Well, it became clear to me when I watched this video:
The driver does not just disable printing it also adds an extra page to the end of the document. They say it's there "just to inform the receiver", but I don't buy it. Marketing, that's what it is really all about. Every time you make and spread a .wwf file, you are making publicity for the WWF. Bottomline.
It gives me an eery feeling. Does it just "phone home" in order to check for "updates" or does it report how many digital advertisements have been spread the last week? It makes you wonder..
Update: According to GizMag the WWF has admitted it is all about viral marketing:
WWF Germany says that the campaign is meant to be viral and an extra page tagged onto each new format document will help introduce new users to the campaign and encourage awareness about how we use paper in our digital lives. If you don't want this extra page added to catalogs, official documents, CV's and so on then you'll need to choose another method of saving files and run the risk that such things may end up in a print queue somewhere.
This also proves the WWF is not too shy to bluntly lie. As I have demonstrated numerous times it is perfectly feasible to create a PDF that cannot be printed.
Update: It's not the first time WWF has launched a disastrous campaign. Remember this beauty?
That is not the case with all countries. In countries like Pakistan,deforestation is really happening. As far as internet is concerned, using it doesn't *produce* carbon dioxide, rather it saves the loads of more carbon dioxide that would have been produced if we would have gone to the original location of the databases and libraries and read the text in question... some wise man said, "It is much easier to move electrons than atoms."
The argument about necessity of hard copies is right, but who stopped people from using a 'pdf' or any other printable format for that specific purpose. Such a step by WWF at a general level is much appreciated. Also, a lot of personal opinion seems to be blended into this article.
"A lot of personal opinion seems to be blended into this article".
That's why it's called a blog.
Deforestation is not equal to Paper Production. In many parts of the world the forests are removed to make farmland, industrial areas, residential areas or for lumber for building materials and not to make paper.
Paper is made from fast growing trees not old growth forests! Not all paper is made from wood pulp. Some paper is made from alternative materials.
While I have no first hand experience with the WWF format, I can assure you that it can and will be printed. Since it adds another page to the document that page will be printed as well. Perhaps not as often, but it will be printed.
I worked in the paper industry for several years and I am now working in IT for a law firm so I am well versed in printing the unprintable.
I have helped the firm make great strides toward less paper, but that requires a great deal of investment in infrastructure, employee training and a change in attitude from the top down.
@Hassan. A lot of FUD appears to be spread by the WWF. Not only is the wwf "file format" a waste of time and resources that could have been spent elsewhere, such as reducing the amount of landfill from older computers that don't function with newer versions of proprietary operating system, by recommending and promoting the use of Linux based operating systems like Ubuntu.
But also the no print option is trivially overridden.
In other words it's only effective among the technically ignorant. Anyone who really wants to print a print disable PDF document (which is what the WWF format actually is) can do so.
Of course... I referred to prejudice.
The place I come from, trees are not being planted back, some campanies might be using tree farms to produce their paper, but not all. Natural forests are being harvested to quite an extent. Countries that have developed to the current technology of the world won't be facing such problems, but then they don't cover that much of the area, its about the whole world. Trees *are* being removed for other purposes that mentioned too, but that just adds up, and we are responsible for all thats happening.
Isn't creating awareness worth a small campaign? The fact that nothing can prevent you from printing is definitely right. But these campaigns help us create awareness among people (since, you bet, many still won't be able to print from a wwf format). And since they are dealing with the non-printable format, it would be voluntary.
You might say that those campaigns could have been aiming at 'better' (and direct) things, but I would take myself as an example for being aware of these things on account of campaigns that weren't aimed at so 'trivial' matters but what matters and the end is, how many people you have made to care.
btw, I'm a linux user too... that's a good point, I liked the idea of xubuntu destro, the one made for obsolete devices.
First, I can't see what is voluntary about receiving a PDF with attached advertisement that I cannot print. Second, I don't know what is so ethical about predating on the ignorence of people. See the ethics code of the WWF. Third, "prejudice" means I have a prefab opinion about the WWF. On which grounds? Have we met? Who made a post on "how to make a WWF without the driver"? Who posted the entry on WWF on AskUbuntu?
Prejudice here refers to prefab opinion from the not-so-direct campaign, which a lot are against. I appreciate your post on creating non-printable version without the driver. But, see, here you've done the same. Spent some time on telling people how to prevent a file from being printed (ofcourse an open method is a better option). But thats what I said about awareness. The choice is open. You get to decide whether you use it or not. The benefit here is, that those who already don't know or are used to printing unnecessarily will have a way to stop them selves.
