Newspapers Pollute Less On E-Readers and Tablets 113
bobwyman writes "It seems counter-intuitive but a RAND full lifecycle analysis (PDF) shows that reading news electronically produces fewer GHG emissions than reading news on paper: 'Adopting e-readers could reduce GHG emissions from publishing and distributing newspapers by 74 percent; using tablet computers could result in a 63 percent reduction, assuming that all the GHG emissions associated with producing and operating e-readers or tablet computers are ascribed to reading newspapers. If a more realistic assumption is adopted, that the emissions associated with these devices should be spread across other activities pursued on these devices, the difference would be on the order of 84 to 89 percent less, respectively.'"
RAND? (Score:3, Informative)
I can't help but feel there is a bias.
RAND Corporation (Research ANd Development[2]) is a nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces by Douglas Aircraft Company. It is currently financed by the U.S. government and private endowment,[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fine, except... (Score:5, Informative)
Yes.
My family has three Kindles on the same account and all the books are shared between them. I would suppose that any type of subscription would apply to that same model as well. So, one subscription on all three devices.
The downside is they must be all on the same account, but that should be obvious.
Re:Counter-intuitive (Score:2, Informative)
But to manufacture a single modern chip also produces a lot of highly toxic waste that gets dumped into ocean, much more than manufacturing the delivery truck.