Liberals always think the rules are for everyone else, not them….they just give out the wisdom of the ages for the rest of us poor slobs.

As always:

“It depends on whose ox is being gored.”

Come on, the dislike of the NYT is blinding one from seeing the use of newspapers for multi things. There’s the parrot cage application noted above, and I use newspapers and liberal amounts of lighter fluid to get my charcoal grill started. Sure, perhaps not as dramatic as fighting cancer or designing computer chips, but nonetheless quite practical—yet simple in our go-go age.

For electronics, information, and electricity—our digital infrastructure, gold, copper, tin, lead, silver, indium, silicon, tantalum, etc. all have to be mined and processed. Silicon for semiconductors and solar need to be processed in energy intensive processes using toxic chemicals.

But we’re not doing it simply for the sake of reading the NYT. Their paper and ink is mostly unusable for any other purpose other than their own (though recyclable), but your computer and cell phone can be put to myriad uses – many of them far more productive. For example, you may read the NYT web site, then switch over and use your computer in the battle against cancer, or to calculate the way to double the number of computer chips in the next generation of wafers. All-in-all I’d say digital wins.
Your puppie or fishbones may disagree…

I agree about the left and the NYT and its biases.

Pardon my side-track on the original commentary. I was not meaning to defend the NYT per se, just to offer a bit of counter to the “trees/paper are bad bad bad” vs. “digital/on-line is green green” perspective.

The NYT is NOT even-handed, and is notoriously hypocritical. so they are a target-rich environment.

I think I’ve reported here before that, on the same day the Times editorialized against “corporate welfare”, their business section reported approvingly that the Times Corporation had secured a $29 million tax break from the City to encourage them to build a new HQ downtown.

q.e.d.

It is not a question of a few servers. The production and consumption of cell phones, computers, servers, etc. do grow year after year. That is why Intel, Apple, Cisco and others strive to compete and stay in business.

As with paper products, there is an extensive, energy intensive extractive industry required for our digital age.

On a net comparison, is digital “greener” for the environment compared to paper? Honestly, I do not know, though I would not too readily describe digital as good for the environment. Yes trees are chopped down for print, but can be replanted.

For electronics, information, and electricity—our digital infrastructure, gold, copper, tin, lead, silver, indium, silicon, tantalum, etc. all have to be mined and processed. Silicon for semiconductors and solar need to be processed in energy intensive processes using toxic chemicals.

I don’t think the sky-is-falling with all the Al Gore, NY Times hype, but lets be careful what we (the enviro elites) deem and bless as being green. Often there is more feel good hype than substance.

I know for the greenie-types, cutting down trees is bad bad bad, yet lets look at things critically.

You ever notice how you can type something, delete it and type something else?

Welcome to Earth.

On June 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am, dpt said:

“Congress should tax the Times until they switch to the environmentally friendly all-digital format”

How is all-digital environmentally friendly? Do computers, semiconductor devices, and wiring grow from trees?

No. However, the Times has already invested in servers for their web presence. We’re just suggesting that they use it more.

And I really don’t think a few servers compare to cutting down whole forests every year just to print and distribute trash. Maybe if they switched we would see building lumber drop in price…

Anyway,

Don’t forget the fleet of non-hybrid trucks that deliver that bird-cage liner every day.

Or the volatiles that pour off the printing press, into the atmosphere, every time they run their presses.

Or the carbon generated shipping literally thousands of tons of paper stock and ink to their presses.

Or the carbon generated every time they fly their “reporters” from here to there.

Etc.

Care to contrast the NYT’s carbon footprint, per reader, with Drudge, MichelleMalkin, and other modern sites?

So why do liberals still prefer paper to phosphors? Why is the blogosphere primarily conservative, while the written press is primarily liberal?

Because, for the most part, liberals are technically challenged…

/nerd-speak

On June 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am, StacyH said:

Also – so it’s now a good thing that GM has cut 35,000 jobs and is sending 4,500 jobs to Mexico?

It’s good for so many reasons and each one of them can be used to blame Bush…

/sarc off

–what would bums use for park bench blankets?

–what would I wrap fish guts in?

–what would I use for “mountain money” on camping trips (oh, did I *really* say that)?

*out*

Expensive gasoline is not good news for most American families. In some rural areas where people must drive long distances, and a pickup is more of a necessity than a lifestyle choice, filling up the tank can eat up nearly 15 percent of a worker’s take-home income. Pricey gasoline is acting as a brake on the economy and pushing up the price of food and other goods.

Still, Americans’ response to rising gasoline prices makes an excellent case for a gas tax. It proves that drivers will change their behavior in response to high fuel prices.

Boomer, BlameAmericaLast,

As you can see the NYT understands your situation and is response to rising gas prices thinks increasing gas taxes will help. Just like the Global Warming Carbon Tax this will give us hope by encouraging us to walk everywhere, which will be very useful getting you to work in snowstorms.