×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Paper Manufacturer Launches "Print More" Campaign

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the try-origami dept.

Advertising 446

innocent_white_lamb writes "Domtar, a major North American paper manufacturer, has launched an advertising campaign to encourage people to print more documents on paper. Domtar CEO John Williams opposes campaigns by other companies asking employees to be responsible with what they print. 'Young people really are not printers. When was the last time your children demanded a printer?' Mr. Williams said ... 'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.' The industry expects that, absent this campaign, paper demand will decrease by 4% annually. Williams's comments did not go down well in some environmental circles."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

446 comments

Him and the Pope! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994244)

This is a perfect storm. These two Italians are trying to subvert America gfreatness by foisting their totalitarian vision of Italian islamo-communism on our wives, daughters and sons. They way they will do this is to destroy our lush forest cover in America for "paper" and then zap us with islamo-communist brain rays. Stop them now! Stop them now!!!!!!

Paper and Environment (-1, Troll)

DemoLiter3 (704469) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994342)

Setting aside the fact that this is just clearly a marketing campaign that doesn't really care about environmental issues and such, the environmentalists are just too stupid to recognize that paper is a carbon dioxide SINK. Paper is produced from low-grade fast growing trees and if we stop doing that, simply less CO2 will be absorbed from the atmosphere.

Re:Paper and Environment (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994432)

Sorry, but paper is not a CO2 sink. Once it's been used, one of three things happens:
  1. It is burnt (releasing the carbon as CO2).
  2. It is buried in a landfill (where decomposition releases methane, which is far worse than carbon dioxide.
  3. It is recycled (which keeps the CO2 out of the air for a time, but can only be done a few times before 1) or 2) occurs.

In the best case, paper is CO2 neutral. On average it is still CO2 positive. Not that I mind. :)

Re:Paper and Environment (2, Interesting)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994718)

It is buried in a landfill (where decomposition releases methane, which is far worse than carbon dioxide.

Actually, paper doesn't degrade in a landfill. You can still dig up readable newspapers from the 1800's.

Re:Paper and Environment (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994458)

environmentalists are just messed up and confused, they've got so many cruisades on these days they are bound to conflict.

Re:Paper and Environment (5, Informative)

thestuckmud (955767) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994594)

...environmentalists are just too stupid to recognize that paper is a carbon dioxide SINK

Redo.

Read this analysis [versopaper.com] of the lifecycle carbon cost of paper by a paper company. The bottom line is is an estimated cost of 1.81 tons CO2-equivalent impact per ton of paper (see paper for details).

Paper appears to be the opposite of a carbon sink.

Re:Paper and Environment (2, Informative)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994622)

...similarly, environmentalists are doubly too stupid to realize that once you factor in the energy saved in harvesting, transporting, milling, packaging, re-transporting, storing, re-re-transporting, retailing, and re-re-re-transporting a ream of paper, you've created over eleventeen jerbs. Jerbs that environmentalists would have took! My god, they're so blingingly stupid!

Re:Paper and Environment (1)

American AC in Paris (230456) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994662)

...on a side note, my phone's autocorrect seems to think that "blingingly" is a word.

It terrifies me that something in my typing/browsing habits would lead it to this conclusion...

wait, what? (3, Insightful)

thepike (1781582) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994250)

FTA:

'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.'

But it is an environmental negative.

Re:wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994268)

Why? Have we lost the ability to grow trees? If anything, you're sequestering carbon, which is what a lot of the environmental whackos are all about these days.

Re:wait, what? (2, Informative)

jalet (36114) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994352)

It is an environmental problem because natural forests are ruined to grow different kinds of trees which are easier to transform into paper. This is also an environmental problem because the paper industry uses and certainely rejects a lot of chemical products in order for your paper to be white (mostly).
<shameless plug="on">
Fortunately, there's always Free Software like http://www.pykota.com/ [pykota.com]
</shameless>

Re:wait, what? (5, Insightful)

odsock (863358) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994354)

Most likely using less of almost anything is an environmental positive. Consider the footprint of harvest, transport, disposal. Plus it costs the user more to print than to read on screen, so it's bad business to print when you don't need to. Sure, it's not like they are making paper out of old growth forest. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing to waste paper.

