There are clearly positives to both paperbooks and ebooks so these lists are always rather silly whichever side of the fence they come down on, but this one seems to be particularly bad since it makes verifiably false claims to try and prove a point that didn't even need to be made.
The whole idea that paperbooks can be taken generically as a single object also seems to be very flawed to me, there is a huge difference in terms of usability etc when you consider such things as antique books, modern hardbacks or paperbacks and you could easily argue that the latter are more disposable for many people than an ebook.
For me, reading ebooks is simply so much more convenient because of the space saving nature and convenience of access (I read english books but live in Germany) and as a consequence have read so many more books since getting my first ereader.
Even something as simple as finishing one book while I am out and being able to move onto my next one right away has added to the amount that I read and isn't that really the point of books, to read them, with the paper or ebook simply being the box that the story comes in?