It is voluntary when people decide not to print by creating these small obstacles for themselves against printing. That won't predate on ignorant people or newbies. That will only let them use a format (on their own will), since they know that they won't know how to print from that type of format, that stops them from printing.
I don't see where the voluntary part is when you force people to read it from the screen. They have NO choice, unless they are capable to do so. You got some weird conceptions of the matter.
The choice is there... no one has stopped people from using the regular pdf writers.
quote:: Isn't creating awareness worth a small campaign? ::quote
Not when the campaign is unethical, is based on untruths or partial truths. And this Save trees campaign is definitely based on partial truths at best.
quote:: But these campaigns help us create awareness among people (since, you bet, many still won't be able to print from a wwf format). ::quote
Awareness of what? Since the campaign is in fact disseminating only partial truths, fails to tell the whole story, and fails to provide information regarding real, and rather nasty pollutants, such as the stuff that goes into landfills from eWast. fails to explain how the majority of paper comes from tree plantations, fails to mention the fact that young trees (as in tree plantations) are better carbon sinks than old growth forests, fails to explain that computer use is a net CO2 source. I'd hazard a guess it provides no awareness at all, and instead merely contributes misinformation.
quote:: And since they are dealing with the non-printable format, it would be voluntary. ::quote
No it wouldn't. It would not be my choice to receive a document in a non printable format, therefore it would not be voluntary.
quote:: ... what matters and the end is, how many people you have made to care. ::quote
The end NEVER EVER justifies the means. If you begin with a lie, you will never achieve the truth. This campaign is at best misinformed, I suspect it's deliberately dishonest.
Myself and my friends have chosen to discontinue contributions to WWF, until they stop wasting contributors money with these hairbrained schemes. I suggest other WWF contributors do the same.
You can always ask the sender what format you want to receive. That is something which depends own your own requirement and understanding with the person sending a file to you. And there are ways to unlock them too as discussed in another post on the blog. The point is, can we hold our selves from unnecessary printing?
I already pointed out that computer use even though a net CO2 source, saves a lot of travelling (preventing *other* CO2 sources from contributing too).
The point is, do the younger trees get planted back? In my country they don't, atleast not by all manufacturers since it would increase the cost. The local manufacturers don't farm. They just Use the natural ones. So is the case with so many other developing countries. And the problem is not laws, it is the economy.
Since paper is manufactured only from farms where you come from, you can hold the campaign accountable in your country, but it is a global village. We have to see the net result, the climate of the world is changing. Even when you consider the young plantations, are they being planted back? No. That is a generation of plants lost.
WWF should have, although, given a better explanation for the campaign so as not to offend the contributors. But it helps. Lets take another aspect into consideration. Trees or no trees, we are using *resources* on printing. That is a waste itself.
My point here is not to defend WWF in specific, infact you have already proved that they haven't been able to defend their campaign, but I'm in favour of such campaigns that give people a chance to avoid wasting resources by *deciding* (to make it clear that it is for the ones who choose it) not to print.
A lot of files I get have wandered so far from the sender or have been produced so long ago that "asking" is not an option. In short, that argument isn't viable. I would even be unable to strip the WWF ad from the document (since PDf printers won't work as well). That's why the whole idea is an abomination. "The global village" argument doesn't cut it either: it's MY paper from MY country. If you (WWF) want to shove your ideology through my throat by FORBIDDING me something or enable other people to FORBID me to do something on MY own computer you don't have or get my sympathy.
It is your right to disagree and use pdf. There is no compulsion. You decide what you use and accept from others.
The point remains that all countries can't afford that. I view it from my prospective, hence favour the campaign.
As far as 'wandered' files are concerned, the author had the right to write them the way he wished. Some would not even want you to copy content from it and put on restrictions with a pass, which all users can't by pass. And as you described earlier, this can be done even without using the wwf format. So that is not cutting the argument of how you deal with files that you get from a one way communication.
"As far as 'wandered' files are concerned, the author had the right to write them the way he wished. Some would not even want you to copy content from it and put on restrictions with a pass, which all users can't by pass."
Which is EXACTLY the argument DRM proponents use. I rest my case (as far as the "voluntary" part is concerned).
Thats how the world goes anyway... files I find on internet are so many times locked in such ways.
@Beez Hans I may have already posted this, in which case I apologise. I'm not sure because I'm having Internet connectivity issues. I live in Rural Australia, and the recent rain we've had is playing merry hell with our ADSL connection. Believe me there are 3rd world countries with better Broadband connectivity
quote:: The point is, do the younger trees get planted back? In my country they don't, atleast not by all manufacturers since it would increase the cost. The local manufacturers don't farm. They just Use the natural ones. So is the case with so many other developing countries. And the problem is not laws, it is the economy. ::quote
And there in you have described exactly why this print as wwf campaign is so wrong headed. Why it is misinformation, why it is at best half truths.
