we tighten it a bit?
For example, no fair counting medical costs -- you'll pay for those 
yourself later.

(That website really doesn't deserve to be looked at.  55 square feet of 
rainforest lost per hamburger?	Puh-leez.)

New proposal: set aside for an environmental charity an amount equal to 
what you spend on environmentally unfriendly products, including 
factory-farmed animal products.

Who's in on that one?


--- \/	 FROM Erica O'Connor AT 07.01.26 11:10 (Today)	 \/ ---

> (very) aproximately 100 yootles per hamburger
> http://www.spirulinasource.com/earthfoodch7a.html
> -Erica
>
>> I have a proposal:  let's estimate the long term
>> environmental cost of
>> eating a hamburger (ideas on how solicited -- don't
>> say it's impossible,
>> we can at least put an upper bound on it) and pledge
>> to set aside that
>> much money for an environmental charity per
>> hamburger (etc) we eat.

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  search://"Daniel Reeves"

"Die?  That's the last thing I'll do!"
   -- final words of Lord Palmerston