No more hyperbole than pointing out that if you want to be that extreme, then the magazine shouldn't have been printed at all. After all, the least damage to environment would have been to only have it available online.
And if you insist that it should have been printed, then what about leaving out the few hundred pages of advertising or sponsored content. After all, if they only printed the "real" content the magazine delivers, that would be minimally damaging to the environment.
If there's anything to complain about here it's that I doubt they made it easy or obvious to users that they couldn't recycle the whole magazine as you would normally. Instead, you'd need to tear off the electronics part and take it to an e-waste recycle and put the rest in a "normal" recycling bin.
Comments
No more hyperbole than pointing out that if you want to be that extreme, then the magazine shouldn't have been printed at all. After all, the least damage to environment would have been to only have it available online.
And if you insist that it should have been printed, then what about leaving out the few hundred pages of advertising or sponsored content. After all, if they only printed the "real" content the magazine delivers, that would be minimally damaging to the environment.
If there's anything to complain about here it's that I doubt they made it easy or obvious to users that they couldn't recycle the whole magazine as you would normally. Instead, you'd need to tear off the electronics part and take it to an e-waste recycle and put the rest in a "normal" recycling bin.
Paper doesn't harm the environment. Most lumber from NA is carbon neutral at worst, carbon capturing at best
Paper may not, but what about all the machines to print the magazine, the vehicle to transport it, and the ink? The paper is just one tiny component.