In recent months I’ve been noticing a marked increase in the number of publishers who claim to be "going green" in one way or another. For many of them "going green" has meant creating a new imprint that uses eco-safe materials and/or donates money to environmental causes. DK, for example, has a new line called "Made with Care." They claim that these books are their "greenest books ever, made with the most ethical and environmental processes [they] could source." Meanwhile Simon and Schuster’s Little Green Books "will be made from recycled materials, and the storylines will cover subjects such as improving the environment, learning about endangered animals, recycling, and much more."
I have mixed feelings about initiatives like these that ultimately just create more "stuff" even if that "stuff" is being created out of recycled materials. Rather than create a new line of books that are specifically more eco-friendly, why not just make ALL of your existing, or at least forthcoming books more eco-friendly? This is a poor metaphor, I know, but the "create a new line of books model" is kind of like saying "Over-population is a problem so we’re going to breed a special group of children who know that overpopulation is a problem, rather than just having fewer children in the first place."
Does anyone else see a problem with this?
I was thinking about these things as I read through the picture books on Penguin’s spring list, which (like those of the aforementioned publishers and others) included some efforts at eco-innovation. One is a book to which I’m giving an award for BEST COLOPHON I’VE SEEN ALL YEAR. It’s The Great Paper Caper by the brilliant Oliver Jeffers, whose picture books are among my favorites, and whose website is among the coolest I’ve seen. I haven’t seen the colophon of Penguin’s edition so I don’t know if they’ll adopt the same format, but the British edition of the book (published by HarperCollins) features this colophon (click on the photo to view it larger):
Awesome, no? The image of a tree is fitting for several reasons: the theme of paper recycling appears both in the plotline of The Great Paper Caper and in the finished book’s production. On his website Oliver explains that the book "is inspired by and printed on FSC paper [paper that comes from replenished forests], a noble cause, and frankly, common sense. The first edition hard back comes in four different colour covers, with a bonus disposable jacket that turns into a plane. No joke."
I applaud the cleverness of these eco-friendly touches, and (for the umpteenth time) I applaud the cleverness of Oliver Jeffers’s writing and illustrations too. My question, though, is this: If Oliver Jeffers’ new book didn’t have recycling as its inspiration and/or theme, would it have been printed on FSC paper? And if the answer is no, then WHY NOT? I’m guessing the answer is that it’s more expensive to print books on FSC paper. And that the marketing hook is missing if the book is printed on FSC paper but the book isn’t ABOUT recycling.
That just bugs me.
Moving on, I’d actually like to give out a second "award" here, though I realize this one isn’t going to be taken as kindly. With apologies, my award for the WORST TRADEMARK I’VE SEEN ALL YEAR goes to Frederick Warne, publisher and licensor for The World of Beatrix Potter (distributed in the U.S. by Penguin), for its new publishing program called "Peter Rabbit TM Naturally Better" OR (here in the U.S.) "Peter Rabbit… Naturally Better TM". Note the interesting change in punctuation as the name crosses the Atlantic.
As it’s explained on the Penguin website, Peter Rabbit… Naturally Better is "a new initiative which promotes products that are made from safe and ethically responsible sources." I have NO problem with the idea of such products (in fact I applaud them!), AND I actually think the books in this line are very nicely produced — the illustrations in the Peter Rabbit… Naturally Better board books and cloth books are very tasteful simplifications of Beatrix Potter’s original designs, and the muted color palette employed on their pages is truly lovely. But the NAME??
First of all, I don’t like the implication that Peter Rabbit needs to be "improved" somehow. I realize that the "better" in the trademark refers to the fact that these books are "better" for the planet than their predecessors, but it’s impossible not to read those words as meaning that the books themselves are somehow "better" content-wise than the originals and that, "NATURALLY," that’s the case. It’s as if we’re being told "the content and art are bad in their original state but, NATURALLY, they’re better once they’ve been redesigned or rewritten or re-imagined and re-branded (again and again and again)." On a pettier note, I also just think the name sounds cheesy. And I think that ellipsis just make things worse. It’s like there’s a pause after the product’s name in which we wait for the advertising punch line to be delivered.
