I’d really like to point out that another fact that many people fail to recognize is the environmental impact of new vs. old trees. [This is one of my favorites to bring up, too.] “Old” trees are a net LOSS to the environment, producing and emitting toxic and highly flammable gases that catalyze, feed and spread forest fires. New trees (planted, of course, in place of old ones used to make paper products) create more oxygen than they consume, renewing and reenergizing the same forests that so-called environmentalists are so concerned about. And I don’t mean to sound callous, but a simple Google search can tell any of these “green” folks exactly that information.

On a personal note, I do use cloth bags at the grocery store and environmentally friendly household products, so I ask the reader to please abandon those sinister misconceptions of tree-killing naturehating paper people. If you ACTUALLY considered the environment, you may be surprised at what you’d find out. Thanks for shedding some light, Blake.

The deflection requirements went into effect January 4th, 2010…… However the penalties will go into effect in June 2010.

And although paper production also requires the use of some of the same resources, its deliverables (newspapers, catalogs, printer paper, etc.) are completely recyclable. And their primary component (wood) comes from trees which are incredibly renewable and plentiful. (According to TAPPI.org, forest growth has exceeded harvesting since the 1940s and over four million trees are planted daily by the forest community.)

The point is, when considering the many available forms of communication, it is important to look back through the supply chain and manufacturing process and consider all inputs and outputs of that form of communication. Pritned paper is a very sustainable form of communication, which I believe is a surprising fact to many consumers on this planet.

As for print advertising ROI vs. electronic advertising ROI, I hope you’ll tune in for my next post. Thanks again for your comment.

Yes, if we had to build a new computer for every recipient of our email, that would be much worse for the environment than printing a mailer. But we don’t. By sending email, we’re taking advantage of something that already exists in the consumer’s home. There is no incremental resource consumption. There clearly is a significant incremental cost to each printed piece we send.

Look, printing and sending mailers is a necessary part of our economy for a variety of reasons, and given that, we should try to conduct these activities in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. But to believe that we are helping to save the earth by printing millions of catalogs instead of sending electronic communication is just delusional.

Peg @ PNorth@EthnicTechnologies.com