Here in the Going Green Blogospheric Bunker, we speak often of the respective environmental impacts of print vs. electronic media. Over at the Living Principles, Eric Benson has an excellent post that brings up an interesting and oft-ignored part of the overall puzzle: the design process itself.

In most arguments, this debate revolves around the end result of print or digital design. The focus of these discussions has been on materials and waste with print versus the hours a user spends online consuming energy reading digitally. What we’re not seeing discussed is the design process. Printed pieces do not simply pop out of a press from nowhere in the same way that digital designs do not appear online without a little work involved.

(Ah, but I think we’ve all had clients who think they do!)

One simply cannot just compare the outcome of the print or digital design options as they are small components of a larger supply chain. To accurately determine what is greener would involve complex calculations of all the impacts of a system of integrated lifecyles.

Here’s an example. As many of you know, Dr. Joe Webb and I recently published a book called, plug plug, “Does a Plumber Need a Web Site?” which began in print: on paper legal pads scrawled in a Ruby Tuesday, then became a series of Word files e-mailed back and forth, then became an InDesign production file and related graphics, as well as PDF proofs e-mailed back and forth. A few paper proofs were output, since I come from a time before one could trust one’s screen (assuming you can now). The book is printed on-demand as it is ordered, but there is also a Kindle e-book version available from Amazon, and we send PDF as well as printed copies to potential reviewers. Oh, and some industry associations and companies have reprinted copies to tie in with certain events. This requires some degree of customization, more files, some gnashing of teeth, and.... Norman, coordinate! And this is just two guys self-publishing a book. Imagine all the inputs of a large graphic design firm, advertising agency, or “real” publishing company and all the myriad aspects that would need to be taken into account to determine whether a print product or corresponding electronic version were more green. We can talk about green until we’re Pantone 286 in the face, but I maintain that arguing over whose media is greener is the wrong argument to have. We as content creators and disseminators produce and distribute content for consumption (at least in theory), and what determines whether we do that in print or digitally, is not up to us. If we’re marketing or advertising something, we have to pick the media that will get it in front of the most likely buyers. If we’re publishing something, we need to deliver it in a way that readers want it. That’s the major theme of the book, actually, that anyone involved in communication today needs to avail him- or herself of all the channels necessary to aggregate an audience. In those discussions, the “greenness” of the channels is rarely the issue. As graphic communications professionals, we should strive to improve the sustainability of how we work, across all media. Yes, support “green” printers and sustainable printing, use recycled paper, but also improve the recyclability of our electronics, reduce e-waste, send fewer things to landfills, improve the GHG emissions of data centers, use more alternative energy sources, and just reduce our carbon and other environmental footprints (feetprint?) in general.