I can’t begin to imagine the number of meetings that were held and names that were tossed out before Warne settled on this one, and (again) I applaud their motivation for creating this line and the finished results. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think someone could have coined a better name for this line (perhaps one of YOU can come up with an improvement?) AND that the line just adds more books to a brand that’s already chock full of them.
I think what’s really bugging me again here, though, is this attempt on the part of publishers to look virtuous and nature-loving by adding new lines of supposedly eco-friendly books. You can use all the eco-friendly materials you want in their creation, but the fact is the production of more titles requires the use of more energy. So, sorry folks, your eco-footprint does not get ANY smaller with the creation of these babies. Naturally.
In a world of booksellers, these “green” efforts look fatuous. But in a world where a Sarah Palin can draw millions of enthusiastic voters, these efforts are revolutionary, maybe even “dangerous”. But I’m with you: making the language right and true at the beginning will save grief and confusion later.
When I think of eco-friendly books, I think of e-books. Period.
I’m with you, Alison! It would be great if greener books were matter-of-fact rather than niche marketing.
You’re suggesting common sense, Alison? Now there’s a “green” concept!
Alison, thanks for your always-enjoyable blog! I understand the point-of-view that a new “green” imprint is gratuitous, but I have a different perspective. I work for a small (4-8 books/year) publisher, and I think like us, many have quietly been “going green” for years by using vegetable dye inks, recycled products, etc. The FSC certification goes beyond this. It ensures an environmentally sustainable path from the raw harvested materials all the way through processing, manufacturing, distribution, and printing until it becomes the final product. We are proud that our in-house printer is the first U.S. university printing plant to receive FSC certification. Until this becomes more widespread, it may be difficult for publishers to obtain FSC certification for all of their books. A special imprint is a commitment in the right direction.
Caryn, VERY interesting! Thanks for offering a different perspective on this matter. Is it the case that in order for a book to be FSC certified it has to be printed/bound/etc. at an FSC-certified plant?
I was catching up on older issues of PW this week and discovered that the Sept. 1st issue included a thought-provoking piece by Tyson Miller, director of the Green Press Initiative, about the environmental costs of printing books in Asia. I recommend everyone read that article and will attempt to post the link right HERE: http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6591619.html?q=printing+asia+think+twice
I submitted a comment, but *nothing* occurred to indicate that it was received. I suggest the webmaster for this blog add some response. Further, are the comments moderated? My comment has not appeared. Most blog sites now perform the above as standard, and quite practical, design. If this shows up quickly, then something else bizarre has happened.
As a parent and high school teacher of biology, I have quite a problem with this “Green” business. In literature, its worst feature is that books, schools and the media literally indoctrinate children with ideas they do not understand (all propaganda for the cause)… except it is slipped in on the level of morality: “don’t hurt things we like”. Few claims about the environment are the doomsday issues environmentalists make them out to be. These are very much a matter of a blinkered, non-scientific focus that makes local bad things appear to be all that matters. On the latter point, as one example (this is not the place for a lengthy listing), the world’s climate has been fluctuating by some five Celsius degrees for 800 million years. There are several cycles that override any and all human industrial activity. They are driven by solar cycles, shifts in the shape of the Earth’s orbit and the wobble (precession) of the Earth’s spin on its axis. In addition such things as ocean currents, volcanic activity, cosmic radiation effects on cloud cover, all factor in. We have just experienced the peak of a small cycle on a larger one. There are even outright lies. We are told that CO2 levels (now ~.03%) are damagingly high. Yet in the dinosaur days CO2 levels some 100x higher! We are told that this is the warmest period in 25.000 years, yet most know (and ignore) the fact that the Vikings sailed to Greenland only 1,000 yrs ago. At that time Scotland had the climate of Southern France(!) and the inhabitants had vineyards! Note that the polar bears did not go extinct, even with the gas production from the decay of thawing permafrost