[LINK] How many Newspapers does it take to build Ayers Rock?

Marghanita da Cruz marghanita at ramin.com.au
Wed May 13 09:55:02 AEST 2009

Ivan Trundle wrote:
>>> Therefore if we can assume that the digital audience is as large as  
>>> the
>>> traditional paper audience, (and Rupert Murdoch's recent revelations
>>> would suggest that it is larger); we can safely deduce that digital
>>> delivery is 95.86% less harmful to the environment.
> I suspect that the figures show that the EXISTING traditional *paying*  
> audience is waning, and the digital *non-paying* audience is rising.  
> The potential traditional audience is far greater than the potential  
> digital audience. But I won't quibble over this one.
> But if we're talking *delivery* - then this is a very narrow focus,  
> and I say 'bollocks' to the 95.86% figure...
> The entire consumption chain involves a good deal of electronics, all  
> of which come at a cost, at all levels. You can't discount these any  
> more than you can discount the environmental cost of vehicles used to  
> transfer the physical newspaper to the consumer.
> The suggestion that digital delivery of any data is at no or little  
> cost to the environment, whilst discounting the infrastructure  
> required to support the distribution and resultant action, is entirely  
> fabricated.
I would agree with the suggestion, that the traditional paying audience is
waning or has waned, but  there is a difference in environmental impact and
timeliness between digital and hardcopy reuse of content (both media releases
and syndicated news). Though it would appear, that I am not alone in enjoying
the Saturday morning papers for a bit of background or analysis...maybe even

It is also worth checking out some of the older papers, to see how "news" has

and...from the whitehouse:
> Media reports today are suggesting that OMB has found fault with EPA?s proposed finding that emissions of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles contribute to air pollution that endangers public health and welfare.  Any reports suggesting that OMB was opposed to the finding are unfounded.
> In other words, we simply receive comments from various agencies and pass them along to EPA for consideration, regardless of the substantive merit of those comments.  In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.

And coming back home, compare the environmental cost and human cost of 
preparing, printing and
distributing audit and  budget documents with online versions, but unfortunately 
this does not seem to
get a mention in:
> House Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage
> Committee activities (inquiries and reports)
> Review of Green Office Procurement Audit
> Review of Audit Report No. 22, 2005-2006
> Interim report ? Inquiry into a Sustainability Charter 

though this analysis seems to missing from here as well:

Marghanita da Cruz
Phone: (+61)0414 869202

More information about the Link mailing list