4 ms·

A bit disingenuous, I think > ACM wants to be as environmentally friendly as possible Distribution is declining, so total environmental cost per issue is decl

by kayo_20211030 3y ago

A bit disingenuous, I think > ACM wants to be as environmentally friendly as possible Distribution is declining, so total environmental cost per issue is declining naturally. Even then, it's a sunk cost. No matter how many readers use the printed journal or how often they read it, the cost is the same. But, every time a reader uses a computer, e-reader, whatever there's now an additional cost. If you want to cease printing for financial reasons, just say that and don't use the fig leaf of environmental friendliness.

gunapologist99 3y ago
Greenwashing under the guise of science, when trees are a renewable resource, but the strip mines to produce batteries are not. Quite ironic actually.
- henrystaples 3y ago
  Don't be misled by the label. Trees, at the rate we're cutting them, are not renewing.
Jtsummers 3y ago
> Even then, it's a sunk cost. New publications aren't a sunk cost, they involve fresh lumber and pulp (even using recycled paper rarely involves 100% recycled material), new printing, new shipping. A present or future cost, which cannot be a sunk cost since sunk costs are things spent in the past.
krunck 3y ago
Yep. A printed journal issue can sit on a shelf for years and years consuming zero energy and requiring zero raw materials. Yet the entire time it is accessible and usable. To keep a PDF of that issue online and accessible(assuming you have an account, remember your password, charged your tablet) requires constant energy usage to power the servers in the datacenter. It also require periodic hardware replacement in the data center. I suspect that over the lifetime of the paper journal it's PDF copy will require the consumption of far more energy and materials than the paper one did. Electronic documents are great. I've got nothing against them. But let's not fool ourselves(or let ourselves be fooled) by all the greenwash pumped out by people trying to please investors.

gunapologist99 3y ago

Greenwashing under the guise of science, when trees are a renewable resource, but the strip mines to produce batteries are not. Quite ironic actually.

henrystaples 3y ago
Don't be misled by the label. Trees, at the rate we're cutting them, are not renewing.

Jtsummers 3y ago

> Even then, it's a sunk cost. New publications aren't a sunk cost, they involve fresh lumber and pulp (even using recycled paper rarely involves 100% recycled material), new printing, new shipping. A present or future cost, which cannot be a sunk cost since sunk costs are things spent in the past.

krunck 3y ago

Yep. A printed journal issue can sit on a shelf for years and years consuming zero energy and requiring zero raw materials. Yet the entire time it is accessible and usable. To keep a PDF of that issue online and accessible(assuming you have an account, remember your password, charged your tablet) requires constant energy usage to power the servers in the datacenter. It also require periodic hardware replacement in the data center. I suspect that over the lifetime of the paper journal it's PDF copy will require the consumption of far more energy and materials than the paper one did. Electronic documents are great. I've got nothing against them. But let's not fool ourselves(or let ourselves be fooled) by all the greenwash pumped out by people trying to please investors.