Paper versus the web – Is there a clear winner?

Leading consultant calls on the print industry to fight its 'green' corner
Guardian Print site page turner

Paper versus the web – Is there a clear winner?


I'd like to issue a challenge to the print industry. Everyone is talking about what they need to do to improve their corporate responsibilities and increase their efforts towards sustainable practice. Yes, there is always more to be done, but the print industry already has a lot to shout about so why doesn't it fight its corner better in terms of its CSR profile?

Over the last ten years the move towards less reliance on print media has raised challenges for the industry. The advances in electronic media have forced the print industry to consider the right business strategy in the face of these structural changes.

Many opinion formers argue that the trend towards greater use of electronic media can only bring environmental benefits. By cutting down fewer trees, creating less paper waste and through increased use of on-line media the world can only be a better place. I am not sure that I buy all of these arguments.

Electronic media require massive global infrastructure not least to support access to the world-wide web and to appropriate technology to view information. The industry hasn't exactly raced to be transparent about the energy profile of the technology behind the internet - although this is changing, largely as a result of criticism.

How can we compare, for example, the carbon profile of unique users viewing a web page with the carbon burden of a print run of equivalent reports? I don't believe anyone has yet come up with a slick way of expressing these numbers. And although the environmental burden per user view of an individual web page might be relatively low, the total burden imposed by all electronic media is huge.

Until recently the energy burden of the massive data warehouses that support the internet have slipped under the radar. This issue is just starting to attract broader attention now. Some of the big names are not being transparent about the carbon footprint of their operations.

As just one example, Google's data centre in The Dalles, Oregon, could use as much energy as the entire English city of Newcastle when it comes fully online in 2011. In 2000, data centres as a whole were estimated as contributing 0.8% of total US electrical consumption; ten years later that number must have increased considerably. And for every 100 watts those data centres consumed, only 2.5 watts resulted in useful computing.

Recent research has also highlighted that performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea (a search meaning a series of web searches leading to a conclusion).

So there are massive inefficiencies.

Although the main technology suppliers recognise this and are responding to pressure to reduce the environmental burden of making and using PCs, PDAs, web enabled mobile handsets and so on, collectively their impacts are enormous.

The ICT sector is estimated to be responsible for 2% of carbon emissions in Europe.

The industry average for high power usage effectiveness (PUE) is 2, which means for every watt used by IT machinery 2 watts is required to cool it off. Some industry players are disclosing much improved performance , for example Google is quoting (1.21) and Microsoft (1.22) reporting on their PUE.

Another factor that we cannot avoid in comparing print media with the internet is that modern technology remains a luxury enjoyed by only the relatively wealthy. There is an often quoted statistic that half the world's population has yet to make its first phone call. Perhaps that number is changing with the mobile revolution – nevertheless the so-called Digital Divide remains a burning social issue given unequal access to technology.

From a global perspective print media are an essential force in communications which is not going to go away.

And often, web-technology just isn't right for getting your message across. I work in corporate reporting for example. Many of our clients are experimenting with all sorts of exciting technology as part of their communications mix, but most recognise that sometimes, a tangible product you can hold in your hand is simply the most effective medium.

So in my opinion there are opportunities for the print industry to raise a number of valid questions in defending its CSR position. We could easily gain the impression that forest products are a 'bad thing' but this is far from the truth. Properly managed, sustainable forests are vital to the economies of many countries, creating jobs often in rural settings where there are few other opportunities for economic activity. What is more, well managed forests are an important carbon sink, particularly in the early stages of the growth cycle. I'm not convinced that the argument recycled is best, is always right.

So, with all that in mind, why doesn't the print industry respond to the challenge and fight its corner better?

Mark Line is executive chairman of Two Tomorrows.

This article was first published in Print Week on 21st August 2009