Andrew Laska, says:

There are flaws in this set of arguments. I'll admit most of this is based on patchwork knowledge.

First, newspapers rely on renewable tree stock and recycled content. Depending on what stats you read, cutting down trees for news print that isn't already farmed in a cut and replant cycle isn't common. Thus a certain type of carbon neutrality is already built in. I think if one does some accounting for newsprint based on recycled content and trees planted to replace sources, I'll bet they are more well off than they think.

Second, Google is not carbon free. Part of their networking strategy (unless its changed since I read about it) relies partly on large networks of obsolete or older model computers. Those are far less energy efficient and computers are still poor generally speaking. There are some high efficiency networking suppliers out there but they account for a fraction of machines. Anyway, their strategy requires them to use more renewable energy and since renewable sources are limited (especially wind power) this helps drive up prices and thus makes it less attractive for others. The effectiveness of carbon offsets is controversial at best and they depend greatly on the kind of offsets purchased. Add into that the toxicity of electronics, in both manufacturing and disposal, that we don't even think about as we toss them. Without getting more long winded it is very hard to make any operation that is dependent on large scale computer operations "Green." Sure Google is making a go of it, but the reality is that their chosen business is two strikes against them.

Andrew Laska, says:

Well I guess I wasn't clear. I am conjecturing that Mr Mutter is wrong. I admit its more thought experiment than anything else so nobody jump down my throat.

My argument is that newspapers already have a significant amount of neutrality built in. No doubt if they are pushed to a wall by regulation they will argue that point.

And as I said offset effectiveness is controversial at best. It may be that Google is doing an accounting game that isn't effective is helping solve the problem it is intended to solve.

Look at it this way: Lets say a newspaper expands readership by 5%. (Stop laughing. I know its not going to happen.) Lets say Google expands its operations equivalently. Yes I know its apples to oranges but work with me. The newspaper will not have a hard time with carbon footprint since newsprint cycle is already to a great extent based on tremendous recycled or renewable content. Google on the other hand has an operation where, if it wants to be Green, means additional expenditures that aren't built into its business area. Google has to force it and that means money.

My point in blabbing was to point out that I think Mr Mutter didn't think it through.

I am in the technology business as are many people reading this. Those of us that sit around and think forward to what carbon and environmental regulatory issues would mean to us start to realize that we would have a huge hill to climb. I'd be interested to know if other technologists think I'm full of hot air. Again, I admit its more thought experiment than anything else.