Comments on: How green is digital?

By: ziv

ziv — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 11:44:37 +0000

I wonder what proportion of people print what they see on screen to read it for work, study or home? Or is that just the digital migrants who do this? I’ve learned that the digital natives (typically people under age 35 or there about) tend to read on screen, where as more mature people feel more comfortable reading printed screen content.

And what impact does this have on the environment? And if there is an environmental impact, does this become a consideration for professionals who write for the web?

By: subpixel

subpixel — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:02:31 +0000

Suggestion: the article should be updated to indicate that the information is incorrect. Perhaps a note at the top or the end of the article. Leaving the correction to ‘somewhere in the comments’ is not really showing a genuine concern to make good on the mistake.

By: subpixel

subpixel — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:46:59 +0000

Newspapers are wasteful, and what isn’t (for the most part) propaganda is advertising in any case.

In the case of computer vs paper, in that case, I’d suggest that the computer wins.

What about, say, a novel? A few hundred pages in a book format vs reading that on a desktop or laptop computer. How much energy is used in the (possibly many hours) reading from a computer screen, not to mention the space requirements, inconvenience, etc, vs reading a book? That energy is now spent, and no second person can read the content without again expending that energy. A book, on the other hand, can possibly be read by many people for the same initial energy investment. Perhaps that doesn’t always happen (especially for ‘personal’ copies), but libraries still manage to reuse books that people have read over and over.

-spxl

By: Jason Davis

Jason Davis — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:51:05 +0000

Guys, the point is valid that there’s more to the “green ebook” debate than just the use of paper. However, as others have mentioned here, while in the “green-ness” stakes it may be neck-and-neck at the moment device manufacturers are improving the eco credentials of their products all the time. So there can only be one ultimate answer to the debate: ebooks.
Like the evolution of hybrid car technology, if we don’t take the first imperfect steps down the ereader path, we’ll never get to the “really” green solution. The Bookseller site did another great breakdown of the green ebook debate – you can find it at my ebook blog http://www.bookbee.com.au

By: sarahjansen

sarahjansen — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 02:36:18 +0000

thanks for the comments guys. i’m not sure how Jeff read it as taking an absolutist line; the point was to say, as Jeff reiterated, that ‘Being ‘green’, of course, is much more complicated than using less paper.’ Your reply is written as if you’re taking an opposing stance to the blog post, but it seems to be reinforcing it.

not being as familiar with the latest press releases from tech companies as andrew, i must have missed the one from Apple in all the madness of getting ready for our launch

By: Jeff Poole

Jeff Poole — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 00:24:59 +0000

This is a truly bad article. As a previous commentator has pointed out Apple is now top of Greenpeace’s good guys list. So the basic research is an epic fail.

All the embodied energy points could equally be pointed at the paper economy, TV and radio. They all use computers to write, or even biros which are disposable plastic. Then there’s the giant machines used to strip mine forests, the genetic engineering of trees for pulp which is killing the life in nearby rivers, the distribution of paper to outlets every single day.

Yes people throw things away- what a surprise! Maybe making sure that the items are recyclable and made from recycled components and there’s a functional waste policy in place is the way to go rather than the simplistic attitude displayed here.

Maybe the writer feels that polycarbonate and aluminium produced, distributed worldwide and trashed – not recycled – in enormous quantities everyday as CDs, DVDs and blu-rays are greener than the same product delivered across the interwebs but somehow I doubt it.

Taking an ‘absolutist’ line, as this author does, quickly leads to the reality that unless you sit still under a tree and try not to breathe heavily you’re impacting on the environment. A recipe for disillusion and failure which I’m sure was not the author’s intention…

Cheers
Jeff – a crusty old greeny

By: Andrew Scott

Andrew Scott — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:15:49 +0000

Is this article based on a press release from Acer? It’s inaccurate and out-of-date, specifically in regard to Apple and Greenpeace:

“Apple ranks highest among Greenpeace’s top tech companies
By Jim Dalrymple
JANUARY 7, 2010, 11:40 AM PT

The back and forth battle between Greenpeace and Apple has been going on for years, but in its new report, Greenpeace ranked Apple as its No. 1 company…”
http://www.loopinsight.com/2010/01/07/apple-ranks-highest-among-greenpeaces-top-tech-companies/#_jmp0_

According to the Greenpeace web site, dated January 2010, Apple rates quite a bit better than Acer.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/electronics/how-the-companies-line-up/which-companies-really-sell-gr