layers. Much of environmentalism’s fear-mongering, whether acid rain, ozone layer thinning, deforestation, oil spills (15 yrs later the oil acts as fertilizer to oceanic habitats), carbon production are ultimately not worth the cost of their supposed solutions. Worse, the fear-mongering engenders a “humans are bad” mentality in children who are just waking up to the fact that they have a life ahead of them. The solutions always entails means of curtailing the happiness of those children as human beings. All animals live in and alter their environment. That is how they survive! Humans, with our volitional & conceptual minds, do it best, yet environmentalism holds that against us. That is, environmentalism is ultimately against Mankind. Many of its leading minds are quite outspoken in this respect but few ordinary people take them seriously. However, if you think about it, every major environmental solution entails cutting back on one or another major means by which people improve their lives. Further: those solutions that influence the economy will most hurt the poor and lower middle class… such solutions are vicious. Sure some solutions, say vegetable dyes in ink, are quite innocuous, but those do not really accomplish much either. Even leading experts on environmental issues are changing their minds —one being the original chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He has publicly stated that the IPCC information has been selectively presented, overemphasized and just plain wrong in its estimates for the purpose of biasing its publicity reports to assure the agenda of its more ardent members. Environmentalism is much more religion than science. Would we write and publish cute childrens stories about Aztecan Sun worship & how lucky that 10 yr old Huetzin’s older sister is going to be sacrificed this year? Extreme? …not to poorer parents who can no longer clothe and feed their children as expenses climb, in concert with rising gas prices, ballooning government debt, and government intervention in education and the economy. I strongly decry the use of children’s books as a means of enabling a Green Youth culture which lasts, in its ignorance, into adulthood (witness University Campuses). We adults should be showing children, through age appropriate stories, television shows and movies, how to be *rational; *productive; *intellectually, materially & spiritually independent; *honest; *just; so they can live their lives with personal *pride and *integrity. They need *reason, a positive *purpose and *self-respect. Environmentalism undermines all these things, and it should not become the gestalt of childhood intellectual experience.
Okay, it went up this time via the same actions as last time but… What happened to my paragraph breaks?? Ye Gods, what a mash! I pasted from Wordpad. Must the breaks be doubled, or must they be double line returns? If these paragraphs appear correctly, I am going to re-post the comment, and insert the breaks.
Line line come on, work!
Okay that last one was on three double spaced lines, done in this window. That is just wrong!
I have to agree with a lot of what Richard wrote. This “
As the Head of PR at Frederick Warne in London, it was with great interest that I read your piece above. Our colleagues in DK (also part of the Penguin Group in London) launched Made with Care earlier this year to great acclaim in the UK. In order for our books to be ‘green’ or eco-friendly DK and Warne had to question many of the processes within publishing. Of the many challenges we had to face, the main one of course, came down to cost. We needed to create books that were desirable, had minimum impact on the environment but were also affordable. Printing on FSC paper and producing books closer to home ultimately increases cost. By launching initiatives such as Made with Care and Peter Rabbit™ Naturally Better, we have attempted to influence change across the publishing industry. Until the demand for FSC paper and localised printing becomes the norm, cost implications will always make it prohibitive for publishers to create books in an eco-friendly way.
Alison, I only just discovered that you asked me a question way back when. I’m not the expert on this, but the Forest Stewardship Council Website states that any operation making, changing, trading, re-labeling or repackaging FSC-certified products would need to be chain of custody certified in order to use the FSC trademarks and to enable its customers to make an FSC claim about these products. Thus, I think the answer is that a certified book would require a certified bindery. By the way, FSC certification applies to many kinds of products, including lumber, paper, books, and furniture.
We must use more recycled products in order for us to reduce the garbabe problem that we have`;:
my family always go for recycled products because you can help the environment ,*,