[LINK] E-books: a quick calculation

[Richard Chirgwin]

Note that I didn't make an absolute judgement, Jan.

I actually couldn't say whether the US measure of paper book carbon
included pulping costs, but on the balance, neither did I include
disposal costs of e-book readers. Jury still out? I agree. More study
needed? Definitely.

RC

> At 10:42 AM 7/02/2009, Richard Chirgwin wrote:
>   
>> It's feasible that there's no advantage to e-books at all - even
>> excluding the question of other kinds of environmental damage, such as
>> toxic metals in the waste stream.
>>     
>
> What about the 40% of print runs that are pulped? That must be part 
> of the equation, a big part. Waste is one of the major issues in 
> print publishing, as well as transport of returned unsold books = fuel.
>
> Plus the stores themselves and their storage of product. Lights? 
> heating/cooling?
>
> I reckon the jury's still out.
>
> Jan
>
>
> Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
> jwhit at janwhitaker.com
> business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
> personal: http://www.janwhitaker.com/personal/
> blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
>
> Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
> sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
> ~Madeline L'Engle, writer
>
> Writing Lesson #54:
> Learn to love revision. Think of it as polishing the silver for 
> guests. - JW, May, 2007
> _ __________________ _
>
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>
>