Hi Brian,

Something of an aside . . .

You are entirely correct, there are tremendous benefits to be gained from
distributing information electronically instead of using paper& ink.  It
takes much less energy to move electronics around the world than it does
tree pulp.  There are some problems to overcome to make e-docs the preferred
means of getting info.  There are the psychological aspects - the warm
fuzzy, safe, feeling of paper over digital.  Then there are some technical
challenges to solve - namely display resolution & portability.  A standard
computer monitor (CRT) has a resolution of 72 dpi and current flat panels
are ~100.  Compare that to the 300 dpi you get with a laser printer or the
185 dpi you get with magazines or pulp paperback books - no wonder I still
hit the print button.  The good news, technology has made some advances for
folks with LCD flat panels (font rendering software) and more are expected
by the end of the year (Tablet PCs).

There is an incredible monologue (audio program not a book) on this subject
at http://www.microsoft.com/reader/events.asp  Bill Hill, in a very
satisfying Scottish brogue, discusses the coming revolution from paper to
electronic books and what is required to make that happen.  Last about 40
minutes or so

Hans



-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 8:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [EN] IPC encourages deforestation


I've just looked through an IPC Review which dropped on my doormat
yesterday.

I'd like to bring to your attention an anomaly.

In this day and age, IPC specs and suchlike start out their life on a
computer. From there, it is easy to convert it to a PDF format, burn a
CD-R and then duplicate it into CD-ROMs for next to nothing. The
alternative is to print out a set of originals, prepare offset plates
and print them out, page after page after page after page, staple them,
trim them, put them into large envelopes and transport the many kg
(producing CO2), a much more costly operation.

Which is the more environmentally favourable method of distribution?
(Better still would be to send the PDF file via the Internet.)

Yet the price of receiving a document as a paper copy is much less than
in an electronically-readable form. Should not this be exactly the
inverse? Not only because the electronic form is cheaper, but to save
the trees, the use of polluting inks and the CO2 produced by the energy
required to make the paper (even recycling paper consumes energy),
bleach it, package it and mail it. Should not the IPC set an example?

Best regards,

Brian