Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You
Summary: Even though my brain is infused with a little too many toner particles, the Doc assumes that anything we can do to reduce paper consumption is good for the planet. But what about the significant impact of digital waste?
Even though my brain is infused with a little too many toner particles, the Doc assumes that anything we can do to reduce paper consumption is good for the planet. But what about the significant impact of digital waste?
For a fascinating read, take a look at this interview with Don Carli, the Doc's good friend and Executive Vice President of SustainCommWorld LLC and Senior Research Fellow with the Institute for Sustainable Communication. Here's a few highlights from Don:
"Other than pushing the 'cool' factor, one of the main selling points being made by marketers of eReaders is that they are greener than print. It is little surprise that the common view held by consumers who don't know the backstory is that going digital means going green and saving trees. Many are in for a rude awakening. When subjected to 'cradle-to-cradle' life cycle analysis, eReading is not nearly as green as many naively assume it is."
"There is no question that print media could do a better job of managing the sustainability of its supply chains and waste streams, but it's a misguided notion to assume that digital media is categorically greener. Computers, eReaders, and cell phones don't grow on trees and their spiraling requirement for energy is unsustainable."
"Making a computer typically requires the mining and refining of dozens of minerals and metals including gold, silver, and palladium as well as extensive use of plastics and hydrocarbon solvents. To function, digital devices require a constant flow of electrons that predominately come from the combustion of coal, and at the end of their all-too-short useful lives electronics have become the single largest stream of toxic waste created by man. Until recently, there was little, if any, voluntary disclosure of the lifecycle ‘backstory’ of digital media."
"Sadly, print has come to be seen as a wasteful, inefficient and environmentally destructive medium, despite the fact that much of print media is based on comparatively benign and renewable materials. In addition, print has incredible potential to be a far more sustainable medium than it is today… and a truly digital medium as well. Despite its importance to business, government and society, print has been cast in the role of a dark old devil in decline. Digital media has been cast as the bright young savior on the rise."
"Ironically the future of digital media and eBook readers is likely to be based on flexible polymer electronics manufactured using printing presses rather than silicon semiconductor fabrication technologies. In fact, the next generation of eReaders will most likely be digital AND be printed."
There is a lot more from Don that the Doc guarantees will stimulate your neural economy.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
paper is white
so digital is greener.
you have nothing better to write about?
RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You
RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You
Desktops & Laptops are less green than eBook readers
Paper, on the other hand, can be made from many different pulp-producing sources, not just trees, and those sources are all renewable. Some of the manufacturing processes are not environmentally friendly, but that could change, and is much improved today, compared to several decades ago. Paper books and publications are also much more durable (I have books in my library that are more than 100 years old, and are still perfectly readable - try that with your smartphone, just 20 years from now; I bet it won't even power up), and paper can be recycled more easily and completely, than any of the aforementioned electronic devices; and require no energy to read (other than your own mental energy).
I think the rush to completely replace paper publications with electronic versions is premature and misguided.
BTW, one well-placed EMP can wipe out all your electronic devices, rendering your electronic libraries null and void (unless, of course, you're in the habit of storing them in a lead lined container).
Cheers.
Well....
eReader), I have covered the bulk of the non-
green, particularly since I get all my power
from renewable resources (we actually have a
choice of three different all-renewable power
companies in South Jersey).
It's kind of like a hybrid car... it's worse up
front, but as you go on, you're wasting less
than going the other route. My footprint will
be considerably different if I'm replaying two
magazines a month with an eReader, versus a
daily newspaper and several dozen magazines a
month, say, on my SmartPhone (which I'm likely
to have anyway).
The ultimate right direction is "design for
destruction"... new devices should be designed
with recycling in mind. And increasingly, they
are.
