Quote:
Originally Posted by veysey
It's pretty clear that if you read enough, that an e-reader has to win.
Or maybe not ... ?
Let me be more careful. If the amount of CO2 produced by generating the electricity used in the distribution and consumption (powering the reader) of an e-book is smaller than the the amount of CO2 released in cutting down trees, making paper, manufacturing the p-book, and shipping the p-book then, for a sufficiently large number of books, e-books are more environmentally friendly.
Eventually the fixed environmental costs of manufacturing the reader become irrelevant.
Ergo, read more! 
Counter argument: What if you read only second hand-books? A book can last a long time, perhaps longer than a reader ... |
Recently I read an article by a leading proponent of the "we must cut all technology to save our planet" school on his views of CO2. He stated that it probably is already too late to make effective changes in our CO2 production (worldwide) in order to see massive reductions within the next couple of decades - that because the CO2 currently in our atmosphere will STILL be there as it takes many YEARS to filter out. However, he stated that further reducing NOX, CO and other greenhouse gases will have a dramatic effect as the currently in-atmosphere amounts of those tend to filter out within weeks.
So the question now becomes, are we so wedded to the philosophy of AlGore-ism that we'd rather slaughter millions of trees each year for book and newsprint production or would we rather eliminate 90% of dead-tree production and face a possible maintenance or slight increase in CO2 production from power systems that recharge our ereader batteries. Our choice.
Me, I'd rather save the trees as they DO filter out excess CO2. Call me crazy.
Derek