cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> | | |
The Federal Trade Commission announced last month that it's revising its packaging guidelines to make them more environmentally sound.
Fair enough. The FTC usually does these things in moderation. Not so some of the other voices in the environmental debate.
For example, a group called ForestEthics has started a campaign to encourage do-not-mail legislation. It claims that landfills are being glutted with junk mail (not true — direct mail contributes maybe 1%) and that mailing lists lead to identity theft. (Also not true. Anyway, isn't that problem a little off your beat, guys?)
But this is typical. In the interest of generating headlines, many of which will appear on paper, this group wants to destroy a medium that's been part of the American economy since the time of the Civil War.
As reported on our cover, many companies allow customers to opt for online messages over paper direct mail. That's responsible, and very much in line with the idea of consumer choice.
But we wonder if paper is as harmful to the biosphere as discarded mobile phones and computers. The greenies aren't asking that question.
Nor are they asking about the motives of self-proclaimed green companies, which shows you just how gullible they are.
For example, what about banks that urge customers to do business online in the name of the environment? Are they trying to save the planet or money on postage and paper?
What about hotels that ask guests to use towels several days in a row? For the prices they charge, you should get clean towels.
Finally, what about Starbucks, which painted itself green on day one? Are those plastic gift cards it hands out biodegradable?
These things are worth exploring, but the environmental watchdogs would rather wipe out a $63 billion advertising channel. That's easier.
We have one question: Do ForestEthics and the Vermont Progressive Party send direct mail?
|