Actually Hybrids are not all that green
Actually Hybrids are not all that green
the Prius...it cannot run on the electric motor alone, and gets MUCH,
MUCH better mileage on the freeway than in town--70+ freeway vs 50+
town mpg. The batteries are now 10 years old and are still performing
with no problems. The only repairs it has needed in ten years have been
three recalls on electronic parts that Honda issued over the years. Other
than that, it has required routine maintenance only. I have replaced the
a/c compressor and valves, etc, in every other car we have owned (TWICE
on our VW Jetta, in 7 years!) while the Insight a/c still runs cold without
ever even charging it in ten years! I have never regretted buying it.
RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You
RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You
Not everyone is a nerd who has a computer for the sake of having a computer. If the world doesn't go paperless then there would be less need to have a computer.
less PC/cloud reliance == fewer computers == less mining AND less energy spent both building and maintaining them.
The hole I see is possible advances in the future towards renewable energy sources such as solar or wind. That would leave mining which would be solved if biocomputers becomes a consumer reality and nano-technology advances.
Not everyone who has computer is a nerd
Saving the trees
Not inherently
solar, wind, and small hydroelectric... 100%
renewable and very low environment impact.
Using that existing device, which I'm going to
need anyway, takes a bit of extra power to use
as a reader... but it's not inherently
polluting. Of course, a dedicated reading
device is going to use much less power, but
it's also yet another device one has to
manufacture... there will be a trade-off, based
on the amount of digital reading one does per
month.
Of course, I do pay extra (about $25 per month)
for this electrical supplier (Community
Energy), I drive a 2003 Prius, and I also have
25 acres of forested land.. my aggregate carbon
footprint is smaller than usual. For many,
these are choices they're not making, which has
a far larger impact than paper vs. digital
today.
Energy use of computers
I will read my newspapers and other short term material electronic and read my long term items such as reference books that I plan to keep a long time on paper. Most of my books came from the Goodwill, rummage sales, etc.
That's not as clear cut as you make it.
new cell phones all the time. The article is
pointing out that paper is more friendly over it's
life cycle than the tech device you're using, and
you're going to be buying at least as many tech
devices. Most people who can afford it upgrade or
buy a new machine every 2 years on average. That's
a LOT of consumption.
missed the point
I can't play computer games or surf the 'Net on paper. I require a computer.
So the computer is already created.
So we have a life-cycle comparison of using a computer I already own to read news/books or continuing to print.
The winner is:
Books for stuff I want to keep.
Computers for stuff I dont want to keep.
EBooks lose out until the tech cost makes them printable & recyclable - as they're a limited specialist item, which the licensing costs from greedy RIAA-like printers will probably kill anyway.
Factors lacking
the consumer. The reality is most printed
material languishes on the shelf. So for every
paper taken into account in the study, add the
one that was left on the rack just in case he
wanted to read it on the bus or in the coffee
shop but didn't. Then, it really breaks down in
industry. It takes a lot of energy to maintain
a properly climate controlled environment for
legal and medical records. Just ask Iron
Mountain.
Archive 'em
And old paper publications can be found at most libraries, so there's no need to keep personal copies around, "just in case." Same with books, unless they're rare and/or valuable. Recycle 'em. (I say this as I look at my massive collection of paperback and hardback books - and yes, I have re-read many of them, more than once, in some cases.)
Cheers.
RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You
Virgin paper production is almost totally carbon neutral; by-products of the process are burned to make the heat and power needed to run the paper machines. Paper is also the most recycled product on the planet. The trees that paper companies use are managed just like any other crop, which means they are replaced with new trees after harvesting. And, finally, young trees absorb more CO2 than old growth forests do.
When you consider the fact that our mostly coal-powered internet uses enough energy to boil a pot of tea for every two google searches performed, newspapers, magazines, and libraries suddenly appear to be the low impact way to disseminate information.
which is greener
saying it is greener. both have their own place
for us.
paper's use will eventually lose out to digital
medium, no matter what. can you imagine printing
all the email that you get, for reference.
Don't have to imagine.