An article posted on the PBS web site asks

"Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print?"
"...is it possible that digital media could be more destructive to the environment and a greater threat to trees, bees, rivers and forests in the United States than paper-making or printing?"

The article's approach to the topic is three-fold.

First, it asks provocative questions without providing forthright answers. A careful reading revealed no hard evidence for these positions. (The article jumps between references to the environment and to just forests, but I don't see any solid evidence for a digital-media-is-worse-for-the-forsets-than-print argument, either.)

By way of example, I found no evidence in the article to support its opening assertion that the decision to replace a paper bill payment with an electronic one is a "false dilemma". In fact, evidence suggests the contrary. Consider CO2e data for physical mail versus email.

Second, when discussing paper, the article largely focuses on sustainability improvements in the paper making and printing processes. The article neglects to educate readers that one of the biggest impacts of physical media, paper or digital, is the impact of moving it around. The paper bill, envelope, and inserts have to be transported from the paper mill to the printer, from the printer to the mailer, from the mailer to the customer, and from the customer back to the mailer. Plus the transportation from both the mailer and the customer of various components to (hopefully) recyclers and from the recyclers back to the mill. All this involves hundreds, if not thousands, of fossil fuel miles. This is why electronic bill-paying is a clear sustainability win, despite the article's attempt to cast doubt.

This is also why the next step in the evolution of digital media itself is the 'dematerialization' of physical digital media like DVDs. (Electronic bill paying is also example of the dematerialization of physical (paper) media.)

Third, when discussing digital, the article largely focuses on the sustainability challenges for ICT. The article neglects to point out that these are well-known in the industry and many, many people are working on them around the world from the perspectives of technology, best practices, international standards, and government regulations. The fact that ICT is not perfectly green does not prove the article's suggestion that digital media is "worse" than print.

In a similar vain, the article cites a resource guide for choosing paper products, but doesn't reference the hundreds of Green ICT publications, videos, web sites, blogs, Twitter feeds, etc. available in many languages to individuals and organizations. Presenting the worst of ICT alongside the best of paper does a disservice to those seeking to improve the sustainability of all their media operations.

As responsible individuals and enterprises, we should not be afraid of challenging questions about the environmental impact of our communications choices, as long as those questions are based on science, evidence, and best practices/technologies.

PBS credits the author as its "MediaShift environmental correspondent", although this appears to be his only posted article. PBS devotes a substantial paragraph to the author's resume without ever telling us that this article restates a position the author has repeatedly advocated in the media, in a white paper, and at pulp/paper/print industry events. The author prominently displays the PBS name next to his white paper on the front page of his web site; it appears from a 23 April comment that an industry trade group intends to use the PBS MediaShift credential to legitimize this position as well.

I don't fault the author for trying to advance his position through any receptive outlet and the fact that he could get PBS to print it demonstrates his skill as a communications professional. Rather, it is the editorial judgment of PBS in how it presented this that makes me uncomfortable. I've been a long time supporter of PBS and applaud its attempt to incorporate online media into its mix. PBS can distinguish itself from other e-news sources by applying the same journalistic standards online as it does on-air.