Newspapers May Be Greener, But What About Redundancy?

If you want to “green” your news reading, just go online, right? Ditch that dirty, landfill-clogging paper. Not so fast, argues Sarah Westervelt, environmental expert and activist. In a recent article on The Dead Tree Edition, Westervelt said that she was “too informed about what’s going to happen to my computer when I’m done with it” to feel good about reading Web news and gave a number of compelling reasons that newspapers are actually the greener choice.

Among her reasons for rejecting e-news, as reported by The Dead Tree Edition, the toxic materials contained in electronic devices and a complex waste cycle (including more than a dozen plastics in each), combined with not enough value in re-use to make recycling the parts non-economical. Paper, on the other hand, comes from a renewable resource, doesn’t contain the toxic materials, and is highly recyclable.

The post is a great read, and it certainly makes you think about the consequences of our wired world. (Some of the arguments that have been made against Apple’s new iPad.)

At the same time — and while I cannot disagree with Westervelt’s facts — this argument really only works if it’s an either-or proposition. If I have to turn my computer on in order to read the news online, then her argument makes sense. I’m choosing an electronic gadget over print. But the truth is that I don’t (and I doubt anyone else does either). That computer is going to be on whether I read the newspaper or not.

Thus, while the paper cycle may be greener than the e-media cycle, in this case, it’s actually the less green choice simply because it’s redundant. I wonder why no one ever talks about that?

Like this post? See all my “Greening Print Marketing” posts.

Tweet This Post

You might also like:

Add a comment or question

10 Comments

  1. Right, the argument really only makes sense if we’re all going to give up our computers entirely. Otherwise, they have to be disposed of and/or recycled anyway.

  2. I have to say that I completely agree with you on this. Not only is the computer likely to be on, but she’s also concerned about lifecycle costs of her electronic devices. Is reading online news the only reason she owns a computer? Will a physical newspaper really eliminate computers from her life?

    And really excellent point about redundancy.

  3. [...] Read more of this story » [...]

  4. IS FRED ETCHEVERRY WRITING ANY ARTICLES NOW ??

  5. [...] Read more of this story » [...]

  6. What nonsense

    I use to work as a book shelver at my local university. During the school term September – April, I would drop ten pounds. That represents the amount of energy that i burned just moving book trucks around. This at a time of year when most of us will gain 5 – 10 pounds.

    Never mind the energy spent in the production of paper, the amount of energy consumed just moving it from place to place is massive.

    John Kerr
    Guelph Ontario

  7. I actually just saw Ms. Westervelt discussing this very topic on PBS Mediashifts rountable discussion on the environmental impact of the media. Very interesting points made on both sides. See it here: http://tinyurl.com/y89mqyu

  8. Interesting argument that I haven’t thought off before, but the author does make a point that we may be thinking we’re doing a good deed for the environment by ditching our newspapers but may be in fact doing more harm than good when it comes to trying to save the earth.

  9. [...] I read a blog written by Heidi Tolliver-Nigro about the “eco-frienldliness” of reading newspapers or using the computer for news.  She was thinking about how even if reading a newspaper seems like it’s better for the [...]

Tell us what you think: