While I agree with the author that the paperless office has proved to be so much nonsense, he needs to check a couple of points before he gets indignant.

First off, he's assuming that the paper he's seen on the photocopier comes from old growth forests. How much of it is from plantations? If its a lot or most, then he may want to realize that his campaign will reduce the incentive to create and manage those plantations. That means fewer trees not more.

I know that after decades of reducing forestry cover in Aus, in the last few years its swung back the other way, at least last time I looked. I understood a lot of that was plantations but I'm prepared to be corrected on these matters

The trouble with linking saving paper -- or anything else -- to alleviating global warming is that global warming has been doing a perfectly good job of alleviating itself for the last fifteen years, during which paper use and most other economic indicators have risen rapidly. As a result, the potency of the 'Global Warming!' cantrip is fading; you'll have to look for a new scare to monger in attention-grabbing headlines.

How about: "Excess paper use causes cancer!" or "Overexposure to paper activates obesity gene?" Both have just as much credibility as any claim regarding global warming.

First, the destruction of forests is indeed a problem, so is the reduction in oxygen levels in the air we breath - that while "global warming" is a nonsensical politically-motivated myth, scaring nobody. Sticking to the former reasons should therefore enhance the article's credibility.

Saving paper is good, but far more effective is stopping the policy of keeping and planting oil-filled "native" trees, which seasonally light up, taking everything around along with them - Cut them up for paper and furniture, then plant safer types of trees in their place!

Also, a majority of government and other offices are unnecessary and can be closed, saving on paper, air-conditioning, commuting, etc. Paying those employees to stay at home and do nothing will save so many more trees.

Imagine the paper used to pass 'green' laws mandating % biofuel additives requiring the clearance of rainforest for palm oil. Must be lots of tons of paper used there.

Hang on... Maybe all the offices accept Toms has in fact become paperless and ... bingo.. An explanation for the lack of global warming for the past 15 um 19 um 23 years?

Ignoring the scoffing at AGW being an issue in several of the comments above (I thought we had moved past that but there still appear to be a few rusted on "flat-earthers" out there).

The paperless office, something after my own heart. The cost of storing all this dreck is enormous. I wonder if those opposing the papermill in Tassie handed out flyers printed on paper... that aside...

An anecdotal story, my first exposure to this was trying to move towards a paperless office in the early '90;s when as the IT officer on a mine site I set up the first intranet, complete with fileservers and interoffice email. At the time I set the receptionist up to receive all faxes as documents that were then mailed out as attachments. This was howled down by all the senior managers, the excuses went from the lame, they liked to walk over to the main office from time to time to stretch their legs, to the incredulous, they couldn't read from the screen and had to read a print out to the bizarre, they didn't check email as often as their in-tray. I was bewildered and disheartened, in the decades since, it's only gone downhill.

I noted curmudgeons comment was the only one that had an interesting point, that being forestry preservation. Plantations are sterile in terms of biodiversity, remediating them to a more "natural" woodland would (wood :) ) be far more preferable.

I put my hand up as a 'scoffer' as described above, with apologies. However, it is the recalcitrance of the 'denialists' such as the science guy, Flannery etc that drives my frustration.

The removal of plantation timbers and replacement with 'native' forests is an idealised furphy. Plantation forestry is one of the very few 'sustainable' industries providing essential material to our civilisation, a material each of us uses every day. A runny nose? Use wood, go to the loo? Use wood, make paper? Use wood etc etc etc.

Whilst plantations are not as rich in biodiversity as native forest, they do in fact have their own echosystem supporting a huge diversity of generally unseen biota. Endangered parrots in SA and Vic are delighted with the food source provided by plantations, in the absence of the more traditional alocasuarina oaks, to identify just one example.

I do agree however, the waste of any natural resource is objectionable/stupid and the observations/excuses provided by both the author and Valley Guy are (we're I a person of theological bent) sinfull.

I shall attempt to curb my 'scoff factor' in future, a lazy response to anyone having the guts to publish an opinion in a public forum such as this. Cheers.