Super Eco

Before I tear what's left of the "hemorrhaging" newspaper industry to unrecyclable shreds, allow me to sincerely apologize to my two favorite journalism professors, Nicholas Daniloff and Jane Harrigan. I don't want to believe it either.

Today, el Dia de Los Muertos (The Day of the Dead), seems a fitting day to bid the newspaper--and more than a few of my unfulfilled print journalism dreams--a final farewell. R.I.P. Baltimore Examiner, Rocky Mountain News, Kentucky Post and whichever press the ax fells dead next.

Sadly, print journalism is heaving its last breath, as evidenced by the recent sale of TV Guide (though not exactly quality print journalism) for a measly buck, less than the price of a single copy, as noted in the New York Times, online of course.

I was blind to the inevitable coup of new media over old media 14 years ago, when I bombed an interview with this somehow still-surviving Massachusetts daily by naively answering the question "Will the Internet eventually kill newspapers?" with a cocky "Of course not! Newspapers are the only way commuters will ever get their news." Clearly not a sustainable answer ... or institution.

That was before Blackberrys stormed our world and Kindle rekindled our lust for reading, before "green" grew up from a buzzword to a lifestyle to a global movement (then back to an overkill buzzword again?).

Only the online will (might?) survive the rising Newspaper Death Watch. That is the newspapers that convert their aging old-school paper-readers into screen-readers, then convince them to fork over green for the very same news they can get faster and FREE here, there and everywhere.

I'm too deep in career denial to fully mourn the newspaper ... yet. So I'll start by embracing the greener pasture--the upside, I suppose--of its demise. The umpteen tree-hugging upsides. So, goodbye to the printed newspaper, the love of my professional life and, regrettably, a major environmental menace that:

• Spews the fourth-largest level of greenhouse gases of all U.S. industries, including carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and other carcinogenic particulate uglies.
• Contributes to the PCB sediment contamination and much more toxic chemical runoff polluting our nation's rivers and waterways.
• Relies upon a carcinogenic concoction of toxins to break down wood fibers and bleach pulp, including chlorine compounds and biocides.
• Sucks up tons of energy to power polluting paper mills and printing presses, which often lean heavily on coal plants and already-maxed public utilities.
• Wastes critical groundwater stores, thanks to the water-hogging (and polluting) newsprint production process.
• Heaps solid waste sludge newsprint leftovers that can no longer be recycled (and all of its inks, dyes, staples, coatings and films) onto landfills.
• "Starts with trees being cut down in a forest and ends with the burning and (hopefully) recycling of old" newspapers, a process that contributes to the deforestation and animal habitat destruction of old-growth and endangered forests.

Is there such a thing as an environmentally sound newsprint paper? The newspaper-funded Green Press Initiative hopes so. How I wish it weren't pulp fiction.

Uh, oh. Google News searches aren't so good for green either. But I didn't read about that in the paper.