Actually, Festool is considered to be a "green" tool company in Germany!!! Because the tools are repairable and long lasting. Therefore we as festool users are creating less waste then, let's say Dewalt users

As for the lumber: Who says that we HAVE to use tropical wood or wood from clear cuttings? There are many many other more sustainable options out there ! Think local! Buy fast growing, like bamboo. I know that bamboo comes from China... but bringing over BIG loads on container ships is more fuel efficient then trucking plywood across NA !

Just my 2 cents...

__________________
Ok, guys I'm German, so please bear with my spelling
www.ecofurniture.ca is my company, focused on sustainable and healthy furniture.


2xCT-Mini, 2xETS125, TS55,OF1400, Domino,MFK 700, 2xMFT3, Kapex,MFT1080,Guide rails, Gecko,Sortainers, Systainers, Lots of Mirka

A little dose of reality from the L.A. Times:

Editorial July 1, 2009
A road map or a road to ruin?

The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has laid out a $500-billion blueprint of highway, bridge, rail and green projects. The problem is, it hasn't found a way to pay for it.

It's remarkable what Congress can do when money is no object, as the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure demonstrated when it put out a blueprint for a reauthorization bill to govern the nation's spending on transportation. It's a cornucopia of goodies that's getting strong reviews from interest groups, mainly because it gives them nearly everything they've been asking for: Environmentalists get a new bureaucracy to encourage green projects, public transit agencies get a big influx of cash, high-speed rail enthusiasts get new trains, and states get billions in additional money to build and improve roads, bridges and highways.

There's just one small detail that has been left out -- so far, the committee hasn't identified a way to pay for any of this. And the price tag is breathtaking: $500 billion over six years, a 53% hike over federal transportation spending in the previous six.

As much as we appreciate getting an advance look at House Democrats' thinking on the transportation bill, they seem to be putting the caboose before the locomotive. The blueprint lays out some forward-thinking ways of reinventing the transportation finance system, whose structure was created in 1956 and is badly in need of an overhaul. But it puts off until later the far more important questions about funding, and without those answers, the blueprint amounts to little more than a utopian fantasy.

Funding is so crucial because it's in such short supply. The federal gasoline tax of 18.3 cents per gallon, which hasn't been raised since 1993, is no longer bringing in enough money to pay even the existing highway bills, let alone allow for the kind of spending hike the House committee is proposing. The situation is so dire, in fact, that the trust fund for highway improvements is on the verge of running dry and is projected to need an emergency infusion of up to $7 billion in September.

The last time Congress passed a transportation reauthorization was 2005, and that bill expires on Sept. 30. To some extent, our current woes are the result of lawmakers' shortsightedness then. It was already clear four years ago that the gas tax was no longer adequate to pay for the country's infrastructure needs, yet Congress made no serious attempt to raise the tax or identify other sources of funding. Among the results are that 37% of lane miles on the National Highway System are in poor or fair condition, one of every four bridges is structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and the percentage increase in miles traveled on the nation's highways is three times the percentage increase in lane miles since 1995. Translation: gridlock, especially in big cities such as Los Angeles.

The administration is seeking to delay the transportation bill for an additional 18 months, urging Congress to draft a shorter bill that would maintain the status quo in the interim. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee responded with a letter to President Obama saying it intends to push ahead regardless.

We'll reserve judgment until we see the committee's funding proposal. But it takes a lot of chutzpah to propose such a huge spending increase in the midst of an economic depression, after the country has racked up nearly $800 billion in stimulus spending and is considering a healthcare plan estimated to cost north of $1 trillion over 10 years. For now, this bill may be a bridge too far.

Just for clarification, yes I study phytoplankton. As it turns out, phytoplankton are one of the main controls on global climate - they don't sequester much CO2, but they maintain a CO2 gradient from the atmosphere to the ocean that helps the ocean suck up excess CO2. Or at least, it used to. It's pretty full.

I have been studying climate-related issues for more than a decade, and I have several recent papers on new indexes of climate change that are relevant to marine ecosystems in the Pacific (and probably the Atlantic too, though they're somewhat uncoupled). So I am, in fact, a world's expert on some aspects of this stuff...

While I'm ashamed to say that I did sort of start this off by saying "Back off, I'm a scientist" (sorry again, Chris), I appreciate that you noticed my approach, Ned. The thing I'd really like to emphasize is that anyone who wants to take the time can have access to these data sets, and can become an expert in this stuff. And when you do, you can draw your own conclusions. But everyone I know who has worked with these data has come to the same general conclusions: humans are causing global climate change in a way that has never happened before. The details will vary, but the general conclusions are pretty obvious once you look at the data, and understand the mechanisms.

And that's the beauty of science. You don't have to believe me. You can go and do it yourself. And I invite you to. Once you look at the data, it would be very interesting to talk, and see what your interpretation is. I've had very smart graduate students who were deeply skeptical, who, through their own research have convinced themselves that human-caused global change is really happening. They were quite surprised to have reached these conclusions, and I should emphasize that it was totally on their own - I didn't do anything except give them a problem to research ("Is it feasible to fertilize the ocean with iron to reduce atmospheric CO2").