Re:wait, what? (4, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994524)

    People frequently forget about all those pesky middle parts.

    Trees are harvested. They're transported to the location making the paper. It's packaged and distributed to various tiers of warehouses. It's then distributed to retail outlets, and then to the point of use. From there, it's distributed to waste or recycling centers, or specialized centers for proper destruction. I'd be willing to bet the carbon footprint for the transportation is higher than the trees themselves that are used in the process.

    Someone had a good point. The carbon is sequestered, assuming the paper is kept. Most places have more paper going in the trash than they do staying in long term storage.

    When I was a kid, my parents took about 10 acres of empty land and planted trees on them. It consumed a good bit of time and fuel. Try planting rows upon rows of trees, and you'll find it's not a job to be done by hand. My dad passed away and my mom eventually moved. Google Maps satellite view showed the land to still be full of trees, but the street view (more recent) showed it to have been clear cut for other purposes. I'd guess by the person who bought the house (at least two owners later who renovated it) to sell the entire property as a horse farm. Dense trees don't make for good grazing land for livestock.

Re:wait, what? (4, Insightful)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994364)

hmmm I'll revisit your argument when the number of trees chopped down due to paper manufacturing drops below the number of new trees planted 5 years ago (ie. that are now reaching maturity - its no use going on new trees planted if those trees never grow to fully replace the trees that were chopped down).

Re:wait, what? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994544)

They might be whackos, but you're a beefknob.

Sure, trees grow in dirt. That's TREES. Not paper. There are few steps involved before you get your fucking paper. First you have to cut the damn trees down. That takes energy from chainsaws or specialized tree-cutting machinery. Then you have to remove the branches. Then you have to gather the things up (did you know trees are fucking heavy?). Then you have to put them on a truck. Then you have to haul the motherfuckers to some huge-ass factory somewhere (did I mention trees are fucking heavy?). Then you've got to turn them into pulp 'n shit. THEN you've got to package the fucking paper. Then you've got to haul THAT shit to some warehouse, where it sits around wasting space in an air conditioned facility (don't want that paper getting moldy!). Then you've got to ship the fucking paper AGAIN to some store somewhere. And then some chump has to get in their SUV, drive 20 miles to their favorite store to pick up one item (that'd be the paper), and then drive the fuck home.

For some paper.

And THEN they print out a picture of the goatsex guy for him to autograph. They get their trophy signature, but later their mom makes them throw it out. So it ends up in the trash, along with millions of tons of other worthless paper, that gets hauled in yet another fucking truck, where it ends up in a landfill (no recycling here, 'cause you're all about carbon sequestration or some such shit!).

After all that energy's been spent, how much do you think your precious carbon sequestration really counts?

Like I said. BEEF. KNOB.

Re:wait, what? (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994582)

Have we lost the ability to grow trees?

Have you tried to buy a nice piece of wood lately? The answer to your question is "yes" but it has nothing to do with environmentalists, it's because the timber industry replaces the good forests they cut down with crappy fast-growing trees that produce knotty lumber because it's cheaper and faster that way.

Re:wait, what? (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994632)

"that produce knotty lumber" I went down to the hardware store last week and there was a huge array of hard and softwoods, they even had structural pine with 100% knot free money back guarantee. all of it was sourced from managed timber plantations - thats HOW they get the wood knot free ffs.... by stripping the branches off early.

Re:wait, what? (4, Informative)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994376)

is it really? why, where's your proof?

last i checked paper was made from the waste from milling timber from sustainably managed forests as well as recycled sources.

Re:wait, what? (2, Informative)

Skreems (598317) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994412)

May be... still uses a fuckton of bleach and other processing chemicals to get that nice shiny white color.

