I just read an article on LATimes.com that just chafed my hide. I believe that everyone has a right to their opinion, even if I think they’re total crackpots (”opinions are like assholes…”). However, I fail to see the point or benefit of demonizing environmental activism.

In September 2007, Scholastic will release The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming by Laurie David and Cambria Gordon. The book pages will be printed on paper that contains 100% post-consumer water fiber as well as use soy inks. Scholastic’s press release describes the book as:

Written for ages 8 and up, is the comprehensive resource young readers can look to for understanding why global warming happens and how we can work together to stop it. Irreverent and entertaining, and packed with essential facts and suggestions on how to effect change, Down-to-Earth offers a message of hope.

Then on the other side of the spectrum, there’s World Ahead Publishing, publishers of titles such as Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About the New Democratic Majority and Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under My Bed!. Like Scholastic, they also plan to publish their own environment-themed book. Except instead of encouraging responsibility for our own impact on the Earth, World Ahead’s book will be “intended to debunk global warming and discourage environmental activism.”

They’ve got cojones, I’ll give them that, but it almost seems as if World Ahead delights in publishing their books for the sole purpose of sticking their tongues out at liberals. Can we grow up here? Being aware and taking care of where we live has nothing to do with the left or right, it’s simply about being responsible for our actions. It’s one thing if you don’t believe that global warming is taking place, or that humans are the main perpetrators. It’s another to paint “environmental activism” as a bad thing and to discourage it, putting faith, instead, in the doctrine that IF global warming becomes an issue, capitalism will be the answer.

I’m curious to see just exactly how they will go about telling kids that “it’s OK to chill about global warming” (which is actually part of the book’s title). I’m picturing a scene where a father and son are having a heart-to-heart conversation about how it’s OK for mom and dad to drive Hummers, because despite what those kooky environmentalists might say, ginormous vehicles have no negative impact on the environment. But even if they did (which is doubtful, of course), then it’s still no cause for worry because MegaCorp, Inc. will come up with something snazzy to fix everything!

Categories: books, environment
1 Comment »

Well, sort of.

As I heard on Gristmill’s podcast yesterday, Scholastic will print all 12 million first-edition U.S. copies of J. K. Rowling’s wildly anticipated book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, on paper that contains 30% minimum post-consumer waste fiber. Scholastic is also claiming that:

Moreover, 65% of the 16,700 tons of paper used in the U.S. first printing will be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the global standard-setter for responsible forest management. This historic commitment is the largest purchase of FSC certified paper to be used in the printing of a single book title. The vast amount of paper needed to print 12 million copies of the 784-page Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows makes the decision by Scholastic to invest in environmentally preferable paper a significant step in the company’s ongoing commitment to responsible environmental stewardship.

The podcast also mentioned that the Deluxe edition of the book will be printed on 100% post-consumer waste fiber, though I haven’t found a source to confirm this. If it is, I would probably have no problems shelling out the $40 for the Deluxe edition, if it means supporting sustainable practices. Though I realize no-waste is best, I do enjoy sitting down with a good book in my hands.

Categories: books, environment
No Comments »