[LINK] How many Newspapers does it take to build Ayers Rock?

[Ivan Trundle]

>> Therefore if we can assume that the digital audience is as large as  
>> the
>> traditional paper audience, (and Rupert Murdoch's recent revelations
>> would suggest that it is larger); we can safely deduce that digital
>> delivery is 95.86% less harmful to the environment.

I suspect that the figures show that the EXISTING traditional *paying*  
audience is waning, and the digital *non-paying* audience is rising.  
The potential traditional audience is far greater than the potential  
digital audience. But I won't quibble over this one.

But if we're talking *delivery* - then this is a very narrow focus,  
and I say 'bollocks' to the 95.86% figure...

The entire consumption chain involves a good deal of electronics, all  
of which come at a cost, at all levels. You can't discount these any  
more than you can discount the environmental cost of vehicles used to  
transfer the physical newspaper to the consumer.

The suggestion that digital delivery of any data is at no or little  
cost to the environment, whilst discounting the infrastructure  
required to support the distribution and resultant action, is entirely  
fabricated.

iT