Thursday, July 07, 2005

Scholastic vs. The Environment?
As part of a growing worldwide campaign that is prompting a shift in the publishing industry, environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation and Greenpeace, are asking Potter fans in the United States not to buy Scholastic's editions and instead to order the new title online from Canada, where the publisher, Raincoast Books, has printed the book on 100 percent recycled paper. Scholastic says it does use some recycled paper for its books, including the Potter series, but it would not divulge the amount.
Environmental groups have drawn a growing number of noted authors, including J. K. Rowling, Alice Walker, Isabel Allende, Barbara Kingsolver, Margaret Atwood, Michael Ondaatje, and the Canadian short-story writer Alice Munro, into their crusade to promote greater use of recycled paper.
"If we get Harry Potter and the Bible, that pretty much covers the best sellers," said Nicole Rycroft, campaigns director of Markets Initiative, a conservation group in Vancouver, British Columbia, that is focused on the publishing industry.
Ms. Rycroft said Scholastic was the only major publisher environmental groups approached that rejected outright a universal policy of using more recycled paper.
It is not clear what effect, if any, a boycott would have on Scholastic, which is planning an initial print run of almost 11 million copies. Raincoast would not disclose the size of its print run, but it printed more than 900,000 copies of the previous installment, "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," also with 100 percent recycled paper.

In the introduction to the Canadian edition of "Order of the Phoenix," she wrote:
"Because the Canadian editions are printed on ancient-forest friendly paper, the Harry Potter books are helping to save magnificent forests in the muggle world, forests that are home of magical animals such as orangutans, wolves and bears. It's a good idea to respect ancient trees, especially if they have a temper like the whomping willow."

**The New York Times

No comments: