Articles on this:
http://www.zdnet.com/are-e-readers-o...nt-7000001689/
Quote:
|
3.The more ebooks read on a single e-reader, the greater the potential offset vs. paper books. Depending on who you believe and what is being compared, that might be 20-100 paper books for equivalent CO2 emissions, or 40-70 paper books taking into account other impacts, like fuel, water, minerals and human health. But that does not mean either has an impact that is good — both can improve
|
http://nicomachus.net/2011/04/enviro...s-and-e-books/
Quote:
|
The report claims that, when comparing the carbon footprint, fossil fuel use, mineral consumption, and water use of an e-reader’s production with the paper book market, the impact of production of one e-reader is roughly the equivalent of 40-50 traditional books. I read this to mean that, if an e-reader owner reads fewer than 50 books on her e-reader, then reading traditional paper-based books would have had a lighter impact on the environment.
|
So think 50 books on an e-reader leads to an enviromental wash, more then 50 books on an e-reader leads to an enviromental improvement.
That is per e-reader. So those of us who are updating every year and not reading 51 books a year are not doing the environment any favors. Those of us who are reading 51 books on a given e-reader have earned our Captain Planet badge.
Woohoooo