there is an environmental benefit in not printing paper. i know that social progress isn't on the list of gen y sales tactics, but a trend back to paper really wouldn't be in the best interests of the species.
mailing catalogs that can’t be downloaded over pdf is a horrific and unjustifiable waste of resources, and their cute little ad shouldn't trick you into thinking otherwise.
obviously, the difference between electronic and paper distribution is that the electronics are being manufactured anyways as multiple purpose devices. there's really no reason that resource extraction and recycling can't be done efficiently. this is needless waste coming out of a marketing strategy trying to be "different" in the electronic era with no regard to sustainability. you reward this kind of nonsense at your own peril.
tovetroll84
I wonder how all the extra electricity we use since we all got computers and smartphones and kindles is affecting the environment.... (not saying that printing would be a better option though) Also, I don't think this ad is really about appealing for paperbacks, it's just for fun ;)
deathtokoalas
it's a dumb argument (and electricity generation has no environmental effect if it's generated using renewable sources, anyways). if you're looking at the situation socially, you want to look at what creates the least amount of harm first and then make the harmful parts as least harmful as you can. did you buy a laptop or a phone to download an ikea catalog? no. you're using it for work, school and day-to-day life. consequently, you need to look at the extra resource usage that downloading an ikea catalog has on top of what you'd be doing anyways, which is purely measured in terms of bandwidth. there's absolutely no environmental cost to this, whereas the costs of printing a book and sending it to every house are enormous.
it's an irresponsible marketing strategy, and ikea deserves a punch in the face for it.
telling people to use less electricity isn't environmental policy. switching to renewable sources is environmental policy. reducing usage just helps the companies maintain an artificially inflated price by controlling supply and demand (in an unregulated energy market, which is the case through most of north america).
Mark
I have to say I find it pretty hysterical that someone by the name of "deathtokoalas" is arguing an environmental issue. Your name suggests that you want to kill an entire species, which in turn would unbalance and decimate multiple ecosystems.
deathtokoalas
the subversive threat that koalas pose to our social fabric as a result of their despicable cuteness far exceeds any environmental threats that their demise would cause.
fwiw, koalas have no real predators and contribute virtually nothing to the ecology they inhabit, except, perhaps, limiting the growth of eucalyptus trees - which isn't really working out in our benefit.
