1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.GAMES.BACKGAMMON

  • Some research which Tim would heartily endorse

    From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 19 07:13:05 2021
    Tim seems persuaded by https://twosidesna.org/US/going-paperless-does-not-save-trees/ which (I would guess) is why he said (on another thread)
    that "going paperless does not save trees."

    This type of claim is obviously controversial -- those connected to
    the paper industry will obviously fight tooth-and-nail against "go paperless" campaigns

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Sun Dec 19 20:33:11 2021
    On 12/19/2021 10:13 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    Tim seems persuaded by https://twosidesna.org/US/going-paperless-does-not-save-trees/ which (I would guess) is why he said (on another thread)
    that "going paperless does not save trees."

    This type of claim is obviously controversial -- those connected to
    the paper industry will obviously fight tooth-and-nail against "go paperless" campaigns.

    Two Sides is certainly the most prominent group to argue the
    point, and they certainly have vested interests. But the strongest
    promoters of "go paperless" also typically have vested interests.
    They're typically focused on saving money for their company in the
    short term, and have generally not investigated the environmental
    impact in any detail.

    If you don't trust Two Sides firsthand then you can read what the
    Guardian has to say about their findings.

    https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/digital-really-greener-paper-marketing

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Mon Dec 20 10:00:51 2021
    On 12/19/2021 10:13 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    Tim seems persuaded by https://twosidesna.org/US/going-paperless-does-not-save-trees/ which (I would guess) is why he said (on another thread)
    that "going paperless does not save trees."

    This type of claim is obviously controversial -- those connected to
    the paper industry will obviously fight tooth-and-nail against "go paperless" campaigns

    By the way, I should mention that I remember reading analyses
    about the use of paper versus "saving trees" back when I was
    in secondary school (in the 1980s), pointing out that since
    most paper comes from trees that are farmed specifically to
    produce paper, paper use has at best an indirect connection to
    deforestation. Two Sides seems to be a relatively recent
    organization, so they were certainly not responsible for
    whatever material I was reading back in school.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)