Writers should kill more trees
Writing by hand is the best. There's nothing like finding that perfect combination of pen and ink and paper.
That tactile feedback as your pen scratches across the page. The shimmer of the ink making your words shine. The joy of distraction-free creation. These are just a few reasons people fall in love with writing by hand.
But for some people, there's one big problem with writing by hand: the practice requires the use of certain natural resources, like trees that are cut down to make paper. This use of resources may push people to seek alternatives, such as writing exclusively on a computer or on an e-ink writing tablet.
Some people use these devices in the name of saving the trees and also Mother Earth. They clearly have their hearts in the right place. But I'd like to challenge these writers to kill more trees.
Let's be honest: you're not saving the planet by foregoing pen and paper.
Search your feelings. You know it to be true.
Decades ago, the petrochemical companies told us we could make a difference via recycling. If we'd just put our plastics and our paper in a green bin and take it to the curb every Friday, we could make the world a better place, one that reuses materials to cut down on single-use products.
Recycling was great for a while, until we realized it's a sham.
The truth is that recycling is highly inefficient. It's not cost effective. Most people (like the author of this post) suck at putting only recyclable materials into the recycling bin. We now know the call to recycle was merely a campaign of misdirection to pressure everyday people into taking responsibility to save the earth while the petrochemicals companies got the green light to keep pumping out more plastic.
NOTE: To be clear, this post is not intended to be read as criticism of plastics. It is instead criticism of sacrificing due to misguided blame.
Either way you cut it, recycling is impotent activism.
Going paperless may make you feel good about the reduction of your own carbon footprint, but how do you think the paper usage of individuals compares to the paper usage of corporations? Over the years, I've worked at multiple companies with leaders who think the company should never need to print anything ever again. Spoiler alert: Officepeople still be printin'. Maybe they'll get their dream when Gen Z or Gen Alpha (two generations who don't remember a time before screens) rules the office, but for old Millennials like me (and Gen X and those Boomers still lingering around), some things are better suited for reading on paper than on screens. So, if I'm working at your company, you gotta be prepared to kill a few trees in the name of productivity.
The point I'm making about the paper usage of individuals versus corporations is related to an oft-overlooked point in the push to electric vehicles (EVs): the majority of highway emissions don't come from the individuals driving alone in their sedans or pickups or SUVs; they majority of highway emissions come from moving freight. Please keep in mind that the vast majority of that freight is moved for businesses, not for individuals like you and me.
Also, when you account for the precious minerals needed to build them, EVs aren't a clear-cut homerun over gas-powered vehicles. I've also heard the argument that EVs don't become more environmentally friendly than gas-powered vehicles until you've driven the EV for 60,000 miles. If you plan on driving your EV until the wheels fall off, then this mileage threshold isn't a concern.
But how much must you write on your computer or other device before it's better for the environment than pen and paper? Especially if you're saving your work on the cloud and justifying yet another datacenter in the world.
What about when you publish? Is that ebook really better for the environment than paper? Maybe it is. But then there's the issue of never actually owning your ebooks so long as they come with DRM baked in. That paper book may not make you feel like Captain Planet, but at least it's yours to loan out or resell or use to stabilize that off-balance coffee table that always clanks when you put your drink on it.
Writing by hand is a gateway to mindful writing. Pen and paper offer less distraction than most electronic devices. Yes, the physical act of writing by hand takes more work than typing on a keyboard, but the extra effort is a great reason to focus on word efficiency, unless you're trying to be the next Nabokov.
There's nothing wrong with preferring writing on an electronic device to writing by hand. By all means, keep on keeping on if that's your jam. But don't neglect writing by hand out of some misguided belief that these electronic options are somehow better for the environment.
At this point, the climate's gonna do what it's gonna do. Climate change is pretty much undeniable at this point, though some will still try. Some will say we're doomed, and to them I say: k. Then why try, if the ending of humanity is inevitable? Shut the hell up and let me enjoy my pen and paper. (Am I returning to my roots and flirting with nihilism?)
I don't know what the future holds as far as the climate is concerned. Are we doomed? Can we adapt? (I hope.) Can we reverse the trend? (I doubt it.) But what I do know is that the efforts of individuals to curb their own consumption is useless as long as corporations keep conducting in corporation-y ways.
Instead of spending so much effort thinking of ways to save the planet via individual practices, perhaps people would be better off putting that effort into activism to reform corporate practices in a way that moves the needle—in a way that's effective. (Effectiveness is a far better metric than effort, after all.)
If you choose to go this route, I have one request: when you write your manifesto, consider writing your first draft on pen and paper. Killing that extra tree just might be worth it.
Jake LaCaze sees no point in making sacrifices that don't move the needle.
