5 ms·

A gentle reminder that these are the same publishers who also advocate that harvested tree pulp industry does not impact the environment. As evil as they come.

A gentle reminder that these are the same publishers who also advocate that harvested tree pulp industry does not impact the environment. As evil as they come. ;-)

falcolas 6y ago
They... don't impact the environment. The trees they use were planted for the sole purpose of being harvested. And new trees are planted for every tree that's harvested. ~~If anything, they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books.~~ EDIT: I'll acquiesce that they may not be a net positive, since there are carbon costs associated with the entire process. But, using purpose-grown trees is hard to consider as a net negative. And, if we're talking about the entire process, e-books are not carbon-zero products either.
- sjnu 6y ago
  Yep. Producing the book is free.
  - simias 6y ago
    If you have something to say then just say it, these passive aggressive quips don't really provide anything of value to the discussion.
- marvindanig 6y ago
  > they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books. You mean like 'clean coal?' Got it. And no thank you, that's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evils under all that jargon. Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path you take. However, the net carbon impact with a digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller.
- smooth_remmy 6y ago
  1. They use our land to plant a monoculture of pine trees. Zero biodiversity. 2. They use our roads for giant logging trucks that degrade the roads and endanger other drivers. 3. They use our air and our water for paper processing which emits TONS of deadly chemicals. These publishers have blood on their hands. Force them to publish online only. Close the tree farms, close the paper mill. Convert the tree farms into public parks. Save Mother Earth!
  - blackguardx 6y ago
    How is it different than corn and wheat? All industrial farms are monocultures.
    - smooth_remmy 6y ago
      Corn and wheat are essential food items. There is no "digital alternative" to corn and wheat. No one should need to buy a physical book/newspaper in this day and age. These wood pulp tree farms are producing luxury consumption items for the middle and upper class. Working class people don't read physical newspapers
      - Nemo_bis 6y ago
        > Working class people don't read physical newspapers Sounds like something worth fixing. Expanding libraries is one way to do so. Back in the day, the Communist Party of Italy had legions of volunteers engaged in teaching people how to read, distributing the party's newspaper. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign
    - sloum 6y ago
      Yes, and industrial farming is a known major problem that wreaks havoc on the environment and in the case of animal farming at an industrial scale commits horrible atrocities. So yes, you are right... it is not just pulp trees at issue.
- marvindanig 6y ago
  > they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books. You mean like 'clean coal?' That's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evil industry behind all that jargon. Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path the industry takes. However, the net carbon impact with digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller. Trying to find the research behind this now, will update shortly if I can find it. Edit2: Republished this comment because Dang flagged it earlier, before I could edit/polish my response.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
blackguardx 6y ago
Most trees for lumber and papermills are grown on farms like corn (in the US at least). Industrialized paper making can be harmful to the environment, but so is essentially all industrialized activity. E-waste is more problematic. Most phones don't last much longer 5 years and can't be 100% recycled easily while most paper products are biodegradable.
- marvindanig 6y ago
  But people don’t have to buy additional phones for the purpose of reading books. Also, dead tree industry can never achieve a global distribution at the scale of the Internet. Look at it the way cassettes couldn’t ever have achieved what Youtube has been able to do for new artists/music. Also, contrary to what many people are told, pulp farming in the US is super harmful to the environment. The damage isn’t local to each manufacturer either. You might want to look-up into wikipedia for credible info on this.
baggy_trough 6y ago
Pretty sure it's possible to come more evil than that.

A gentle reminder that these are the same publishers who also advocate that harvested tree pulp industry does not impact the environment. As evil as they come. ;-)

falcolas 6y ago

They... don't impact the environment. The trees they use were planted for the sole purpose of being harvested. And new trees are planted for every tree that's harvested. ~~If anything, they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books.~~ EDIT: I'll acquiesce that they may not be a net positive, since there are carbon costs associated with the entire process. But, using purpose-grown trees is hard to consider as a net negative. And, if we're talking about the entire process, e-books are not carbon-zero products either.

sjnu 6y ago
Yep. Producing the book is free.
- simias 6y ago
  If you have something to say then just say it, these passive aggressive quips don't really provide anything of value to the discussion.
marvindanig 6y ago
> they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books. You mean like 'clean coal?' Got it. And no thank you, that's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evils under all that jargon. Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path you take. However, the net carbon impact with a digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller.
smooth_remmy 6y ago
1. They use our land to plant a monoculture of pine trees. Zero biodiversity. 2. They use our roads for giant logging trucks that degrade the roads and endanger other drivers. 3. They use our air and our water for paper processing which emits TONS of deadly chemicals. These publishers have blood on their hands. Force them to publish online only. Close the tree farms, close the paper mill. Convert the tree farms into public parks. Save Mother Earth!
- blackguardx 6y ago
  How is it different than corn and wheat? All industrial farms are monocultures.
  - smooth_remmy 6y ago
    Corn and wheat are essential food items. There is no "digital alternative" to corn and wheat. No one should need to buy a physical book/newspaper in this day and age. These wood pulp tree farms are producing luxury consumption items for the middle and upper class. Working class people don't read physical newspapers
    - Nemo_bis 6y ago
      > Working class people don't read physical newspapers Sounds like something worth fixing. Expanding libraries is one way to do so. Back in the day, the Communist Party of Italy had legions of volunteers engaged in teaching people how to read, distributing the party's newspaper. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Literacy_Campaign
  - sloum 6y ago
    Yes, and industrial farming is a known major problem that wreaks havoc on the environment and in the case of animal farming at an industrial scale commits horrible atrocities. So yes, you are right... it is not just pulp trees at issue.
marvindanig 6y ago
> they're a net positive for the environment, since they're sequestering carbon into books. You mean like 'clean coal?' That's not how environment math or nature works. I hope better sense will prevail eventually and you'll come around to accepting the evil industry behind all that jargon. Edit: 'Carbon zero' is probably the best spot to be on, but isn't an achievable goal no matter what path the industry takes. However, the net carbon impact with digital circulation is less than 0.0003% of what a dead tree circulation would achieve nationwide in all US with a bestseller. Trying to find the research behind this now, will update shortly if I can find it. Edit2: Republished this comment because Dang flagged it earlier, before I could edit/polish my response.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

blackguardx 6y ago

Most trees for lumber and papermills are grown on farms like corn (in the US at least). Industrialized paper making can be harmful to the environment, but so is essentially all industrialized activity. E-waste is more problematic. Most phones don't last much longer 5 years and can't be 100% recycled easily while most paper products are biodegradable.

marvindanig 6y ago
But people don’t have to buy additional phones for the purpose of reading books. Also, dead tree industry can never achieve a global distribution at the scale of the Internet. Look at it the way cassettes couldn’t ever have achieved what Youtube has been able to do for new artists/music. Also, contrary to what many people are told, pulp farming in the US is super harmful to the environment. The damage isn’t local to each manufacturer either. You might want to look-up into wikipedia for credible info on this.

baggy_trough 6y ago

Pretty sure it's possible to come more evil than that.