Back in the early days of worrying about the environment we looked at paper and pitied the poor trees that were sacrificed for it, hence the drive towards paper recycling and all that.
Now, however, with the urgent need to do something about CO2, there is an entirely new perspective: I can consider the 5000+ books in my household as a significant contribution to carbon sequestration. As long as our house doesn't go up in flames, there are tons of carbon safely locked away in our books, old magazines, papers, and all that.
People of the world, buy more books ! (Even if you don't read them, just keep them safe from fire and rot.)
Hi Adam,
ReplyDeleteI agree completely. I've had the "saving trees vs. using trees to sequester carbon" argument many times.
On the surface it seems that as long as the trees that are being processed into paper are replanted, and the paper doesn't burn and release its carbon back into the atmosphere, we're ahead of the game.
My question is, when we add up all of the energy required to harvest the trees, transport them to the paper mill, process them into paper, process them into books then transport them to our bookshelves, are we really gaining?
One last thought... A few months ago I read a posting somewhere that said 'The more well read a person is the more likely they are to acknowledge and accept Global Climate Change'
Therefore books are good regardless.