Over at Slate, The Green Lantern looks into the environmental pros and cons of reading newspapers in print or online.
A Slate reader asks the Lantern, "When I finish reading my Sunday newspaper, I can't help but think I've just committed an egregious environmental sin—all those poor trees that had to die so I could titter over inane op-eds, guacamole recipes, and overpriced real estate listings! The greener choice would be to read the paper online, correct?"
To which the Lantern responds, "The Lantern believes so, but the environmental difference between dead-tree newspapers and their online editions is a lot smaller than you might imagine. In fact, there are learned experts who contend that traditional newsprint ultimately comes out ahead, at least in terms of net carbon-dioxide emissions. Though the Lantern disagrees with some of the assumptions these contrarians make, it's worth exploring their arguments in order to better understand how hard it is to calculate a product's cradle-to-grave impact."
As more consumers become aware of the sustainability movement and adjust their consumption habits to be more environmentally friendly, media producers will need to be ready to answer these type of questions.
Discussion
By Laura on Feb 27, 2008
Adam--great final point. Everyone will soon be faced with the question of exactly what their footprint is and how they're working to lower it--and consumers will expect thoughtful (not to mention true) answers. The biggest problem with this at the moment is the lack of a definitive measuring device...
By Bryan Yeager on Feb 27, 2008
It would be interesting to see who actually adopts and promotes green strategies sooner than others in terms of newspaper publishing. Will the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times rest on their laurels or more quietly adopt green strategies compared to the New York Times or the Washington Post? How much will the readership and editorial board affect how quickly and publicly different newspapers hop on the green bandwagon? Personally, I think it's going to take a lot more than carbon neutralization and FSC certification to make newspaper publishers thrive again. As far as I'm concerned, content is still king.
By Barbara Mathieson on Feb 28, 2008
After subscribing to a daily newspaper for 35 years, I canceled it because of the environment. The newspaper arrived each morning in two plastic bags, plus I had a huge stack of newspaper to take to the recycling center each week. I read it online now each day. All my favorites are there, except for the crossword puzzles. I bought a crossword puzzle book which will last me for quite a while and will be less to recycle when I've worked all the puzzles. Plus I'm savings about $200 a year in subscription costs.
By Frank Verrill on Feb 28, 2008
Why don't we go totally green including online. Stop all media and go back to hunting with sticks and rocks. Of course we may find it difficult to find enough sticks and rocks for our 300 MM people.
By Mike on Feb 28, 2008
Of course you will only use environmentally harvested sticks from naturally fallen trees.
By Random Lurker on Feb 28, 2008
Ya know, I like this blog. I really do. I only have small dealings with the print industry at work, but the business aspect fascinates me to a certain respect. It's a good blog with good info. One of the things that I notice around here is that there seems to be an awful lot of posts regarding these "threats" to the industry - be it the green movement or this mildly technophobic http://printceoblog.com/2008/02/apocalypse-not-yet" rel="nofollow">chuckle-worthy fear of those damn kids and their intertubes ( 2 to that FUD for using the term "Naptserized") I can't help but notice the theme of fear and confusion about the future of the industry which in my experience elsewhere tells me that there's probably an astounding lack of confidence in the current state of the industry - more specifically perhaps individual businesses ability to react to changes in the industry. It amuses me that the Enviromental movement/hype/buzzword/whatever seems to be best defeated using the sustainability movement/hype/buzzword/whatever. I can't help but think to myself: is any of this fear based in fact? Look, the papers aren't going to abandon the print anytime soon. At this stage in the game, the ink is one of the few things they have going for them. Why on Earth would they level the playing field with start up rags, new media tards, and give up a significant advertising and localization advantage because some whiny hipsters complain that it's "not green enough". Now granted, we http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/media/01paper.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" rel="nofollow">know things ain't hunky dory out in print media land, but we also know that failure to maintain a hard copy would be seriously very bad for business. And they know it too, which is why you're going to see more merged marketing (IE, my online subscription comes with a print subscription) perhaps some trimming of the fat on the paper, and probably some very well targeted print exclusives.
By Bob on Feb 29, 2008
Just a few comments on sustainability in the printing industry then a final comment on on-line vs. hard copy.
As printers, we should all be looking at ways we can reduce our carbon footprints. We should be using lower VOC washes, we should be investing in BACT, we should be reducing our overall energy consumption, solvent recovery systems, FSC certifications etc. These are all achievable goals that each of us should work towards.
As far as on-line subscriptions vs. hard copy reading, there is clearly one choice, that is to continue to print hard copy but invest in technologies that are environmentally friendly. As Adam originally posted, if printers reduce their energy consumption and lower their VOC's in washes and fountain solutions along with some other investments in available technology, hard copy printing will always be the choice of most. Together we can make a huge impact on the industry direction and the amount of pollution we generate.
Many of the above mentioned investments payback within the first 2-years.
By Adam Dewitz on Feb 29, 2008
If you perceive the sustainability movement within the industry as a threat I think you are missing the point. This a great opportunity for printing companies to work media buyers, advertisers, and marketers to reduce the impact our communication practices have on the environment. It has been pointed out that many printers have been doing the right thing for many years without the need for labeling and proclamation. As I said in the post, media producers will need to be ready to answer questions regarding the impact their medium has the environment. Because if they don't have clear concise answers, someone else with an agenda will provide answers for them. As far reporting on failures within the industry, these are not attempts to peddle fear, uncertainty, and doubt. These are just observations of a media landscape that is continuing to change. And for the most part, it is left to reader to decide what strategic impacts this will have on their business.
By Dr. Joe Webb on Feb 29, 2008
One should know that the carbon footprint calculation is very speculative, and also that carbon dioxide is not a poison. The fear-based marketing of sustainability initiatives is extremely unfortunate. There's plenty of common sense reasons to find the initiatives appealing. I get concerned that there are those who overplay their hand with the disaster scenarios that never play out. In the end, it will undermine the cooperation of citizens and the credibility of the pundits.
For example, on Long Island, there are numerous issues, like other areas, with groundwater contamination and landfill space. Though there is plenty of room for landfills (including the fact that you can actually build things on top of them!), a place like Long Island has something called "New York City" in its way to ship garbage by land to where it can be effectively buried. The Island has a large population and managing the combination of human waste and that of personal and business activites create a variety of challenges.
What I find most disappointing is that there is no sense of optimism about dealing with environmental issues. It's amazing what has been done since the 1960s in terms of cleaner air, water, and more efficient use of energy. There will be always more to do, but recognizing the accomplishments to date will do more than constantly harping on what has not yet been done.
Discussion
Join the discussion Sign In or Become a Member, doing so is simple and free