Last week the venerable publication (at least to those of us who have a little memory about what happened in the '60s) - the Rolling Stone - announced that beginning June 28th, the publication would be "carbon neutral." OK - good intentions... The press release said that the Rolling Stone is the "first mass-marketed magazine to print on carbon neutral paper."
The paper, which is considerably thinner than what Rolling Stone uses now, is made by a Canadian mill, Catalyst Paper, that the magazine says has reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by 82 percent since 2005 and been cited by the World Wildlife Fund for its conservation efforts.
Andrew Newman of The New York Times, in his article "Rolling Stone Finding Out Green Isn't Green Enough," summarized the response by environmentalists who said "t'ain't enough!" While carbon neutral is all well and good, the publication is printed on virgin paper; no recycled paper is used at all.
What this all comes down to is - how "green" is "green?"
Discussion
By drjoewebb on Jun 18, 2007
All "forced" decisions are like this; none of them are very clear. The promotion of flourescents to replace incandescent bulbs is a good example, with this news report of a couple of months ago.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55213
The decision of cloth vs. paper diapers is another one, with that decision being a toss-up, with needless guilt being foisted upon parents who choose either one.
http://www.thenewparentsguide.com/diapers.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Diaper-Not-Clear.htm
And of course, there is the Internet decision: paper has an energy cost that ends after printing. Stored data has an ongoing energy cost of running servers to keep things online. Which is better? Giving millions of people access to content with a few keystrokes or forcing them to travel to a library and look for an obscure book?
None of these decisions are clear and the fact that Rolling Stone is in this conundrum is kind of fitting, in my mind. It's easy to pontificate and editorialize about environmental issues, but they have real costs and trade offs and are not easy to make. The most important thing is that they will make the right cost decision for them the maximizes their brand and their profits in the long run. After all, they have to ensure the long-term economic survival of the brand they have been hired to nurture.
By Eric Vessels on Jun 19, 2007
Just wanted to quickly point out that the first link above is to a story that is bunk. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/compact_fluorescent_lights_are.php" rel="nofollow">This blog has a good rundown of why this is the case.
I'm not sure if the site or author has a vested interest in putting down CFLs, but the story clearly distorts the truth. CFLs are still a good choice to reduce consumption in both homes and businesses.
As for the diaper decision: I'm past that stage for good! Yay! (Heh. To clarify, both my children are past that stage. Me? I'm on the downhill slope toward them again! Doh!)
By Don Carli on Jun 24, 2007
It is important to note that while environmental activists still exist they are increasingly being marginalized by the growing adoption of sustainability as a corporate governance priority. In addition, the increased focus on corporate social responsibility, management of the "triple bottom line" and climate change by insitutional investors has changed the issues landscape and changed the factors used in making the business case for adopting one business practice over another. Advertisers and publishers are not faced with a conundrum when it comes to addressing climate change. There is no forced choice or dilemma between mitigating climate change and using recycled paper. While the issues can be related they can also be approached independent of one another. Offsetting and/or reducing the greenhouse gas emissions associated with human activity is an issue that has eclipsed and/or subsumed many of the narrower issues that environmental activists focus on. In Newman's article, when asked if the steps that Rolling Stone is taking are good and important ones, Frank Locantore of Forest ethics said "Yes." Granted it was a qualified yes, but a yes nonetheless. We cannot offset our way to sustainability, but we can use offsets to immediately redirect capital and other resources to projects which are sorely needed to address climate change. Activists accustomed to making a moral/ethical case must learn to make a business case, and businesses accustomed to making a business case based on classic economic value analysis must now learn to manage the calculus of their economic, environmental and social bottom lines. Both can use greenouse gas emissions and emission reductions as yardsticks to measure impact and progress.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free