Re:wait, what? (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994464)

And those processing chemicals are recycled as much as possible too.

Re:wait, what? (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994564)

> And those processing chemicals are recycled as much as possible too.

There are 3 R's. And they have a specific order, as in, what is best for the environment.

1 Reduce
2 Reuse
3 Recycle

Recycle is literally 1 step up from pouring it down the drain.

Arguing that we don't need to bother reducing because some of what is used get's recycled is, well, asinine.

Re:wait, what? (0)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994634)

And you think paper companies don't reuse their processing chemicals? What purpose is wasting their supplies supposed to serve?

They reuse. And then they recycle.

Certainly, wasting paper is a waste. But if you're not wasting it, it isn't a waste to use it.

Re:wait, what? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994518)

it's not like any of the alternatives to paper don't use a lot of processing chemicals though, and there's much cleaner ways of disposing of the waste and friendly alternatives to bleach these days.

personally i don't use it at all unless forced to because it's redundant. it is misleading people to make out that paper is some kind of baby seal killing product though...

Re:wait, what? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994720)

Do you know the difference between an ecosystem and a mono-crop? Dumtar claims to plant a tree for every one they harvest, but there's no mention of clear cutting or the overall effects of managing what used to be a forest as if it is nothing more than a pulp farm.

Perhaps there's an alternative.... maybe they should try brain farming. If they could genetically modify gray matter and its network to the same standards of homogeneity, the pablum coming out of the mouths of people like Mr. Williams might just sound intelligent.

+5 Funny (2, Funny)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994256)

Ahahahahahaha! Mod article +5 Funny. I haven't laughed that much all day! BTW, you owe me a new keyboard. 'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.' What? Cutting down trees is an environmental POSITIVE? Seriously, It isn't April 1st anymore. My sides hurt.

Re:+5 Funny (5, Funny)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994286)

Actually, he might be on to something. I just printed this article out and it's a helluva lot funnier in print.

Re:+5 Funny (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994316)

Actually, he might be on to something. I just printed this article out and it's a helluva lot funnier in print.

And on paper you can't be modded down.

Re:+5 Funny (3, Informative)

epiphani (254981) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994338)

Oh, he knows its an environmental negative. But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

And this is why capitalism* has failed.

* as practiced today through the legal construct of a corporation

Re:+5 Funny (5, Insightful)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994384)

It's not an environmental "negative". They plant three times as many trees as they harvest. Paper is a truly renewable resource, especially since it is recyclable, in many different ways.

Printing pages pointlessly is a negative, because you waste energy in the paper production, for no good reason. And you waste your own money. But using paper "responsibly" -- for things you want to keep hard copies of -- is entirely appropriate, and not wasteful.

Re:+5 Funny (1, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994700)

It's not an environmental "negative". They plant three times as many trees as they harvest.

Do they undo the damage of the chemicals used in paper manufacturing? Do they put back into the ground all the oil that is used for shipping paper around? Do they go around and pull out all the paper that people throw away from the landfills?

Re:+5 Funny (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994402)

huh, capitalism has failed? i musted have missed that memo

Re:+5 Funny (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994768)

Well if you count the environmental impact capitalism has had, with it's myopic outlook, short term gain over long term sustainability... It sort of leaves something to be desired.

Flashy excessive non-biodegradable packaging on a $2 trinket is just one of the many pitfalls. I'll let someone else come up with some better examples.

Re:+5 Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994556)

  But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

This is just not true.

And this is why capitalism* has failed.

Also wrong

Re:+5 Funny (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994604)

But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

In what jurisdiction? Cite, please.

Re:+5 Funny (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994678)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_benefit

Re:+5 Funny (1)

pgn674 (995941) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994760)

But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

My mom came up against something like this. She was investing in a portfolio investment firm of some sort, and a group of other people investing in the same portfolio brought up some moral concerns regarding some of the companies they were investing in. My mom had a vote, and she received advise from that group and from the firm's board. The board was bound to give advise to maximized profits.

