1. What about all of the toxic pollution produced during the creation and disposal of computers, plus the energy required to run them? Sounds kind of like hybrid cars. They pollute less when run, but pollute more when built -- and only last half as long.

Translation: I think the ethical impact is negligable.

Posted at 8:31PM on Sep 27th 2006 by Andrew Johnson

2. Andrew: good points about computers... however, I can't give up my computer so you have to keep that option out of the discussion.

Posted at 8:47PM on Sep 27th 2006 by Jason

3. 45 trees maybe? This guy says... "it turns out that we each chop down around three trees a year to feed our [reading] habit."

http://zerofootprint.net/green_stories/green_stories_item.asp?type_=53&ID=5101

That that for what it's worth.

Posted at 9:03PM on Sep 27th 2006 by Matt

4. What about dead tree phone directories...

I recently put our yellow and white pages phone books in the paper recycling because we simply do not use them anymore. I mean, who needs to when you can just look them up online.

Combined these suckers were over 5inches thick and that's just for Auckland, New Zealand...I can't imagine how monstrous they'd be for a big city.

Now imagine the trees that go into manufacturing those phone books, one set for every household...it's frightening. I want a way of opting out of receiving them.

Posted at 10:05PM on Sep 27th 2006 by Charles

5. Not matter how much we love technology and are thrilled about the changes to media consumption coming out of social networking and social media...we are still physical people. We love meeting people face for social and business interaction and we love sitting in the sun at lunch-time with a sandwich looking through a physical newspaper. It feels less like work and more like a break than doing the same online, trying not to spill crumbs on the keyboard. Sure it costs trees to read newspapers and gas to fly round the world to see people - but it feels more human than staring at liquid crystal all day.

Posted at 10:10PM on Sep 27th 2006 by Tim

6. Nothing beats sitting down with a newspaper in the morning. I am on the Web for many hours during the day, but I still read the paper at breakfast.

I recycle as much as I can and that makes me feel OK about it.

Posted at 1:11AM on Sep 28th 2006 by You Mon Tsang

7. Trees were made for paper among other things (ecosystem, food-chain, etc.) Keep enjoying the print experience if you like (I know I enjoy a good print addition from time to time).

Posted at 1:40AM on Sep 28th 2006 by Blake Snow

8. Not unethical. Nothing beats reading the Sunday Times -- and having a print subscription gives you access to the Times Select content online. Maybe think about dropping Mon-Sat.

On another note - have you seen the new Microsoft Times Reader? It's sick!

CD

Posted at 2:24AM on Sep 28th 2006 by CD

9. I think a good newspaper is one of the best uses for paper. Better than, say, flyers that go unread directly to the bin, or real spam mail, or member magazines of autoclubs (that go unread to the bin as well).

There are several advantages of a printed newspaper:

1) Once you have it, you can use it for archiving (and if you have a good archiving system, it will not simply "go away"). Compare that to the web - one second it is there, the next second it's gone, or behind a "pay for this" brickwall.

2) You can read that paper anytime anywhere, e.g. during moring breakfast or in the bath tub.

3) You don't need power or network connectivity to read it, except when it's too dark too read.

4) You (typically) have the articles lined up and edited in a logical fashion that has been finetuned by publishers over decades. Compare this amount of cumulated knowledge to the web - the web is a dwarf.

5) You get a complete view on the world (hopefully) from intelligent editors (again, hopefully) that are more or less neutral (er, yes, hopefully).

6) Paper grows back, and you can recycle it. Compare that to power that goes out the window for running server farms. I agree, that this depends on whether the power comes from nuclear plants or alternative sources...

All-in-all, no, I would not want to miss a good newspaper.

Posted at 2:39AM on Sep 28th 2006 by Mark

10. Aside from the waste issues, reading newspapers just isn't "fun" anymore. There are so many great resources online that allow us to personally syndicate the news that we want...it just doesn't make sense to have loads of paper sitting at home. My sister writes for The Washington Post, so I do like to keep issues when she has a front page story. I also collect magazine issues that have covers/topics that interest me. I purchase these issues at the news stand.

This is definitely a trend, especially with the younger generation. When I was 21, probably 25% of my friends subscribed to the local paper. Now, I would be surprised if 5% of 21 year olds subscribe. I'll be 28 next week! What will the numbers look like in another 7 years when sites like Netscape, Netvibes, Digg, Google News, etc gain traction amongst mainstream users? Newspapers are no longer vehicles for breaking news...period.

Last thought... From an education standpoint, meaning I also enjoy getting a mini-education with each story I read, online news makes so much more sense. Take two identical stories (Steve Irwin's Death for example)...one online and one print... With the print version I am more likely to read it and move on. With the online version I am more likely to read the story, then the wikipedia article on Irwin, then maybe look at a map of where he was filming, then maybe look for Australia Zoo online, then maybe peek at a few videos on youtube, then perhaps a glance to see what the bloggers are saying. I learn more about reported issues online because it is so darn easy.

