¶ … print are considered by many technology and environmental enthusiasts to be outdated, archaic and simply not as efficient as modern e-readers like Apple's I Pad. The question arises however as to, what if any environmental impact the substitution of books for E-readers has? This question is explored by Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris of the NY Times in their article titled How Green Is My iPad. To find the answer to this question the authors turned to a life cycle assessment which evaluates and measures what ecological impact a product has. Essentially the authors wanted to find out what was the most environmentally friendly, or in other words the "greenest way to read." If this question is posed to an average person, that person might simply say, without hesitation that the most environmentally friendly way to read is by employing the technology of and E-reader. That question if more complicated than it appears due to the implications...

The authors in this article do a good job of exploring and debating the sometimes unseen or ignored aspects of producing, manufacturing, selling and delivering the actual product in to the hands of a consumer. These aspects are compared to the use of actual print books and the results are surprising, interesting and enlightening. Enthusiasts and fans of E-readers might assume that the competition to determine what is more environmentally friendly between traditional books and modern E-pads, would not be even moderately a close race. The authors do a great job of challenging the notion that modern technology is always more environmentally friendly. We all have heard the old adage that "saving paper saves tree," and therefore we believe that we save the environment by not using paper. What needs to be understood is that trees are only a small part of the environment; there are other…