So this firm had a balance thing to give moral vs. monetary issues their due consideration. I wonder if Domtar has a similar balance of some sort, and we're only seeing one side of it right now?

Capitalism failed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994770)

By what criteria for success has capitalism, as practiced today through the legal construct of a corporation, failed?

Re:+5 Funny (1)

dudpixel (1429789) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994378)

man, you need to learn some more jokes if you laughed that hard over this...

funny? maybe, but not side-splitting funny...

Re:+5 Funny (1)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994422)

OK, I lied. It produced a mild chuckle, which is more than any of the other stories have done for me ;)

Re:+5 Funny (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994488)

You do realize that trees grow back right? Hell, not only do they grow back, but paper companies go out of their way to make sure that they do. Do you even know anything about the paper industry at all?

I don't worry much about paper (2, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994270)

It's made from fast growing wood that is grown on farms for the express purpose of making paper, so it's not like they're not chopping down old growth forests. And offices around the country routinely recycle their paper, which make a whiter pulp that requires even less bleach than raw wood.

It's just not that big of a deal to me if it gets the point across better.

I certainly don't print just to print, but I don't feel like I have to stop and pity the poor trees that gave their lives for my TPS cover sheets.

Re:I don't worry much about paper (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994348)

Unfortunately some parts of the world [wikipedia.org] are only too happy to cut down their old growth forests for wood chips.

Re:I don't worry much about paper (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994474)

what a useless link. huge page full of text and the only mention of old growth logging is contained in a couple of sentences based on old information.

Since the 1980s the environmental focus has shifted to old growth logging, which has proved a highly divisive issue. The Tasmania Together process recommended an end to clear felling in high conservation old growth forests by January 2003.

Re:I don't worry much about paper (4, Informative)

yali (209015) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994484)

From a 2006 NYT article [nytimes.com]:

...The paper industry is not without its impact. Because of its consumption of energy, the industry -- which includes magazines, newspapers, catalogs and writing paper -- emits the fourth-highest level of carbon dioxide among manufacturers, according to a 2002 study by the Energy Information Administration, a division of the Department of Energy. The paper industry follows the chemical, petroleum and coal products, and primary metals industries.

. . .

The most harmful part of the process is paper production. Breaking down wood fiber to make paper consumes a lot of energy, which in many cases comes from coal plants.

Re:I don't worry much about paper (1)

mikaere (748605) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994530)

Actually, I just saw a documentary last week about paper serviettes that are made from old-growth forests. IIRC, it was in Maine. While some forestry is sustainable, you can actually make more money by destroying old-growth forests. Why ? Because you didn't have to pay the cost of developing the forest in the first place.

Re:I don't worry much about paper (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994592)

"We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative"

"so it's not like they're not chopping down old growth forests"

Re:I don't worry much about paper (1)

dmiller (581) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994748)

Actually, in some places (e.g. Australia), a significant amount of paper _is_ made by chopping down unique old-growth forests. Furthermore, the chlorine bleaching processes commonly used release a substantial amount of toxic effluent. So yeah, you should worry.

Pulp paper should die! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994278)

If ANYONE in power had balls and brains, we'd be using hemp paper instead of wood-based pulp paper. That is all.

The continued government assisted prop-up of industries unwilling to evolve with technology, or environmental social concerns, is why we have half the problems we do. Why must this behavior persist?

Re:Pulp paper should die! (4, Interesting)

skam240 (789197) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994584)

DAMN IT. I've had mod points rewarded to me twice in a row over the last week or so and I finally find a post with a poor mod rating that I'd like to mod up. The increased efficiency in terms of land and resources used for hemp paper versus tree paper is huge. On top of that, for all you puritans out there, it is well within our means today to grow strands that contain virtually almost no THC making the worry over individuals getting high off the crop non existent.

FYI (5, Funny)

Leuf (918654) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994758)

After you write "That is all." you are supposed to stop writing. That is all.

