The transcripts from a discussion on NPR yesterday are now posted, once again weighing the environmental pros and cons of both digital and print media. The purpose? To try and determine which is truly more sustainable and therefore, the “better” option. The conclusion? Well, it depends.
Don Carli, a researcher for the Institute for Sustainable Communication took the pro-print approach, agreeing that print is energy intensive – but so is digital:
“There are also comparable and in some cases sometimes even greater environmental impacts in terms of energy consumption and other outputs in terms of waste. Toxic waste to the air, to the land, to water, from digital media infrastructures.
You have computers, data centers and server rooms that suck energy. You’ve also got to mine the minerals to make the devices. And, when you toss your old RAZR, it becomes e-waste. A multimillion ton toxic problem.”
Rita Schenck of the Institute for Environmental Research and Education, took the opposite approach. She believes reading news online is better… sometimes:
Continues at: Green Books N Binders | Recycled Binders | Green print.
Related articles by Zemanta
- Sustainability of future news devices (marketplace.publicradio.org)
- Going Green: No-Vinyl Binders and Bubble Wrap That Isn’t (whattheythink.com)
