|
Nice for an awareness piece, though lacking in useful detail.
Though, as the article suggests, specific numbers are hard to come by, it is understood that a single reader can displace many books, so it is only required to meet or exceed that number to be more carbon efficient. The article does suggest that, with the iPad, that number is 32.4 books.
Add magazines and newspapers to the mix, and it shouldn't be hard to exceed book displacement over the lifetime of the device.
Most likely, Godelnick hasn't considered the role of smaller devices like smartphones, which have a much smaller carbon footprint, and therefore a smaller books displacement.
And finally, the article does not assume the devices themselves are recyclable, something which impacts the carbon footprint beyond manufacture . If a consumer is really interested in being green, they can buy devices that are as recyclable as possible, and make sure they are disposed of properly.
|