Rolling Stone announced that their June 28th issue will be devoted to climate change and will be printed on carbon neutral paper. The magazine's explanation of their choice of carbon neutral paper over recycled paper is just plain ridiculous: (from the New York Times) Eric Bates, deputy managing editor of Rolling Stone, said, "We think recycled paper is great."

But he added, "we are publishing some of the greatest photographers and artists, and the print quality on recycled paper does not do them justice."

If that was true, I'd probably be writing a very favorable post right now. However, it is obvious Mr. Bates and the Rolling Stone production team have not done any comparison prints. There are plenty of paper options out there that offer the benefit of being produced with low levels of greenhouse emissions AND boast high levels of recycled content---without any loss of quality! GreenBase details them here. New Leaf Paper, for example, has an extensive line of great sustainable papers that I've used in commercial print jobs with great success and no loss of quality. Check out their Eco Audit that explains the sustainable qualities of the paper:

For a publication that advocates turning it up to 11, Rolling Stone's effort could definitely use a good hard clockwise turn.

Labels: carbon neutral, recycled paper, Rolling Stone