Rolling Stone Magazine and "Carbon Neutral Paper"

Earlier in the month, Wenner Media publishers of Rolling Stone magazine announced beginning with yesterday's June 28th issue the magazine would be printed on "carbon neutral paper."

The magazine will be printed on Catalyst Cooled paper made by Vancouver BC - based Catalyst paper.  Prior to the June 28th issue Rolling Stone was printed on Electracote lightweight coated paper also made by Catalyst.

A news release from Catalyst paper says Rolling Stone is the first mass-marketed magazine to print on "carbon neutral paper." 

Rolling Stone claims its new paper is "carbon neutral" because it is made through a process that they say adds no carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.   The new paper is thinner than their previous paper.

The move to "carbon neutral paper" may be a step in the right direction but it appears to be an insignificant one.  Since the announcement many have questioned why the magazine didn't choose to print on recycled paper.

The New York Times asked Eric Bates, deputy managing editor of Rolling Stone why the magazine hadn't just gone with recycled paper.  "We think recycled paper is great.  We're publishing some of the world's greatest photographers and artists," said Bates.  He went on to say the print quality on recycled paper just doesn't do them justice.  "What we're trying to do is what we can do.  We can't put out the magazine we put out on recycled paper"

Bates' comments to the NYT answer the question as to why the magazine didn't go with recycled paper... Basically they think they are too good.  I am reading the July issue of Inc., a magazine printed on recycled paper and the quality is excellent.  I cannot detect any difference between their issues printed on recycled paper vs. non recycled.  Frankly for what its worth, Inc.'s photography is pretty good.  I mean i'm no Paul Aresu but their images are far from junk and hold up just fine in print - oh hey and plus they have the added benefit of not having to have cut down trees to present them. 

This whole Rolling Stone "carbon neutral paper" move is mostly a PR stunt, if they really wanted to make a difference they could.  I am not sure what the magazine thinks happens to their back issues after their readers read them but newsflash... the majority of them end up in the trash (hopefully recycled) like everything else.

Read more coverage of the Rolling Stone
"carbon neutral paper" at the Paper Planet

Comments

[Samantha]

I have been wondering about the environmental merits of carbon entural paper vs recycled - considering that each tonne of paper takes more than 1 438 litres of oil and 4000 kilowatts of energy to produce, perhaps the benefits of being carbon neutral could outweigh the impacts of the 17 trees that would need to be felled to produce that same tonne? I don't know, and cant find any comparitive analysis