The fact of the matter is young trees, such as those found in plantations are net carbon sinks, so too is paper, and timber used to build houses (it's carbon bound up for years). Tree plantaions reclaim land that is incapable of growing crops, and stop erosion (caused by removing the original trees). So tree planting in farms has many beneficial effects.
What, in fact the wwf should be doing, is rather than encourage countries such as yours to stop making paper (that is in effect what this whole hair brained scheme is about, stopping the manufacture of paper), they should be encouraging the planting of new forests in your country and others like it. One way to do that is to encourage tree plantations for use as paper and paper based products - in other words by helping to create new industries that use renewable young growth forests.
At very best, what this campaign will do is discourage the cutting down of trees, creating old growth forests, which are very poor carbon sinks (and potentially net CO2 sources), old trees take up only a very small percentage of the carbon that fast growing young trees take up.
The net effect will be, if such a stupid campaign is successful, a much greater dependence of heavy polluting technology such as computers, and the flow on affect of much more cadmium and lead and arsenic etc in landfills, or equally as bad an expansion of the reclamation industries in countries like yours where the very poor poison themselves while trying to earn enough money to put food on the table.
Don't worry about it, I'm always happy to get your comments.
I do buy your point. WWF would be better appreciated when campaigning for reclamations and new plantations, but old forests (even though might be not as good carbon sinks) have alot more than that to it. They host habitats. By destroying them and turning the the forests themselves into tree farms affects so many other life forms associated to them. Then again WWF will be hated for not saving the endangered species by telling the half truth. Planting new trees and farming for paper is good. But not on the cost of the forests we already have. In countries that are facing deforestation; on basis of first things first, deforestation has to be stopped atleast parallel to introducing new plantation and tree farming campaigns. In this case, we have to reduce unnecessary printing to reduce paper production.
Maybe we can too, like developed countries, talk about our rights of using as much paper as we can since we are paying for it, once we have the local paper industry using the plantations from their own farms and not the forests.
The fact that unnecessary use of paper is itself a waste of resources (exclusive of the damage done to forests) has a significance.
quote:: I do buy your point. WWF would be ...., ::quote
Yes, they would.
quote:: but old forests (even though might be not as good carbon sinks) ... They host habitats. ::quote
Yes they do, unfortunately the assumption seems to be that ONLY old growth forest host habitats. This is simply not true.
quote:: By destroying them and turning the.... ::quote
But no one is suggesting that, other I suspect the WWF themselves, and as part of their campaign of misinformation
quote:: Then again WWF will be hated .... ::quote
Well they did elect themselves as the conscience of the world in this respect. so it really bodes them to get their facts straight, and advocate effective and honest conservation campaigns
quote:: Planting new trees and farming for paper is good. .... ::quote
That's the point, replacing the harvesting of old growth forests with new growth plantations, that provide a replacement income for peoples in such countries, rather than create a no win situation as this campaign will do. Given that most, if not all developed countries are using plantation wood for paper making, the peoples most affected will be countries such as yours. by removing a source of income, this sort of thing will simply drive more people into poverty.
quote:: In countries that are facing deforestation; ....:: quote
Unfortunately the people where such a no print document format will be most effective in reducing paper use will be developed countries. I can bet that computer use and ownership is considerably higher in developed countries where paper comes from tree farms than in countries such as yours. The places where this wrong headed campaign will be least effective will be, I guarantee, countries such as yours. And remember not all old growth forest is cut down for making paper, I am pretty sure that the majority of it is cut down to make way for plantations aimed at producing palm oil and other "Green" products, which the developed world purchases and pats itself on the back because they are reducing dependence on non renewable products which such "Green" products replace.
The whole thing is considerably more complex than this simplistic "save a tree save as wwf" would have you believe.
quote:: Maybe we can too, like developed countries, talk about our rights of using as much paper as we can.... ::quote
Certainly using paper from plantations would be preferable to not using paper at all, and it's unlikely that this wwf format would save much paper in developing countries. Also remember that Computer, the entire computer industry from beginning to end is a net polluter, and a net CO2 producer. Saving the habitats of animals by reducing paper production, only to end up destroying the animals and their habitats through pollution, is a distinct possibility. The WwF is reactionary when they need to proactive. They are treating the symptoms when they need to be seeking a cure, and the cure is far more complicated that they appear to want to deal with. It's easier and more financially reliable (they get more contributions) for the organisation to deal with the symptoms, and provide simplistic easily marketed "cures".
