I have heard this numerous times from a lot of different (lay)people, while having casual conversation about photography over the years: "isn't Digital is better for the environment?" ,"Film photography is very bad for the environment" . . . . .. . . .. etc. so. . .. . So it got me thinking! and here are my questions. 1. What, if any, decisions that were made at kodak, Ilford, fuji corp., Foma, Agfa, etc.. .to make available Digital to the masses, were "informed" by outside pressure? i.e. constituents from environmental groups, EPA, etc. . . I was kind of thinking sometime between late 80's and early nineties when there seemed to be a tipping point, or a point of no return. 2. wether you are mining for the chemicals for film or mining for computers and DSLRS, Isn't still "raping" the land, as some put it. I mean computers and the like, still need special metals? correct? 3. I am assuming people want to buy products as long as its NOT made "in their backyard"! with that said, Did most people quite film due to "guilty" feelings about films' environmental impact? or was based solely on speed, ease and convenience. 4. Is Film photography ( in total, from mining raw materials, to machining, to packaging" ) any more hostile to human people then say . . . . The auto industry? 5. Was Digital capture co-opted by environmental groups, thinking it was going to be a better choice than continuing film, and did that back fire on them?