Posted at 2:41AM on Sep 28th 2006 by Patrick

11. I don't understand. If you feel guilty about killing the trees, you should stop using the papers. Thats it.

IMHO: You can't say, "I like the weekend edition, so let me subscribe just the weekend edition".

Posted at 5:32AM on Sep 28th 2006 by Somu

12. I'm starting to feel guilty for having unsubscribed my daily newspaper. having a famliy and spending so much time online, I could'nt stand the daily's dog-eyed begging any longer. Cause I did'nt read it, and when I occasionally did, I stopped when reading an article that was online the day before. But here is the point: The newspaper businesses is still providing all us of us with quality content and journalism. They just give it away to the internet, and clings to the paper. actually, i would like to pay them. If they would just give me a password, and not the paper. Most newspapers here refuses to sell only-online subscriptions. Stupid.

Posted at 6:57AM on Sep 28th 2006 by Lars Greir

13. Jason its more a matter of status and choice, Reading a daily newspaper is a luxury, thats right a luxury. It means that in this time starved, always on world that we live in and you know infinetly better than most...you've squirreled away 15-20 just for yourself. Think of your morning newspaper like a classicly oak aged scotch or a fine cigar.
Don't be a slave to productivity, head out on the sunny porch, grab a scotch, light up a fine maduro blend...and read that damn paper!

Ps you can skip the scotch and cigar on weekday mornings...those are better left to the warm embrace of sunsets and weekends.

Posted at 9:18AM on Sep 28th 2006 by ryan libson

14. Keep the paper comming. Recycle when done. Problem solved. ;)

Posted at 10:06AM on Sep 28th 2006 by Frank Shaw

15. Have to agree with Tim and Ryan here. The internet is great and the new media tools it enables are a boon to communication, efficiency and collaboration. But let's not become a slave to them. My own distinction has basically been, if I'm reading for information and education (work or personal), I go online. If it's for enjoyment, give me the paper or a book (and please do throw in that scotch and cigar!).

Posted at 10:25AM on Sep 28th 2006 by JesseCiccone

16. If you stop buying the print version of the New York Times, you won't save one twig on one branch of one redwood. Newsprint comes from fast-growing pulpwood forests that are continuously renewed through new growth. You live in Santa Monica, CA, which has an extensive recycling program that covers old newspapers. All you have to do is put your old Times, and any other paper products, in the big blue recycling barrel that should be in the alley behind your home. If you really want to help the environment, try concentrating on non-renewable resources, like oil. You can do that by buying a hybrid-fuel or fuel-efficient car and encouraging your friends to do so. The Natural Resources Defense Council spells out how the U.S. could dramatically cut back its gasoline consumption -- and eliminate all petroleum imports -- through a combination of biofuels, efficiency and smart growth. http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/rep/chap1.asp

Posted at 12:54PM on Sep 28th 2006 by Tom Grubisich

17. Since modern society consumes trees for paper, and land is of limited supply, it makes sense that paper companies plant trees where they've cut them down (tree coverage in the US is up some 30% over the past 50 years). No need to feel guilty - you and the NY Times advertisers are paying for the costs and benefits of all of this.

As an interesting aside, an economist from Maine (a state 80% covered in forest), Jon Reisman, suggests eliminating property tax on unused forest land as a means of promoting conservation.

Posted at 2:48PM on Sep 28th 2006 by peek

18. For sections of the newspaper that I read, I don't feel too bad. What gets me is the Sunday paper with 80 pages of classifieds that go straight to the recycling bin.

They should make that garbage optional:
http://redesign.wordpress.com/2006/09/28/reducing-the-burden-of-newspapers/

Posted at 9:07PM on Sep 28th 2006 by Rocky Agrawal

19. I think the obvious thing to do would be start a pass on the paper type of thing. In my condo there are about 10 of us that pass on the paper to at least 1 other person in the building. I mainly read the front page section, 1-2 pages of local community section and a bit of arts and life. This doesn't take long and I am usually dropping off the paper at my neighbours door by 10 or 11 on my days off and 5-6 at night on work days.The fact that I am paying for the paper, and they aren't, doesn't bother me. They would not buy one otherwise, so why not share and make it worth it. Sometimes the paper makes it to 3 homes in one day. Yay!! Same goes for books.

Posted at 11:52AM on Oct 2nd 2006 by anna

20. this is a great series (the ethicist), and a great question (about reading print editions). unfortunately as long as monitors and handhelds aren't easy enough on our eyes, masses won't give up print editions, even if they have the ability to read the same paper on a pocketpc or via broadband. myself included - if i come across a long article i want to read online, i print it out for easier reading...

Posted at 7:00PM on Oct 2nd 2006 by Kevin