Google’s 'Paperless' Initiative Blasted...Twice
Google’s recent effort to get consumers to ‘Go Paperless in 2013’ did not go unchallenged by the printing industry. Both the Printing Industries of America and Two Sides, a non-profit organization that promotes the responsible production, use and sustainability of print and paper, sent open letters to Google Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt this week, calling the company out for implying that environmental benefits will arise from eliminating paper, despite glaring evidence that electronic communications—and Google’s activities in particular—carry a significant environmental footprint.
"While the products and services delivered by Google are to be admired," the letter from Two Sides states, "this new initiative is clearly another example of a self-interested organization using an environmentally-focused marketing campaign to promote its services while ignoring its own impact upon the environment."
PIA's letter is even more pointed: "Inferring that going digital is better for the environment is not only inaccurate, it is irresponsible," wrote Michael Makin, president and CEO of PIA. "The printing industry and the products it produces has been at the forefront of sustainability...Electronic devices, such as those used by Google and its partners in the Go Paperless Initiative, require the mining and refining of dozens of minerals and metals, as well as the use of plastics, hydrocarbon solvents, and other non-renewable resources. For Google to call for a paperless world to save the environment is hypocritical to say the least."
Two Sides' letter notes that electronic waste (e-waste) is now the fastest growing component of the municipal solid waste stream, making up five percent of all municipal solid waste worldwide.
"The amount of electronic products discarded globally has skyrocketed recently, with 20-50 million tonnes generated every year," the letter says.
Read the full letter from Two Sides, which includes statistics on Google’s environmental impact, here. View PIA's response to Google here.





