⇥ Will It Blend?
Note: this is my exit(0) column from the December 2008 issue of php|architect. I am reproducing it here in the hopes that it will shed some more light on the work that we have done to improve the environmental profile of php|architect
As you probably know, this is the last issue of the “old” php|architect; starting with the January issue—which, ironically, is already on its way to you even as I am writing this—you will receive a magazine that is, in many ways, quite different from the one you are holding in your hands (of reading on your screen).
One of the most controversial aspects of our “reboot” of php|a and the introduction of the new print-required subscription model has been its perceived impact on the environment. Despite having received a good response from readers when we lowered our subscription rates, many current readers wrote to express concern about the fact that forcing all subscribers to purchase a print edition of our magazine seemed wasteful.
My reaction to these concerns was that, first of all, you can still go PDF-only: simply buy each issue individually from our online store. Of course, this is not as convenient as subscribing and receiving each issue automatically, but if the environmental impact of paper is your primary motivator, a solution does exist.
The other point that I have repeatedly tried to make (without all that much success, I am sorry to say) is that the environmental impact of the new magazine is actually lower, both in relative and absolute terms, than the old one. Until today, all that I had to support this claim was simply a number of calculations that we had made as we prepared to switch over. Now that the first prototypes of the new format have come off the production line, I can finally give you a bit more information.
The switch to an all-print format caused us to increase our regular print run by approximately 15% (this is before counting the new subscriptions that we recorded thanks to our price drop). However, the added critical mass allowed us to switch to a much lighter paper, so that the weight of each individual copy has gone down from around 130g to approximately 90g—a reduction of over 30%. Thus, 100 old subscribers that required 13kg of paper have now translated in 115 subscribers, who, however, only require 10.35kg of paper. So, it turns out that having more print subscribers results in a net loss in terms of real ecological impact: less paper weight means fewer trees, and a smaller carbon footprint from transportation.
Even better, the new paper is FSC certified, meaning that it is produced using environmentally sound practices from trees grown in nurseries specifically destined to paper production, rather than from harmful logging (you can read more about the Forest Stewardship Council on their website).
Finally, the greater volume has given us access to organic ink, made from soy and completely biodegradable. So, even though we do use more ink than before, we use ink that is much greener than before.
On this note, in the hopes of having shed some light on the mystery of green printing, I wish you—and your dear ones—a most happy holiday season.
Comments
Marco, I want to thank you for your continued concern for both the quality of the magazine and the community’s expectations of the same.
- Jeff
“I am writing this—you will receive a magazine that is, in many ways, quite different from the one you are holding in your hands (of reading on your screen).”
Could you shed some light about how the magazine for the online readers will change? What’s going to change? Quality of articles? Topics?