This post is slightly off-topic but has a direct relevance to information technology and computers. In our house we receive our weekly Radio Times by post. By the time we have discarded the plastic wrapper and sorted out all the advertising material and calls on our charity, we are finally able to read it. It got me thinking about the comparison between hard copy (printed) material and its digital (electronic) equivalent.
I once weighed the pile of leaflets etc and they came to approximately 250gms. Looking at the Radio Times circulation figures I see that they have distributed approximately 1 million copies during the past 12 months. A quick bit of arithmetic shows that over the year the RT therefore sends out 250 tons of excess paper - most of which, in all probability, soon reaches the bin. This is just one magazine in one country.
Do we really need all this useless paper? At a time when we are being exhorted to think of the human impact on the climate and on natural resources, could we not save a few forests around the world by cutting out this waste? How much more economical would it be if as much as possible was distributed in digital form? Of course, there are arguments both for and against this proposition.
For. Many tons of unnecessary paper would be prevented not to mention the ink, electricity for presses, fuel for vehicle delivery etc. Reduction in use of electricity and fuel would reduce pollution and boost green credentials. Waste collection burdens would be reduced along with the associated recycling costs.
Against. Charities and advertisers could lose out on revenue from the percentage of leaflets that are acted upon. Printers, lorry drivers, labourers and distributors could be out of employment as well as the providers of all the raw materials. The increase in digital formats would raise demand for technology to be able to read the material. More electronic equipment means more use of raw materials and power for production. Having one's copy on the computer would still not deter diehards from printing out hard copy!
What do you think?
I once weighed the pile of leaflets etc and they came to approximately 250gms. Looking at the Radio Times circulation figures I see that they have distributed approximately 1 million copies during the past 12 months. A quick bit of arithmetic shows that over the year the RT therefore sends out 250 tons of excess paper - most of which, in all probability, soon reaches the bin. This is just one magazine in one country.
Do we really need all this useless paper? At a time when we are being exhorted to think of the human impact on the climate and on natural resources, could we not save a few forests around the world by cutting out this waste? How much more economical would it be if as much as possible was distributed in digital form? Of course, there are arguments both for and against this proposition.
For. Many tons of unnecessary paper would be prevented not to mention the ink, electricity for presses, fuel for vehicle delivery etc. Reduction in use of electricity and fuel would reduce pollution and boost green credentials. Waste collection burdens would be reduced along with the associated recycling costs.
Against. Charities and advertisers could lose out on revenue from the percentage of leaflets that are acted upon. Printers, lorry drivers, labourers and distributors could be out of employment as well as the providers of all the raw materials. The increase in digital formats would raise demand for technology to be able to read the material. More electronic equipment means more use of raw materials and power for production. Having one's copy on the computer would still not deter diehards from printing out hard copy!
What do you think?
