I read with interest the recent Wired News article on the transition of news delivery from ink-on-paper to electronic data. Then today Alex posted this response by Brent Simmons, which I commented on.
Here’s the text of my comment:
Brent, reguardless of whether one prefers their news in ink or in pixels, I’m a bit disappointed that no one seems to have mentioned the environmental concerns related to the production, consumption, and disposal of thousands or perhaps even millions of kilograms of paper every single day. I don’t want to start ranting about the harm it does - I’d rather focus on the relative benefits of the transition to electronic news. We can cut down less trees, which are crucial for the health of our atmosphere and our soil systems. Less energy will be used for the processing and production of the paper, the transportation of it to printing plants, the printing process, and transportation for distribution. Bottom line, electronic news delivery seems orders of magnitude more efficient than paper delivery - which means that along with not cutting down those CO2-processing trees, we’ll be making less CO2 and other pollutants in the first place.
For what it’s worth, I’m a 26-year old male geek who hasn’t held a subscription to a newspaper for three or four years, and to any paper-based publication for almost a year now. I think I’m now better-informed, less cluttered, and making less of an impact on our planet.
Right on, Avi!