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.

Topics: Hardware, Mobility

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

119 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • paper is white

    while digital is carved in green plastic plate

    so digital is greener.


    you have nothing better to write about?
    ljenux-23043766007667558234416105604265
    • RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You

      Thank you for the information. <a href="http://www.replica-hermes.org/hermes-men-bag-c-14.html">hermes men bags</a> <a href="http://www.replica-hermes.org/hermes-shoulder-bag-c-15.html">hermes shoulder bags</a> <a href="http://www.replica-hermes.org/40cm-hermes-birbin-bag-c-2.html">hermes birbin</a>
      3shao
  • RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You

    "Which is greener, paper or digital". This assumes that all digital users are using an E-reader for reading. Many people are still using Computers or Smartphones for at least SOME of their reading (thereby reducing the waste of many trees). Just look at the number of magazines (Computer Especially) which have gone electronic (I no longer receive any IT magazines). I know the title for this article probably was "invented" by some editor (which frustrates me immensely when editors chose controversial titles ,just to get people to read articles that are often less controversial). I agree that e-readers are probably pretty wasteful as they are pretty much a "one-trick-pony". Netbook and Laptop vendors need to work with content providers to make those devices more e-reader friendly. Especially when a device has reached the end of it's useful "cutting edge" functionality for internet, video, etc... The Netbooks and Laptops should be be "re-purposed" to prolong their useful life as environmentally friendly e-readers.
    jkohut
    • Desktops & Laptops are less green than eBook readers

      Desktops and laptops use far more energy than ebook readers. They use far more plastics and metals, requiring more non-renewable resources than ebook readers. And smartphones are as bad as ebook readers (but with smaller screens - I don't know how people can use them to read books; they hurt my eyes). The saving grace is that they are more powerful, and they're multi-purpose. Don't get me wrong, I'm a techno-geek and love high-tech gadgets, including desktops and laptops, ebook readers, and even smartphones. But, I have no illusions that they are green devices (I worked in the semiconductor industry for nearly two decades).

      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.
      reagan0
      • Well....

        Once I have a reading device (PC, Droid,
        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.
        Hazydave
        • Actually Hybrids are not all that green

          If you spend a lot of time in downtown traffic, like a taxi, an argument can be made for hybrids. But if you travel on highways at highway speeds, hybrids are actually worse for the environment. A tramp steamer in one crossing of the Pacific pollutes more than 90,000 cars. The batteries in the hybrid come across on these ships, and then need to be shipped back to be recycled since we do not have facilities in North America (NIMBY). As an example, you could drive a new Golf TDI for 16,000k before it was equal to the manufacturing starting carbon footprint of a Prius. When you consider the 5 year life span of the batteries, unless you plan on driving your Prius 500,000km in those 5 years you are probably doing much more harm to the environment than good.
          914four
          • Actually Hybrids are not all that green

            Actually, my 2000 Honda Insight is based on different technology than
            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.
            skygoer
  • RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You

    This reasoning is flawed. People who prefer the digital method ALREADY have the digital means. People who currently don't have a computer or ebook will not just go out to buy such electronic equipment and cancel their print subscriptions. If I already have a computer, I can be green by opting to buy on-line subscription and read on the screen. Isn't that green? Of course, a cradle-to-cradle life cycle analysis favors paper but with or without reading, people buy their computers anyway.
    kn_bui@...
    • RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You

      Maybe.

      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.
      Dave Keays
      • Not everyone who has computer is a nerd

        How many people own a computer for the sake of having a computer? Everyone who I know owns a computer owns one out of necessity. Sure, mankind would still survive without computers just like it could without planes and cars and medical equipment ... My argument is that since millions around the world ALREADY own computers and millions more surely will (only a small minority will just for the sake of having one), we might as well turn to the digital method and save the trees. Now, we just need to recycle the equipment or figure out a way to use green parts in the equipment.
        kn_bui@...
        • Saving the trees

          by polluting the air to create electricity to run the computers. Just having the computer isn't the only issue. Running the computer does additional damage to the environment.
          az_nemesis
          • Not inherently

            My electric supplier gets electricity from
            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.
            Hazydave
          • Energy use of computers

            And for 8 months of the year, my computer (which was rescued from the garbage) helps to heat my home. And during the day it is powered by a solar array on my roof. Now, what is greener?
            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.
            mjrichter@...
        • That's not as clear cut as you make it.

          Millions of machines are pushed yearly. People buy
          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.
          evilkillerwhale@...
      • missed the point

        Point is those things will be done.
        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.
        mist42nz
        • Factors lacking

          This assumes that the material exactly matches
          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.
          tkejlboom
          • Archive 'em

            ... or recycle them. There's no need to choose electronic over paper, for archival purposes. In addition to electronic versions, legal and medical records can (and should) be archived to microfiche, then the paper can be recycled. Saves a lot of space, microfiche still has a much longer life-cycle than electronic, and microfiche readers are cheap. The only drawback is that you do give up ease of access over electronic, but most likely you'll have the electronic version, anyway.

            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.
            reagan0
  • RE: Which is Greener: Paper or Digital? The Answer May Surprise You

    I don't think the other commenters here are quite getting the point. Most people tend to give lip-service to environmental concerns, but are sadly oblivious when it comes to putting their "money" where their mouths are.
    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.
    jar2
    • which is greener

      the fact is you cannot replace digital with paper
      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.
      dtulan@...
      • Don't have to imagine.

        You say that as if it doesn't already happen. I have seen managers even a CEO or two that have binders full of emails and email responses...for a paper trail. Sickening.
        ellsanto