Quote:: The fact that unnecessary use of paper.... ::quote
Given that paper is a net carbon sink (that is it locks up carbon for many years), I'd disagree that there is such a thing as such a thing as a wast of resources where paper is concerned. One thing I am certain about, is that paper in landfills is far less dangerous than cadmium and lead and all the other chemicals that go into computers, and which end up in landfills or in the reclamation sweatshops of the poorest in countries like yours. reclaiming and recycling paper has got to a much better and safer prospect for these people.
The use of computer as i said before is not infact a *net* CO2 producer when we consider that automation provided that saves way more energy being used.
The extent to which this campaign affects the use of paper wont be as good as compared to developed countries. But observing the new technology trends, use of computer is increasing at a very high rate. IT seems to be getting developed faster than the improvement in the rate of poverty. Most other developing countries are going through the same. As for under developed countries, they wont be targeted at all by this campaign (ie, no money spent on the campaign for them either) so they can be treated as neutral to this campaign.
Old growth forests are not only habitat hosts, but they are hosting significant no. of endangered species. Organisations like wwf are also working on other habitat preservation. The assumption here actually was, that other habitats are already being considered in other campaigns which are equally important as preservation of these habitats. It is right that agriculture and industrialization is the major reason for deforestation, but paper industry adds too it. Assuming that campaigns are already being run to prevent deforestation from other causes, we should not let this one take the forests down either.
Even though a break even analysis from a feasibility report will better tell the actual facts about which provides more income to the local population (since there is no infrastructure in the rural areas yet), removing the source of income on the cost of deforestation is worth it when we consider the amount of deforestation that is being done. Also, a reduce in paper usage will actually not remove the source of income completely, but just reduce the demand, hence encourage them to resort to alternate sources. Those sources might be agriculture or other ones that also affect the forests, but I can confidently say not only that those are dealt more seriously when it comes to green environment and many solutions *are* being provided to them that would minimize the affects, but also when the new plantations are made in parallel to the old forests and not as a replacement to them, their income will be replaced.
Another fact is, that the use of computers is not going to be any lower by stopping a campaign like this or even by using the resources from this campaign to benefit that. Computer use is increasing, and it is increasing *alot* in developing countries (mine for instance). So instead of suggesting to run a counter campaign to this one, which is atleast doing *some* benefit (the cost of this campaign compared to the awareness it is providing, even if we assume that it is not a complete solution for the developed countries). Rather we should find solutions to the waste management in parallel.
The point of whole debate - I'll say - is that instead of countering the few attempts that *are* being made in favour of the environment we should consider it from the global view (even when assuming that it is misdirected); hopefully benefiting others who go through the comments to get some idea about pros and cons.
A better idea, I think, would be for the donors to ask WWF to present and defend this campaign on bases of statistics. That would make it way easier to decide whether the campaign is worth the resources spent on it as compared to the deforestation it is preventing on cost of an "anti-paper industry" like approach.
[quote]Old growth forests are not only habitat hosts, but they are hosting significant no. of endangered species.[/quote]
Indeed. And as do the rest of the defenders of WWF, you continue to ignore a simple fact. The majority of deforestation is not for the manufacture of paper, but to create farm land - a significant and very high percentage of which is to grow so called Green crops for Western and Developed Country consumption - mostly in a modern version of slash and burn. Stopping the use of paper WILL NOT reduce deforestation.
[quote]The point of whole debate - I'll say - is that instead of countering the few attempts that *are* being made in favour of the environment we should consider it from the global view (even when assuming that it is misdirected); hopefully benefiting others who go through the comments to get some idea about pros and cons.
A better idea, I think, would be for the donors to ask WWF to present and defend this campaign on bases of statistics. That would make it way easier to decide whether the campaign is worth the resources spent on it as compared to the deforestation it is preventing on cost of an "anti-paper industry" like approach. [/quote]
All that sounds fine. But the WWF has been asked by one of their major sponsors, the very sponsors they have now placed off side, because they are being ignored. The paper manufacturing industry - I actually did some reading on their response to this issue.
The problem is the WWF has launched a campaign that is based on emotional appeal rather than scientifically based fact. This campaign is obvious Public Relations misinformation, rather than a campaign aimed areal problem.
The fact is stopping the use of paper WILL NOT reduce current deforestation, but it will create unemployment, if it is successful, which is unlikely.
In other words it is a pointless time and money wasting exercise, and my money will no longer go to support WWF.
Post a Comment