[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Which one would be the less environment-damaging way to read paper s?

The "electronic revolution" (beginning with the ancient photocopier and 
progressing to computers) has accelerated the harvesting of the Earth's biomass 
by a huge amount, according to all reports I have seen over the last couple 
decades.  The creation of the PDF "standard" has only accelerated it.

I would guess that, electronically-read or read off of a computer, it is 
largely a lose-lose situation for the trees/coal beds.  Put another way, it 
probably doesn't matter which way you read the document.

If Kindel (Kendal? Ken Doll?) ever becomes ubiquitous, things may change).



---------- Original Message ----------
From: Augusto Haro <augustoharo@gmail.com>
To: vrtpaleo <VRTPALEO@usc.edu>, Dinosaur Mailing List <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Subject: Which one would be the less environment-damaging way to read papers?
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 12:59:37 -0300

Wondering what is more damaging to the environment, to print your pdfs
and read the paper print, or to read directly from the computer (which
may be less nice, except when searching for the mention of a term).
-In the case of the paper one is favouring destruction of the
environment in one way or another, for even if the paper does not come
from destruction of the forests, one has to expand the agricultural
area for the plants from which we get the paper.
-In the case of reading from the computer, the electric current to our
computer comes largely from coal, which favours global warming.
Any thoughts? (especially from the greener people).

Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!