Do you see how it sort of loses the effect when you keep right on going like this? Also we can pretty much tell when you're done by the period and then the lack of any more words.

It's not individuals that paper companies need... (4, Interesting)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994296)

It's not individuals that paper companies need to worry about in my opinion. When you have major gaming companies like Ubisoft claiming that they will no longer manufacture paper game manuals then you have a the beginnings of a major problem (at least if you are in the paper industry or whatever). If large companies stop printing manuals for games, or software, or stop printing instruction manuals for home appliances, and so on, you'll probably see an even bigger impact on paper companies than the losses of individuals skimping on paper use.

I don't print anything anymore. I don't own a printer. And I doubt that I will need one in the future. However I buy tons of video games, movies, appliances, and so on. If those things stop coming with paper manuals and books then it will make a difference.

http://ps3.ign.com/articles/108/1084491p1.html [ign.com] [Ubisoft Removing Paper Game Manuals]

Re:It's not individuals that paper companies need. (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994346)

I have to print out homework for my college classes. I don't print too much, although today was an exception. Had to write to someone in gov't who I couldn't find an email for. Actually had to lookup on line how to address an envelope.

Re:It's not individuals that paper companies need. (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994456)

I'm in the same boat. I printed so infrequently that about 4 years ago when my printer ink dried up from lack of use I didn't bother to replace it. Literally, the only thing I was ever printing was Mapquest directions. Eventually I decided that it just wasn't worth the printer and ink cost to print 10-15 pages per year and I just started jotting the directions down in a notebook when I needed them. A bit more hassle, sure, but given the limited occurrences it was worth it. Now, portable GPS systems have eliminated the need for even that. All in all, I just have absolutely no use for printed material in my personal life anymore. The only thing I use it even at work for anymore is to print out something that I can hold in my hands while I compare it to something elsewhere on screen (as flipping back and forth breaks concentration). And honestly, if my boss ever breaks down and buys me a dual-monitor setup, I doubt even that will remain.

If the entire medium of paper were eliminated tomorrow I'd bet I could adjust within a matter of months.

Paper is environmentally friendly (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994298)

Paper is a renewable resource. Printing documents doesn't destroy forests, because most paper comes from tree farms. If you don't print out this Slashdot article, the tree you think you're saving will just get cut down for someone else. Then, another tree will be planted to replace it. Your paper doesn't come from ancient trees in the South American rainforest.

Re:Paper is environmentally friendly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994336)

In fact, Domtar (the company in question) plants three trees for every tree they harvest. That is to help make up for the length of time it takes for the replacement to become harvestable.

Environmental? (3, Interesting)

DogDude (805747) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994300)

Why do environmental groups get upset by paper? Paper is a very renewable resource. Trees get cut down, and grow back. When I'm done with it, it rots (I happen to compost mine). With this computer I'm typing on, rare metals had to be mined to make it, and when I'm done with it, it sits around for at least a few thousand years (or more?). I have no problem with paper.

Re:Environmental? (1)

bhagwad (1426855) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994424)

I probable reason is that when you compost your paper it releases either carbon dioxide (aerobic composting) or worse - methane (anerobic composting) into the atmosphere. Having the carbon safely locked up in trees is the best form of natural carbon sequestering.

Ideally of course, the carbon would be locked into oil and other fossil fuels deep inside the earth where it can't harm anyone. But we bring that stuff out and don't know how to put it back again.

Re:Environmental? (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994528)

Yeah he shouldn't compost if he wants to lock up CO2 for longer.

He should store it somewhere (archives), landfill it, or recycle.

Mature plants normally stop taking in as much carbon. Growing plants take in more carbon.

As it is, it might be a good idea to use other plants for making paper especially those that grow faster, and those that might reduce the overall environmental impact (use less energy and resources, and produce less toxic/persistent waste).

