June 21, 2002

A lawyer's attitude towards progress provides a reminder of the Luddites or King Canute for Adam Christie.


Spam points to a greener future

WHINGING lawyers could be endangering the environment - because they are too lazy and too prissy to hit the delete key on their computers.

American attorney Pete Wellborn has been quoted as "dreaming of 'spammers' serving 50 to life - after being stripped of their homes and cars".

But, Mr Wellborn clearly finds it convenient to ignore the alternatives.

One could speculate that Mr Wellborn has only taken such a hostile stance because it could suit his personal commercial interests as a lawyer - but that could be unfair.

Unsolicited e-mail has few characteristics to differentiate it from unsolicited 'snail mail', but those differences which do exist are crucial.

There is no difference between organizations holding personal information for 'snail mail' purposes or e-mail messages. To single out those organizations which use electronic technology is clearly inconsistent.

There must be protection and safeguards surrounding personal information regardless of the purpose for which it is put or the medium by which individuals are sent messages.

While I am frustrated by unsolicited e-mail messages - especially those which are potentially pornographic or which have failed to take appropriate notice of information about me which should be apparent from my choice of e-mail address, I know that I should not resent any of them.

Every e-mail spam message is potentially a tree that has not been felled - probably too early in its life and in a way which was not sustainable.

Some tree farmers, lumber workers, printers and mail service employees may not earn as much as they could have done if paper alternatives were used, but there has been little evidence in many developed economies that spam has undermined the 'junk' or 'direct' mail industry.

Indeed, both the Royal Mail in the United Kingdom and the US Post Office have indicated that mail marketing helped both of them remain viable during the 1980s and 1990s.

There was hope, a few years ago now, that increased use of computers and word processors could - would - lead to 'paperless offices'. Some hope. If anything, the use of paper has increased several times over.

Few offices can or do recycle the paper they use. Even fewer householders have the facilities or the inclination to recycle the paper received as junk mail. The coatings on some papers used for such mailings make recycling impractical if not impossible.

Junk mail requires opening, scanning, probably tearing up - and then throwing in the trash. Dealing with spam is far more straightforward - one click with a mouse on a message and then a quick tap to the delete key and, hey presto, the message is consigned to the great trashcan in cyberspace.

Spam is environmentally friendly - however 'anti-social' it may seem at first, but then wasting natural resources may also be regarded as an activity that is also "anti-social".

Mr Wellborn and his ilk should direct their energies towards those corporations which are doing far greater damage to the environment and society - perhaps starting with the oil lobby surrounding the industry in Texas. Targeting spam allows corporations that seriously ignore such broader and more significant ethical issues to escape persecution.

>From evidence that is growing about the links between the contamination caused by much of the oil industry and health defects, increased pollution could decrease the numbers who are 'well born' in many parts of the world.

There is, of course, a second dimension to e-spams environmental friendliness: e-mail takes disproportionately little energy to transmit and deliver; snail mail does.

If more corporations used e-mail as a marketing tool, fewer aircraft and fewer trucks may be needed to transport snail-mail, reducing congestion and alleviating road pollution in many parts of the world. There may be some employment implications, but - within the greater picture and without in any way lessening the impact for individuals - there cannot be any doubt about the greater public good.

Perhaps this is a battle between commercial interests? The oil industry would be affected if fewer aircraft flew or fewer trucks were needed on the highways. The political strength of the e-industry suffered a setback with the collapse of the dotcoms in the late 1990s. The industry's consolidation has yet to evolve sufficiently to provide it with the muscle necessary to take on the embedded strength of the oil giants and challenge their long-established patronage of US political dynasties.

E-business is environmentally friendly. Airlines and hotels have felt the effects as teleconferencing and video cameras have reduced the need for face-to-face meetings.

Some comfort may at least be found that Luddism never succeeded in the long-term. Pete Wellborn may be seen as a modern Luddite, or a Canute trying to hold back the tide of e-progress. He may be a frustration, an irritation, but the lesson of history is that while progress may be slowed, it can never be stopped. E-business can bring real benefits to Planet Earth at a time when such needs have never been greater. Spam is part of the medication; and there are far better reasons for its promotion than its proscription.