Newspapers Pollute Less On E-Readers and Tablets

bobwyman writes "It seems counter-intuitive but a RAND full lifecycle analysis (PDF) shows that reading news electronically produces fewer GHG emissions than reading news on paper: 'Adopting e-readers could reduce GHG emissions from publishing and distributing newspapers by 74 percent; using tablet computers could result in a 63 percent reduction, assuming that all the GHG emissions associated with producing and operating e-readers or tablet computers are ascribed to reading newspapers. If a more realistic assumption is adopted, that the emissions associated with these devices should be spread across other activities pursued on these devices, the difference would be on the order of 84 to 89 percent less, respectively.'"

Comments

Counter-intuitive

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

"It seems counter-intuitive but a RAND full lifecycle analysis (PDF) shows that reading news electronically produces fewer GHG emissions than reading news on paper:

How is this in any way counter-intuitive?

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Troyusrex]

My thought exactly. It's a lot less energy to push electrons than to push newspaper trucks.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[betterunixthanunix]

Producing semiconductors is a fairly energy-intensive process, tablets are full of semiconductors -- chips, the screen, etc. I can believe, though, that if a tablet is used instead of a printed newspaper every day for 2 or so years, there is a net energy savings.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[pla]

How is this in any way counter-intuitive?

This.

I realize that semiconductor manufacturing has its own set of associated evils, but seriously? Did we actually have any doubt whatsoever that somewhere on the order of 500-2500 newspapers would damage the environment less to view them electronically than by cutting down the sole significant organic CO2 sink known to man, transporting them, bleaching them, drying them, transporting them again, pulping them, bleaching again, transporting them again, milling into paper, transporting them again, printing on them with hydrocarbon inks, and transporting yet one more time, a dead-tree edition of the Daily?

Okay, a single day's run, we might have a toss-up, conceptually. But over the life of the device? Seriously?

Ric Romero reports: Teens having sex? More likely than you think - Film at 11!

Re:Counter-intuitive

[hairyfeet]

Not to mention we already know how to build devices that last, its simply cheaper (and more likely to generate more sales) if you "design for the dump" but with a little care even average electronics can last quite a while. my laptop from 07 is still going last i heard, as is the laptop i had in 2010, the netbook I have now since i'm happy with both the performance and form factor should easily last me 5 to 7 years, possibly more, with simply a little thought and common sense when it comes to carrying it.

So there is no reason, other than carelessness or the desire to "keep up with the joneses" to replace your devices annually. With a little thought and care i could see a tablet lasting 5 years which I'm sure would be a pretty big win on the ecology front.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[MightyYar]

So there is no reason, other than carelessness or the desire to "keep up with the joneses" to replace your devices annually.

Annually? Is there any evidence that this is the mean lifetime of these toys? I have an e-ink Kindle rather than a "tablet", but most of the people I know who have tablets have only replaced them because they dropped them or gave them to their kid and got the newer model for themselves.

My cell phones have always performed admirably, really only dying when I drop them repeatedly or get them damp repeatedly. Before my newest phone, I replaced the screen on my old iPhone twice before giving it up because the WiFi went out. Now I have a considerably cheaper Android phone, so I guess I'll see how it holds up.

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anonymous Coward]

But to manufacture a single modern chip also produces a lot of highly toxic waste that gets dumped into ocean, much more than manufacturing the delivery truck.
   

Re:Counter-intuitive

[Anne Thwacks]

I worked at a paper mill once. It used as much electricity as the city of Manchester. (UK's third largest city). and ran 24 hours a day, 29 days out of 30

However

[rossdee]

They still take as many green pieces of paper to subscribe to

Re:However

[sqrt(2)]

I still prefer cash for most transactions (at least ones in person) because it's anonymous, secure, and untraceable. It's a dirty secret of government that they need those features sometimes, too. Cash won't go away as long as there are covert operations that need funding and deniability.

no shit

[hjf]

No shit sherlock.

I wonder how much power went into this study. And the carbon footprint of it.

