From Buzzmachine to Worldchanging

Here’s a bit of a surfing safari that I think is woth following. I picked up on another of Jeff Jarvis’ provocations today (print Sucks!) which is interesting primarily because it lead to an article from Chris Anderson (that I’d missed) arguing that the print version of Wired was in fact better for the climate that the electronic version. Personally, I’m a little skeptical of the claim (and reading the comments, so are many others). But it does open up the debate about e vs p in environmental terms. Which lead me to a post in worldchanging, challenging Wired (and all print publications) to come up with some real numbers about their environmental impact. As Alex Steffen says:

While assessing the footprint of many complex commercial activities is still not easy, publishing is, at least in comparison, an ecologically pretty straight-forward business. There just aren’t all that many moving parts.

Now, instinctively printing and shipping has *got* to be worse for the planet that the electronic alternative – even taking into account the cost of electricity, devices, networks etc. But I think there’s a real conversation that needs to be had – with the goal of reducing the environmental impact irrespective of how publishing happens…


1 comment so far

  1. […] – not so green… Posted June 3, 2008 I posted a few weeks ago, linking to a Chris Anderson piece which argued that in environmental terms, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: