How Green Is My iPad

¶ … print are considered by many technology and environmental enthusiasts to be outdated, archaic and simply not as efficient as modern e-readers like Apple's I Pad.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 involved in life cycle assessment process. 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 crucial and important components to the environment that also need to be taken into account when evaluating and trying to determine the most environmentally friendly products. The authors do a good job of presenting facts about the manufacturing process of E-readers that inform consumers of the actual production details. They attempt to present a holistic and more complete assessment and evaluation of the environmental impact that E-readers have relative to traditional paper printed books. For example, they point out that an E-reader "requires the extraction of approximately 33 pounds of minerals." This is an eye opening fact because most consumers assume that these E-readers just magically come off the store shelves without any environmental impact whatsoever. The authors also state that an average E-reader like the I pad require the use of 79 gallons of water in order to produce its batteries and printed wiring boards. This use of environmental resources is relatively large when compared to the manufacturing and the production of a book. A normal printed book consumes about 9 ounces of minerals and requires only 2 gallons of water. The authors also account for the cost and consumption of fossil fuels, which is another greatly debated and influential concern when exploring the issue of environmental impact. They point out that an E-reader produces 66 pounds of carbon dioxide in its manufacturing and production process, from the use of 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels; this is a relatively large figure when compared to a book which only uses 2 kilowatt hours. The authors also take into account the shipping and decomposition processes of both types of products and find that the traditional use of books is far more beneficial to the environment. Overall they present some valid points and some interesting and appealing figures about the production and manufacturing of E-readers.