For the eco-irony of the day, check out this book on threatened trees, which is thicker than a phone book:
How did you arrive at your conclusion that the book threatens trees?
This UNEP report came out over a decade and half ago first. The text is available online - for free. Surely those who seek the "print" versions drive the tree-destruction that you allude to. Why blame the book and not those who seek the print version? Isn't that a bit like blaming animals bred for meat rather than meat-eaters for the carbon footprint of the meat industry?
If destruction of trees is of concern, what about comparing with the alternatives such as a possible e-version to be read on a reader (uses metal, plastics, rechargeable cells that eventually have a finite life)? Just in the interest of a complete analysis.
To be fair, that book is eleven years old. The IUCN makes its publications available as .pdf downloads now.
You would think there might be a greater effort to print at least conservation-orientated books on recycled or forest certified paper.
The irony is still pretty dang funny, if you ask me.
It's like selling "Save the Coral" Coral necklaces.
just curious, do you think the world would be a better or worse place with or without such books?
this may sound crazy but not everyone has computers and not all of those who do, have internet access to download electronic versions. and if you happen to actually work in the field (where the trees are), even if you are lucky enough to have a computer with internet access, you are probably not going to be carring it around with you.
do you think those Lancome face creams (even without the packaging) are more any more environmentally friendly with all the chemicals and stuff put into them. At least the book has a purpose that attempts to help educate others about our environment (it probably also costs less than the face cream).
While the argument concerning obtaining the information via pdf is legitimate, so too is the condemnation of using wood pulp (trees/chemical pulping/sizing additives/associated greenhouse gas byproduction) in it's conventional manufacture...
the message from IUCN in reprints could easily serve a greater good if they adopted the same technology as Bill McDonough's Cradle to Cradle, "printed on a synthetic 'paper,' made from plastic resins and inorganic fillers, designed to look and feel like top quality paper while also being waterproof and rugged. And the book can be easily recycled in localities with systems to collect polypropylene, like that in yogurt containers."
On many occasions I have carried this book with me in a grungy backpack, through mud and rain, and it has survived better than several "waterproofed" wildlife guides...
Is it still ironic if they didn't use threatened trees? Maybe they cut down the non-threatened trees to make the book and also make room to plant more threatened trees?
ummm, Juice, did you read the comment before yours or are you just trolling?
even if the IUCN did not use "threatened" trees, the whole point is that they didn't need to use trees to start with given their well-documented ability to absorb carbon;
secondly, making paper produces greenhouse gasses and leaches toxic chemicals into the environment;
thirdly, the reference above is not just to the Cradle to Cradle book but the cradle to cradle concept- nothing need be one-time use or even a small-percentage "post-consumer" product if it can be 100 recyclable!
Eric, the half a bee,
You have it spot on, especially your third point: the whole idea is that we could so easily employ the cradle-to-cradle concept in a myriad of everyday uses, from household products to clothing to building/construction materials to work at "the office"- thanks!
"Half a bee, philosophically, must ipso facto half not be. But half the bee has got to be, vis-Ã -vis its entirety - d'you see? But can a bee be said to be or not to be an entire bee when half the bee is not a bee, due to some ancient injury?".