Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newspapers Pollute Less On E-Readers and Tablets

Posted by timothy on from the which-stats-win dept.

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.'"

4 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Counter-intuitive by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Counter-intuitive by Troyusrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Counter-intuitive by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

  2. Re:Fine, except... by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.