From 1998 until 2006, the Wired website and Wired magazine had different owners and were run separately. In 2006, Condé Nast bought the website back and reunited them. I've heard rumors that there were some tensions along the way.
I can't help but wonder if those tensions are behind an odd post from Chris Anderson, editor-in-chief of Wired magazine, claiming that Wired-the-magazine beats Wired-the-website on a carbon basis.
The claim is mostly based on the fact that by cutting down (sustainably managed) trees and burying them in landfills, paper magazines sequester carbon. There are, however, no numbers offered to back this up. Yet Anderson seems quite defensive about it in comments.
Peculiar.
Soil carbon—a blind spot in the debate on carbon
Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Comments
View as Flat
scatter Posted 6:42 am
05 Mar 2008
Permalink
Glenn Hurowitz Posted 11:38 pm
05 Mar 2008
Call it the Sofa Scheme. They're arguing that every sofa, Post-It note, and Kleenex tissue they produce should be counted as carbon storage, just like forests are. Their logic is that even when these forest products are discarded and put in a landfill, they're keeping that carbon safely in the ground rather than sending it into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.
If the timber lobby gets its way, that could mean big money for the logging companies.
Read More
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:03 am
06 Mar 2008
Compare that total to the energy to produce the website and make it available on the internet.
Then realize how much more GHG was emmitted to "store" that carbon in the landfill. Where it isn't stored of course, but instead turned into methane (23 times worse as a GHG than CO 2).
Should a publication about technology and science, on the web or in the mail, be headed up by a technical illiterate like this? Get a new editor-in-chief, Wired.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:09 am
06 Mar 2008
Permalink