So I'd like to think that I'm more than a well-informed layperson. I actually do know what I'm talking about. But more to the point, I'd like for everyone else to stop believing me, the media, or anyone else they talk to, and start doing some research of their own. A well-informed opinion is much more powerful than parroting someone else's (which I'm not suggesting anyone here is doing).

__________________
I don't have as many Festools as Fred

Peter, even though you can sometimes be a pain in the ass , to me, your input here is always among the most valuable. You never take a position without solid data to back it up. I've learned a lot from you on many subjects.

You're absolutely right, everyone may be entitled to an opinion, but the value of that opinion is always going to be in direct proportion to the amount of OBJECTIVE information going in to forming it. When I do research on any issue I look first to those who disagree with me, but have an intellect I can respect.

__________________
John

1 Toolie, 2 XL Festool Polos

Russell, to me, this platitude can be taken a couple of ways:

I love this country so much that in my eyes it can do no wrong.

OR

I will always love this country, even though I know we do make mistakes.

__________________
John

1 Toolie, 2 XL Festool Polos

I would make an argument that should be one of the last things you should look at if at all -- doing so tends to polarize your position (however so slightly) based on personality and makes it somewhat subjective. I take your point that isn't all of what you base your opinion on but again I believe it should be analytical problem solving that forms your outcome.

__________________
a 2009 Festool® catalog, 2010 Festool® catalog supplement requested.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra (1925-)

"Whether you THINK YOU CAN, or THINK YOU CAN'T, You're right!"

"When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don't adjust the goals, adjust the action steps." Confucius (551-479 BCE) philosopher

What John does is give a fair reading to the sources given by his "opponents". That's an admirable approach even if his opinion is ultimately subjective (as all our opinions probably are). If you make an analytical decision based only on what you see on Fox News (or only on MSNBC) you haven't come close to objectivity.

Stated in that manor I have to agree. Most people become polarized by "opponent" opinions and the "research" is a search to disprove the opponent argument.

__________________
a 2009 Festool® catalog, 2010 Festool® catalog supplement requested.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra (1925-)

"Whether you THINK YOU CAN, or THINK YOU CAN'T, You're right!"

"When it is obvious that the goals cannot be reached, don't adjust the goals, adjust the action steps." Confucius (551-479 BCE) philosopher

YouTube - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Just watch and think about it...

__________________
Ok, guys I'm German, so please bear with my spelling
www.ecofurniture.ca is my company, focused on sustainable and healthy furniture.


2xCT-Mini, 2xETS125, TS55,OF1400, Domino,MFK 700, 2xMFT3, Kapex,MFT1080,Guide rails, Gecko,Sortainers, Systainers, Lots of Mirka

I agree, Michael, none of us can help but have our opinions formed to some degree by our experiences in life, and the facts be damned. On the up side, the longer we have been around, (if we have been paying attention) the more likely it is that we can rely on our instincts. If history is truly the best teacher, the more of history we have lived ourselves, the more we SHOULD have learned.

On the subject of global warming, I see the more extreme postion taken that it is not happening at all, despite evidence to the contrary. Less extreme is the position that even if it is occurring, the evidence is still shakey on how much human activity is causing it, and how much is due to normal weather pattern fluctuations that have occurred throughout the history of the earth.

However, no matter where we individually stand on this, I think few would disagree that the fewer pollutants from fossil fuels we spew into the atmosphere every day, the better off we all are, in many ways.

The question is, how do we accomplish that without completely destroying our economy? President Obama has been frequently telling us (oh so frequently) that he's going to create a new "green" economy, with 3 million-5 million new "green" jobs. He telling us that by 2015 we will be driving hybrid cars that get 150 mpg, and that by 2016 the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) will be 35.5 mpg, including trucks. He says that by 2020 our production of "renewable" energy will free us from our dependence on foreign oil. All laudible goals, but "where's the beef"?

Every report on the future of energy in our country says essentially that, at best, wind and/or solar energy can be counted on to supply under 5% of our total needs, so what will we do for the other 95%? The ethanol program has been a total fiasco, and has proven that its use will probably never be economically feasible. The battery technology doesn't yet exist to power either hybrids or totally electric vehicles any practical distance. They've been working hard on battery technology for decades, how likely is it that major breakthoughs will happen by 2015? Congress may have ordered the CAFE to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, but ordering something and accomplishing it are two different things. Most car manufacturers make little or no profit on the small, fuel efficient cars, but they have traditionally made up for that with the ample profits on the bigger cars. Obviously, in the future they'll no longer be able to that, so what will their business model be then?

I know these are all pesky little details, but shouldn't they be addressed before investing hundreds of billions of BORROWED money on nothing more than the "audacity of hope". I know that the majority of Americans still think that Obama can walk on water, but what will we have left when they find out that he can't?

__________________
John

1 Toolie, 2 XL Festool Polos