Re:Environmental? (5, Informative)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994680)

Why do environmental groups get upset by paper? Paper is a very renewable resource. Trees get cut down, and grow back. When I'm done with it, it rots (I happen to compost mine). With this computer I'm typing on, rare metals had to be mined to make it, and when I'm done with it, it sits around for at least a few thousand years (or more?). I have no problem with paper.

Chiefly, it's the chemicals used in processing pulp and the resulting pollution. Ever live near a paper mill? Even after the reforms thirty years ago, it's still a pretty nasty business. Secondarily, a fairly large amount of energy is involved in the harvesting, chipping, and transport of wood chips to the mills. (The mills themselves are actually very energy-efficient, deriving a significant amount of their power from burning the waste wood products, which is basically carbon-neutral.) Then there's the energy involved in transporting the paper products and toxic compounds in a lot of the inks used, as well as the highly toxic solvents used in cleaning and maintaining large-scale printing presses -- for which reason brownfield sites formerly used for printing are quite cheap, if you can afford the necessary cleanup and remediation, anyway.

As with anything else, it is best not to be wasteful and to remember that, for practically any consumer good, a considerable amount of energy was consumed to bring it to you, along with (most likely) a non-trivial amount of pollution. Use more is almost always bad advice.

That said, your point about the manufacture (and disposal) of electronic hardware is spot-on. The paper industry is squeaky clean by comparison.

could be worse (2, Funny)

vxice (1690200) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994302)

feeling like a karma whore right now so I'll compare this to a puppy mill launching a campaign encouraging people to run over their neighbors dogs increasing the demand for puppies. /ducks

Re:could be worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994340)

feeling like a karma whore right now so I'll compare this to a puppy mill launching a campaign encouraging people to run over their neighbors dogs increasing the demand for puppies. /ducks

That's sick!

Now excuse me while I go kill some kittens. [encycloped...matica.com]

Re:could be worse (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994400)

Actually... they don't need to. most people already want to get rid of the dog when it grows up a bit. It ends up being sacrificed in some way, somewhere, quite often. People like puppies, not dogs.

HP is much smarter (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994344)

They merely keep making products that make you print more. Software, mostly. HP smart web print for example, to encourage you to print webpages.

Re:HP is much smarter (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994388)

...which is roughly 300 megabytes to download, and requires a dedicated gigabyte of memory to run.

Re:HP is much smarter (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994428)

Arguably, in the past decade or so, HP moved from being a major driver of printing to being a major force driving people away from printing...

Their cheap seats aren't even worthy of execration at this point, and even their nicer stuff isn't what it used to be(Hey guys, y'know what was a great idea? Releasing a print driver that crashes the print spooler service if somebody prints a PDF...)

Re:HP is much smarter (1)

slayer_ix (927649) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994660)

I strongly hate "smart web print" most screen wasting piece of garbage, its bigger than having two useless tool-bars installed. I just want to punch the guy who thought a vertical tool bar was a good idea.

Print More? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994356)

Trees are a very important part of the ecosystem. We should leave them be. There has been enough destruction of natural resources already.

Hemp paper is cheaper, more abundant, and environmentally friendly.

Also, industrial hemp does not get you 'stoned'. It is said that you would need to smoke a football field of industrial hemp before you began to feel any effects of THC....

I wonder why we don't make paper from hemp then?

Ha ha! (1)

Vegan Cyclist (1650427) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994370)

One of the reasons i recently picked up an e-reader was to avoid collecting more books, and even printing up longer online articles (can easily copy to e-reader, and read at my leisure.) Quite happy with it so far.

Re:Ha ha! (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994466)

I thought about that recently in Malaysia. My wife's relatives's children go to school with school bags on wheels because of the number of books they have to carry. Its mad.

Re:Ha ha! (1)

poopdeville (841677) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994500)

You don't really think your e-reader is more environmentally friendly, though, do you?

