Is an ebook "green" reading, as in environmentally friendly?

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Could be a good book idea, as well... following such a consultant as he works for a new client and possibly uncovers some environmental coverup or other. (Daig... another idea I don't have time to write!...)

Not a consultant but Zodiac by Neal Stephenson comes close. I think the subtitle is "an eco-thriller".

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Not a consultant but Zodiac by Neal Stephenson comes close. I think the subtitle is "an eco-thriller".

Yes, and very well done, too.

I was also thinking of the movie A Civil Action with John Travolta, where he plays a lawyer who goes in way over his head to represent claimants in a local health lawsuit. A bit more of a personal drama, but similar.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, and very well done, too.

Oh, yeah, I really enjoy Stephenson. The Sony Store seems to have most of his work at a somewhat decent price but Zodiac is missing. He's got a new novel coming out soon, too. Not so big on the Travolta though

[TadW]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but someone gave some thoughts on the Esquire E Ink cover and its potential environmental impact:

The Environmental Consequences of Esquire's eInk Cover
So just how much of an environmental disaster is Esquire's misguided eInk escapade? Fast Company did the math. Accounting for manufacture of the batteries and display in China, assembly of the magazine covers in Mexico and then delivery to newstands in refrigerated trucks (to preserve the delicate batteries!), Fast Company estimates:
"150 tons of CO2 equivalent, similar to the output of 15 Hummers or 20 average Americans for an entire year, and a 16% increase over the carbon footprint of a typical print publication."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...se-exposed.php

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Not that I trust the numbers but they have the right idea.

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by TadW

Not sure if this has been posted before, but someone gave some thoughts on the Esquire E Ink cover and its potential environmental impact:



http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...se-exposed.php

This is an article discussing the environmental impact of a DISPOSABLE electronic magazine that works only for 90 days. This topic, however, assumes that there is an INTEREST in being environmentally friendly, in which case I don't see why would one dispose of his electronic device in every 90 days.

[markbot]

It's like the question of a ceramic cup versus a paper cup. The ceramic cup impacts the environment much more when u compare 1 to 1 and this is built into the price as the ceramic cup costs much more.

However, since the ceramic cup is reusable....eventually after so many uses it becomes both more economical and less a lower load on the environment. If the ceramic cup costs $2 to make and the paper cup costs 5 cents to make (made up numbers)....after using the paper cup 40 times...it'll start to be more expensive and with a higher load on the environment (most likely but just an estimate)....might take less than that.

so it is with the ereader. you'd probably have to read 40 books for the ereader to be become green. so it depends on how many books u read and how long u have the device. if u buy another device every year and only read like 20 books....then u are actually making the environment worse most likely

[rheostaticsfan]

I agree in principle with markbot, however I think his estimate of the "Break even" point being somewhere around 40 books read.

It'd be very complicated to work out and I haven't done it to be sure. My gut feel however is that he's probably off by an order of magnitude.

If people would keep their ebook readers past the break even point then they're "green". If not, not. Where that break even point is is very difficult to determine. My suspicion is that I will never keep an ebook reader until it's past it's break even point. I like new gadgets/toys/features too much to keep a unit that long.

There are many like me who want to keep on top of advances in consumer electronics. The whole issue of e-waste is HUGE.

It'd be nice to think of the trees we're saving by not consuming our media that way, but I think that in reality ebook readers are much worse.

[nekokami]

Wired magazine published an analysis of the ceramic cup example, and I believe one had to use the same ceramic cup for 5 years to offset the environmental impact compared to paper. Not that one can draw any comparisons between cups and ebook readers, but I was surprised at how high the environmental impact of the ceramic cup was.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Wired magazine published an analysis of the ceramic cup example, and I believe one had to use the same ceramic cup for 5 years to offset the environmental impact compared to paper. Not that one can draw any comparisons between cups and ebook readers, but I was surprised at how high the environmental impact of the ceramic cup was.

I would question that figure, myself... especially given the "hidden costs" of paper production, mainly environmental damage done during paper production, that have rarely been included in paper cost and impact estimates, even now.

[Patricia]

Another thing that needs to be considered is book storage. I used to have a serious Amazon habit (2-3 books per week).
Now if I had been able to get ebooks then I could have bought a smaller house. That would have been cheaper and easier to heat (though books do insulate a room).

[tidixon]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start...SH0CcEFcJTuzBg

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by rheostaticsfan

If people would keep their ebook readers past the break even point then they're "green". If not, not. Where that break even point is is very difficult to determine. My suspicion is that I will never keep an ebook reader until it's past it's break even point. I like new gadgets/toys/features too much to keep a unit that long.

There are many like me who want to keep on top of advances in consumer electronics. The whole issue of e-waste is HUGE.

I hope you consider reselling or giving away your cast-off toys. It's a great way to extend their working lives and it helps people who might not otherwise be able to afford these things. Reusing > recycling.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by tidixon

http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start...SH0CcEFcJTuzBg

I did not study this thesis in detail.. I just noticed how pro-e-reader it sounds in the introduction, so the endresult is not surprise... What I just wonder as example, how is "using" paper, *beside* production, transport, and recycling using any CO2 equivalent? I thought once produce and shipped to you, you can use it as much you want without any CO2 equivalent combustion... page 105 on the pdf.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rheostaticsfan

I agree in principle with markbot, however I think his estimate of the "Break even" point being somewhere around 40 books read.

It'd be very complicated to work out and I haven't done it to be sure. My gut feel however is that he's probably off by an order of magnitude.

One thing consumers could really use is information on those "breakeven points" for products... it would help make smart decisions (especially on products like "disposables," which often have no breakeven point). If we ever get serious about tracking environmental costs and impacts on products, and including those costs into pricing, breakeven data will be important.

Originally Posted by axel77

I did not study this thesis in detail.. I just noticed how pro-e-reader it sounds in the introduction, so the endresult is not surprise... What I just wonder as example, how is "using" paper, *beside* production, transport, and recycling using any CO2 equivalent? I thought once produce and shipped to you, you can use it as much you want without any CO2 equivalent combustion... page 105 on the pdf.

Yes, the CO2 output of paper, after you acquire it, is very small. It is larger after you throw it away, and it either burns or is decomposed in landfill. But the bulk of CO2 output (not to mention other polluting aspects) is in the production, processing (printing), storage and transportation to your home.