Stop Printing? We'll Get Right on It . . .
|
TOOLBOX
   Resize
COMMENT
 Discussion Policy
 CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging  |
Here's one, but you won't like it: Stop publishing The Post.
First, it would save paper. Even recycled paper still needs to be processed, packaged and shipped; that costs money and puts cars on the road.
Second, quiet presses do not use fossil-fuel-generated electricity.
Third, finished papers need to be delivered, which pollutes. Neighborhood delivery is now done by old men in 1980s polluting cars rather than by eco-friendly bicycling kids.
Fourth, with no paper, there will be no need for writers to be commuting, reporters to be traveling and the wealthy owners to be jet-setting around the world. There will be fewer vehicles on the highways and in the skyways.
Finally, with The Post shut down, there will be no need to use electricity, gas or any other utilities in its many buildings. Less pollution all around.
So, when can we expect you all to shut your doors for the good of the planet?
-- Tim Dudenhoefer, Silver Spring
Editor's note: We're giving your wisdom serious consideration. This may be your last newspaper.
Why don't we all cancel our subscriptions to your Post and save a tree? The Sunday edition alone would save a forest! Seriously, you have a lot of nerve suggesting folks use less paper when you make a living printing on all the paper you do! Hypocrite! Why don't we just move back into caves, use candles and walk everywhere?