Eminently un-recyclable, full of toxic metals and other materials, active users of energy.

of course young people aren't printers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994382)

It takes the accumulation of 35+ years of squinting at monitors, TV screens, game consoles, and books/newspapers in poorly lit rooms before people generally decide that they would prefer hardcopy for a significant percentage of their reading.

In Other News (1)

Obyron (615547) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994446)

Michelin and Goodyear are teaming up to produce a series of PSAs aimed at getting young people to increase the rate at which they burn tires. The ads will consist of "hip" actors like Freddie Prinze, Jr. and Mayim Bialik addressing kids with "rad" lingo, and talking about how awesome it is sit around the tire fire with your "buds" and drink a cold Ovaltine.

Re:In Other News (1)

Leebert (1694) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994636)

Michelin and Goodyear are teaming up to produce a series of PSAs aimed at getting young people to increase the rate at which they burn tires.

Nah, that's old news [wikipedia.org].

Like,,,,EVERYDAY (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994478)

When was the last time your children demanded a printer?

Clearly this person has never had little children. Try getting them one of those Spongebob or Reader Rabbit games. Almost all of them offer B&W line drawings that kids are supposed to print out and color.We were out of ink when my little girl wanted to print hers off and, I swear, I thought she was going shiv me.

I guess I could buy her something like a "My First Wacom Tablet" (tm) and let her color paper-free, but I think that would be a bit cost prohibitive (but also awesome).

Re:Like,,,,EVERYDAY (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994656)

I guess I could buy her something like a "My First Wacom Tablet" (tm) and let her color paper-free, but I think that would be a bit cost prohibitive (but also awesome).

A Bamboo Pen & Touch goes for $99, not that bad in comparison when you consider how expensive printer ink is.

Something's missing here (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994496)

Where's the link to the Onion? There has to be a link to the Onion. There was another article lacking an Onion link, about how coon meat is making a comeback in Detroit. Abandoned neighborhoods are reverting to wilderness and the hunting's getting better. Again, where's the Onion link? I don't want this to be real.

green paper and non-green paper (1)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994538)

From a little bit of web surfing ([1] [wikipedia.org], [2] [thedailygreen.com]), the impression I get is that there is a huge range of variability in how ecologically good or bad paper production is. Recycled paper (like newsprint) is much better than non-recycled, because it costs a lot less energy to produce, causes a lot less water pollution to produce, and keeps more paper out of landfills. Loggers like to say that they practice sustainable forestry, but some logging operations are actually a lot more sustainable than others. In some cases, the amount of carbon being sequestered in trees is kept constant, because the trees of a certain size are just being steadily replaced with more trees that grow to the same size before being harvested; but in other cases, older, larger trees are harvested, and replaced with young ones that contain a lot less carbon.

In other news.... (1, Flamebait)

dr-alves (1612081) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994540)

Asbestos producers launch campaign: Insulate your home with asbestos!
Coal Companies launch campaign: Produce your energy from coal!
Catholic Priests say: All your children are belong to us!!!

Many posts about fast growing trees farmed 4 paper (4, Interesting)

stomv (80392) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994554)

and how that's supposedly good because the carbon is sequestered, etc. Not many posts about the chemical nasties involved in converting trees to pulp to paper, or where those nasties end up, or how much energy is required to harvest the wood, convert it, and deliver it, or how much waste is in the manufacturing of printers, ink cartridges, and ink.

If demand for paper continues to fall, know what that land will be used for? Growing trees. Instead of using that timber for paper, it'll be used for lumber or for biomass electricity generation (which has a net zero carbon emission).

So yeah, trust your instincts on this one... like nearly every processed item, wasting less paper is better for the environment.

Students... (1)

ProdigyPuNk (614140) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994566)

Although there's a lot more technology in the classroom today, things like essays are still printed out, for the most part. In my college English classes, even if you emailed the professor your paper (because you missed class or something), he still wanted a hardcopy the next class. In fact, every normal, face to face class I've had so far (in ~ 2.5 years in college) has required hardcopies of all papers/slideshows/etc.

