Many opinion-formers argue that the trend towards greater use of electronic media can only bring environmental benefits. They say that by cutting down fewer trees, creating less paper waste and, through increased use of online media, the world can only be a better place. I am not sure that I buy all of these arguments.

Electronic media require massive global infrastructure, not least to support access to the internet and the appropriate technology to view information. The ICT industry hasn't exactly raced to be transparent about the energy profile of the technology behind the internet.

How can we compare, for example, the carbon profile of users viewing a web page with the carbon burden of a print run of equivalent reports? I don't believe anyone has yet come up with a slick way of expressing these numbers. And, although the environmental burden per user-view of an individual web page might be relatively low, the total burden imposed by all electronic media is huge.

Under the radar
Until recently, the energy burden of the massive data warehouses that support the internet has slipped under the radar. Some of the big names are not being transparent about the carbon footprint of their operations. Google's data centre in The Dalles, Oregon, could use as much energy as Newcastle when it comes fully online in 2011. In 2000, data centres as a whole were estimated to be responsible for 0.8% of total US electrical consumption; 10 years later that number must have increased considerably. And for every 100W the data centres consumed, only 2.5W resulted in useful computing, so there are massive inefficiencies. The ICT sector is estimated to be responsible for 2% of carbon emissions in Europe. The industry average for high power usage effectiveness (PUE) is 2, which means that for every Watt used by IT machinery, 2W is required to cool it off.

However, some industry players are now demonstrating much improved performance. For example, Google says it has a PUE rating of 1.21 and Microsoft, 1.22.

Another factor that we cannot avoid in comparing print media with the internet is that modern technology remains a luxury enjoyed by only the relatively wealthy. There is an often-quoted statistic that half the world's population has yet to make its first phone call. Perhaps that number is changing with the mobile revolution - nevertheless the so-called digital divide remains a burning social issue given unequal access to technology.

From a global perspective, print media is an essential force in communications that is not going to go away. And often, web technology just isn't right for getting your message across. Many of our clients are experimenting with all sorts of exciting technology as part of their communications mix, but most recognise that, sometimes, a tangible product you can hold in your hand is simply the most effective medium.

There are opportunities for the print industry to raise a number of valid questions in defending its CSR position. We could easily gain the impression that forest products are a ‘bad thing', but this is far from the truth. Properly managed, sustainable forests are vital to the economies of many countries, creating jobs in rural settings where there are few other opportunities for economic activity.

What is more, well-managed forests are an important carbon sink, particularly in the early stages of the growth cycle. So, I'm not convinced that the argument that recycled paper is best is always right.

So, with that in mind, why doesn't the print industry respond to the challenge and fight its corner better?

Mark Line is executive chairman of CSR consultancy Two Tomorrows Group, www.twotomorrows.com