|
Although I certainly accept that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem, this quote implies that 1) we're destroying rainforests to generate paper pulp, which is nonsense--rainforests are being destroyed to convert forestland to farmland, and 2) trees are being consumed by the pulp industry more quickly than they are being replaced. This second point may be arguable, but I've seen studies showing that hardwood forests here in the US are now at a par with what they were when Europeans arrived, largely through the abandonment of marginal farmland east of the Mississippi. Biomass lost in spot fluctuations of replantable pulp forests is more than balanced by the (denser) biomass of long-lived hardwood forests.
A second issue that bears on the impact of print publishing is that where not recycled, paper most often ends up in landfills, which has the effect of pulling carbon out of the atmosphere (into which it went by combustion of fossil fuels) and sequestering it. Ebooks are not a clear ecological win over pbooks, as best I can see. Once manufactured, a pbook ceases to be a burden on the ecosphere. Ebooks require hardware readers (which have relatively high carbon and heavy-metal footprints, like all electronics) which in turn require electric power, most of which is now generated by the burning of fossil fuel.
There are a lot of places where individuals can make a difference in climate change. I seriously doubt that converting from pbooks to ebooks is one of them.
|