My tweets

[ksmith]

• Tue, 13:59: "The deficit chart that should embarrass deficit hawk." http://t.co/8Cb1Syrt
• Tue, 15:27: Receiving promoted tweets from folks/companies I don't follow? Not cool, Twitter. #dismiss
• Tue, 15:45: RT @cmpriest: Too bad we're replacing the back room's carpet with oak. Maybe we could do this on the sub-flooring? Because HAHAHA - http ...
• Tue, 18:46: RT @pickover: "One year of reading eBooks accounts for a carbon footprint 5 times greater than a year’s worth of print books." http://t. ...
• Tue, 21:10: RT @justinwolfers: Australia's minimum wage is $A15.96 = $US16.50. Unemployment rate is 5.4%.
• Tue, 21:29: RT @jeremiahtolbert: Epic burn! “@michaelianblack: Pay the people who write for you. RT @ariannahuff "no one who works full-time should ...

Comments

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Tue, 18:46: RT @pickover: "One year of reading eBooks accounts for a carbon footprint 5 times greater than a year’s worth of print books." http://t. ...

What's the complete http link for this?

I bet it traces the impact of generating electricity all the way down, but stops well short of the logging to produce the paper, the gasoline to transport the paper books, etc.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

Tue, 18:46: RT @pickover: "One year of reading eBooks accounts for a carbon footprint 5 times greater than a year’s worth of print books."

What's the complete non-Twitter link for this?

I bet it traces the impact of generating electricity all the way down, but stops well short of the logging to produce the paper, the gasoline to transport the paper books, etc.

[kristine-smith.livejournal.com]

http://www.themillions.com/2012/05/are-ereaders-really-green.html

I wouldn't like it to be true, because I do like my ereader.

That said, there is reference made to paper production:

Raz Godelnik, CEO of Eco-Libris, estimates that 80% of a paperback book’s carbon footprint is caused by the earliest stages in its production process: paper harvesting, forest clearing, and material shipping. The BIEC recognized this, and one of its chief aims was to work on a more eco-friendly means of producing books.

[houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com]

On a quick read of the article, I see lots of misleading comparisons, with the relevant facts buried after a lot of soporific generalities on the first few screens.

Overall, he seems to be blaming the existence of ebooks for a proliferation of e-reading devices, not mentioning that ebooks can also be read on one's regular computer, where they use less power per minute than game-playing or web-surfing does. (And less internet connection time, as you download an ebook or set of them quickly, then disconnect from the internet and have hours of reading material.)

He talks about electricity usage in Amazon's office -- but not about electricity use in the lumber mills' office.

Etc.

Most important, electricity can be got cleanly -- paper cannot.