Kill It - The Tree Won’t Feel a Thing
December 31, 2007 by Marcus
There’s a very interesting post over at the Long Tail by Chris Anderson proposing that print publishing may be better for the environment than web publishing:
So by this analysis dead-tree magazines have a smaller net carbon footprint than web media. We cut down trees and put them in the ground. From a climate change perspective, this is a good thing.
As we’ve said before, the environment issue is a big onion with many layers to it - Anderson could even be right (though it doesn’t feel that way, does it?). Regardless, it would be interesting to see him tell us the cost of delivering a copy of digital Wired compared to print. Typically, that number is subject to a bit less creativity and analysis.
Read the post. Read the comments, too. It’s always fun to watch smart people argue. 
I read the post, and well, IMHO I find a number of the premises quite flawed. That’s not to damn the printing industry. They have a product, it’s currently needed, so that’s a good thing. (I find it wrong to criticize the auto makers when we’re the ones doing all the driving and bigger and sportier vehicles, demanding more features, more room, multiple LCD screens, etc. Then complaining why MPG hasn’t gone up? Well, gee folks, we didn’t have 1,000 watt stereo systems with surround sound and 4 LCD screens in our mini-vans 15 yrs ago. The power has to come from somewhere - namely, your MPG.) So no reason to come down on the print publishers either.
But, the arguments I see against digital are very flawed and based on some very week premises. All that said, many comments point to some great aspects for digital publishers to look into - such as ways to reduce both their carbon and environmental footprints.
- hydro or renewable energy for servers (or credit equivalents as at present many top tier hosting locations are not available on such power connections)
- recycle the machines, computers are made out of a lot of toxic materials that should be re-processed properly. They also include many valuable elements (ie: gold, platinum, super high grade glass). Rather than simply dumping in the dumpster, proper disposal can bear much benefit.
THOUGHTS ON THE BLOG POST:
2. Sustainable forestry companies (the only kind we use)
a. Having seen tree plantings, I know quite a few never make it past the planting. I’ve always been of the opinion one needs a 2:1 ratio of planting to cutting.
b. I also wonder with so much wood coming from foreign nations, South America, I wonder how they assure that their trees are coming from sustainable forestry. We’ve seen just within the organic foods how much falsehood can exist. Almost everyone in every wood utilizing industry claims that their trees come from sustainable forestry, but the truth of the matter is our global forests are seeing massive reductions year over year.
But I’ll give them the neutral score for that.
3. Pulp process - having worked in a waste water treatment facility I have first hand experience seeing just how pollutive the paper pulp process can be. So while it may be carbon neutral it surely is not pollution neutral. And many of the arguments for this being carbon neutral seem “best world” to me. (ie: I question whether most such mills are still run by hydro-electric power, or whether all are diligent in re-capturing the carbon waste.
4. Sounds like a great way to dismiss. But let’s be honest. How much of those materials are being delivered via big semi rigs to no where else but the factories & mills? And are you seriously telling me that if we converted every magazine into a digital format there would be no effect on the postal service? And what happens as more and more bills, notices, etc go digital. And as more and more personal correspondence moves to email?
5. I guess I can thank Al Gore for killing environmentalism. I attended a high school with a strong environmental emphasis. Back then environmentalism did not simply equal carbon footprints and corporate offset vouchers. And while it’s nice to think that everyone is recycling. From my personal experience most cities did not recycle paper except for cardboard and newspaper. So in reality most of those magazines are going straight into the landfill. (Or even more likely, sitting around the house for 6-7 months with the best of intentions to be read, only to be tossed out unread during spring cleaning.)
*****
Now a look at the digital world. The claim of running computers to serve digital editions 24/7 equates to as much as their mechanical equipment for processing paper pulp, creating dyes, printing, cutting, binding & stapling seems a tad off base. And just to note, nothing is given to substantiate these claims.
The author tries to burden the whole internet as part of the cost. Every machine used to get the digital magazine from their servers to you. But this is rather inaccurate. First off, the internet routes said information. Part of this system allows for machines that are not under heavy processing to enact such transit. Helping to ensure a more efficient utilization of resources.
Just an aside, most manufacturing plants are now automated. So while servers are being used to provide websites to readers. Very similar machines are being used to run the manufacturing equipment, deliver content to the machines, etc.
It’s also claimed that we lose #1. This is incorrect….I know, this may be shocking and unexpected news to you. But trees actually have a built in mechanism for replanting. Not cutting the existing trees does not equate to no new trees. Rather, instead of a 1-for-1, we get a 1+.
“So by this analysis dead-tree magazines have a smaller net carbon footprint than web media.”
So by an analysis which provides no real world measure of the digital magazine’s equivalent. Fails to account for many additional elements of the magazine’s production. And bears a false premise of no carbon being taken out of the atmosphere.
On top of all of this, the article neglects all the other pollutive aspects of the print industry. Somehow this became acceptable since Al Gore did his disformative documentary.
10 yrs ago, filling up landfills with paper was considered a bad thing. Now we’re arguing it’s good because of carbon.
***
Oh yeah, archiving… it was said that archiving with print was much better for re-use. But is it? How many digital editions can you store on a single long-life DVD? Now how much space does it take to store the equivalent number of print editions.
Now, to truly keep a magazine in archive format you need good conditions (proper temp, humidity, etc) otherwise you are merely left with a crumbling yellow newspaper much of the time. This is not to say that some people don’t have very old newspapers kept in a stack of books in their attic. But that quality cannot be assured. And while many digital mediums (DVDs, CDs, etc) are also susceptible to conditions - you can store far many in a much smaller space. The end result is you need a small climate controlled room versus and entire warehouse.
Also, unlike the print editions. You can clone a perfect copy of the digital edition and move it to a new and improved archive format once created. (Something we see done a lot in the digital world. Just look at all the 10-20 yr old video games now being played on Xbox Live.) Try doing this with an old newspaper.