How wonderfully useless.

[pushing-robot]

assuming that all the GHG emissions associated with producing and operating e-readers or tablet computers are ascribed to reading newspapers

Also, my PC makes a very inefficient desk lamp, assuming I only use my PC as a desk lamp.

Fine, except...

[AliasMarlowe]

It sounds OK, except that in our house a newspaper is typically read by at least 3 people. Would they allow three e-readers to access a single subscription? Would they do that for the same price as a single e-reader? At present, it sounds unlikely for most of them. Needing multiple subscriptions and multiple e-readers would seem to involve an economic hit and reduce any GHG benefit.

The exception that I'm aware of is The Economist magazine, which allows a number of devices to download its issues on a single set of credentials (we use apps on two Android phones and full web access for two or three computers). Of course, that access is provided as a side benefit to having the paid dead-tree subscription, so it probably does not reduce any GHG emissions.

Re:Fine, except...

[cdrguru]

Yes.

My family has three Kindles on the same account and all the books are shared between them. I would suppose that any type of subscription would apply to that same model as well. So, one subscription on all three devices.

The downside is they must be all on the same account, but that should be obvious.

Problem is...

[DeeEff]

Most people I know that would read the newspaper, wouldn't buy (or use) a tablet.
And most people I know that have a tablet, wouldn't read the newspaper.

Quite the paradox....

Yes whats with the conspiracy theories?

[arcite]

Just think of the forests that are chopped down, pulp mills powered by coal to process the pulp, the millions of liters of water used to process the pulp, millions of liters of chemicals to bleach the paper, and finally the tens of thousands of trucks and even ships used to transport the paper to the printers....then of course the printers are on industrial scale all in themselves. A world of tablets, which should become smaller, more powerful, more environmentally friendly over time, could save many forests.

Re:Yes whats with the conspiracy theories?

[MightyYar]

Landfills these days decompose most of the organic materials. They repeatedly pour the water collected at the base of the landfill back over the top until it starts coming out relatively clean. This significantly extends the useful life of the landfills, and reduces the long-term costs of maintaining it. They even produce enough methane to run on-site generators and such (better for air quality and global warming than releasing it).

Paper mills are incredibly polluting

[Fizzol]

If you've ever been near one you'll know it. They smell horrendously and are one of the biggest polluters in the world. And as far as literacy goes, world wide it dropped by half between 1970 and 2005, and reading in the US, at least for novels, has rebounded in recent years.

E-Reader or Tablet but not a Laptop?

[tomhath]

My computer is on all day anyway, so I use it to read the news. Now this guy is telling me I have to use a tablet or e-reader to save the Earth? Sounds like someone got paid for that "analysis".

RAND?

[koan]

I can't help but feel there is a bias.

RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development[2]) is a nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is currently financed by the U.S. government and private endowment,[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND

Re:RAND?

[Dynedain]

The RAND corporation is huge. They're a research-based think tank. The US government is their biggest customer because they get hired to do research on public policy.

When you have a question like "I want to roll out new computers for all grade school students in California. Will this actually improve education and will it have an impact on jobs in NY in 15 years?", the RAND corporation is who you call to get an answer.

The headline is not supported by the summary

[Attila Dimedici]

The headline is not supported by the summary let alone by the article. The headline says "Newspapers pollute less on E-readers and Tablets". Yet the summary says nothing about how much pollution is generated to produce a paper newspaper vs reading it on an electronic device. The article and the summary only talk about the relative green house gases of these two distribution methods. Perhaps people have forgotten that there is a lot of very serious pollution out there. Pollution that is actual poison. Even if you consider green house gases pollution, there are many types of pollution that are much worse. This article does not examine those pollutants in any way, so does not really address the issue described by the headline.

animal rights

[pbjones]

I'm sure that when use by animals is taken into account, crapping on newspaper vs. e-reader, the paper is more economical. You don't find e-readers hanging on a nail in a remote out-house/dunny/thunder-box.

Brought to you by...

[wonkey_monkey]

...the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious.