> The book needs to be read by at least two to three people before its environmental footprint becomes smaller than the one caused by reading all Low-tech Magazine articles online.
Divide the total energy consumption over a time period by the total number of page views and you get a decent first cut. That doesn’t factor in the transit or the end device that is viewing those pages but it’s a neat metric to start at.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=619831&post...
The vast majority of trees which are cut for paper pulp are quick-growing loblolly pines which will be re-planted almost immediately, larger, older, nicer trees are usually cut for lumber, so one should be able to let the 8.85 pounds figure stand for paper products w/o concern for deforestation.
Here's a page which indicates most CO_2 production is for energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html
And here's a page which indicates that CO_2 production is a much larger problem for the manufacturing of electronics: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/49730 w/ a ratio of 12 to 1 for energy usage to weight, so my PRS-505 weighs roughly 9 ozs., so presumably required 108 ounces of fuel to manufacture (on-going energy usage is not considered) http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm gives us a figure of 19.4 pounds of CO_2 per gallon of gasoline which equals roughly 16.36875 pounds of CO_2 to make the ebook reader.
So getting two books for the Sony should make it roughly break even, and each printed book beyond that which is not purchased should result in a net reduction of CO_2 emissions, since the energybulletin.net page indicates that the embodied energy usage for electronics is much greater than the lifetime usage
Do they factor in the amount of energy they spent picking this tiny nit, which could have been spent on more productive things like reducing car and aircraft use, or campaigning to make sure the democrats put up a good, centrist candidate next time and America returns to fighting global warming ?