The only time I don't have to print things out for school is for my online classes (for obvious reasons). It really is nicer for us students to not worry about getting to class on time and making sure we have a hardcopy of our papers, but tbh the prof's always prefer the real thing. I'm sure this kind of printing is a small fraction of a fraction of overall paper sales, but college papers are responsible for at least 90% of my printing.

Oh the vegetality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994568)

Imagine all those poor tree farms that will now be cut down to create data centers.

Flip books? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31994574)

I would expand on the campaign by proposing more flip-book porn.

Considering the size of the market on the internet, I predict this will be a huge success, especially in the multi-angle productions. DVD and Blue-Ray quality? Eat your heart out with awesome 600dpi print on 8x10 super-thick glossy paper for extra flip control!

Need special features? Check the pop-up section!

Young people are also not horse backriders (1)

Punto (100573) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994576)

or telegraph operators, or typewriter users, or newspaper readers. Somebody should get on that.

The concept of environmental friendly (1, Interesting)

jsse (254124) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994588)

My company is a collector of used electronic devices in Hong Kong. Once we received call from a division of the government to collect used printers. To our astonishment, we found a 10 meter sq. room full of used HP 1100 printers stacking to the roof. Turn out it's a result of some idiotic environmentalists attempt to use used papers in printing to "save the environment", which wore out the rubber rollers in the printers pretty quickly. Since the cost to repair is too high (thanks to HP!) they've to discard them.

How many papers they've been saving? Approx. a box or two. How many printers they destroyed and ended up in the field? Hundreds in a year.

Recycled printer papers that are loved by many environmentalists are also a major environment hazard. Ten times more water is needed to be consumed in order to bleach recycle papers than that of bleaching normal papers, not to mention the dumping ten times more of bleaching reagent into the water system.

While paper manufacturer's advocacy might not be welcomed by the mass, it's true that most people has wrong concepts in saving environment.

What's is happening??? (1)

nodnor (1755222) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994606)

I think, this is a business model problem, not a environmental problem, do you believe that environmental campaign will that people leave printing? i dont think so, always you have billions of printing papers, books, or whatever. Will papers demand decrease? Yes, but it will not disappear, for goodness sake

Convert to Environmental Positive (1)

rbrander (73222) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994644)

Stop recycling the stuff!

1) Raise trees on tree farms with land that would be marginal for food crops.
2) Use as paper.
3) Pyrolize it into "biochar", generating power.
4) Bury the biochar.
5) Environmental profit!

We could probably be burying hundreds of millions of tonnes of carbon annually, world-wide, just biochar-ing the paper we use.

The wikipedia article on "biochar" seems to think it would even have commercial profit, if you could sell your "carbon credits" for something over $37 per tonne.

Enemy of The Free Market (2, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994650)

Mr. Williams said ... 'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.'

OK, well;

1: Explain to me why "printing isn't a sort of environmental negative." Start by explaining how using energy and materials in cases where it is not worthwhile to do so is environmentally (or even economically) neutral or positive.
2: If step 1 proves to be impossible or tortured at best, tell me why you think your customers should be misinformed.
3: Re-read the section on free market economics about the importance of informed consumers.
4: Apologize for being an enemy of the benevolent ideals of the free market.

This is why people have problems with the free market. Not because an efficient free market is bad, but because oligopolist assholes like this guy work so hard to harm the free market. Even aside from whether he succeeds in damaging the free market, he is creating harmful imagery of what the free market is, which harms us all.

Of course, it is easy to throw stones. The harder question for me is: How do you fix it?

It's no longer economical to print (2, Insightful)

GWBasic (900357) | more than 3 years ago | (#31994686)

I've realized it's no longer economical to print. Every time I print, I need to spend $50 for a new set of ink cartridges. In contrast, it's cheaper to pay to overnight concert tickets and e-file taxes. In short, there needs to be a printer that can run forever on a $10 ink cartridge in order to get me to print again.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...