erin!balser

As you can probably tell already, I’m a big advocate for the digital world. I get all my news online, I can happily read a computer screen for eight hours and take my laptop to bed with me.

Other advocates use the “virtual is greener” argument when calling for a change from print to screen.

However, the true environmental impacts of a digital world are emerging. Wired editor Chris Anderson argued that “dead-tree magazines have a smaller net carbon footprint than web media.” Yet, Brendan Koernor of Slate argues that Anderson “underestimates the long-term consequences and carbon emissions of logging in old-growth forests, as well as the nasty pollution created by the wood pulping industry.”

Either way, it’s hard to assess the environmental impact of an industry that’s not only rapidly adopting green standards, it’s also facing a digital revolution.

As it is, environmental issues can be easily adapted for both the pro-print and pro-screen camps. This is without any real benefit to those who it matters most–the environment and the consumer.

In the end, it’s about adopting a medium between print and screen wherein the user is happy and where they can make informed environmental decisions.

Image by monettenriquez. Licensed via Creative Commons.