The debate of online v. print has been taking place for years, with most leaning in favor of reading online. After all, it uses no paper, which is better for the environment.
An expansive study has taken place, conducted by the KTH Center for Sustainable Communications. Published in 2007, it assessed the environmental consequences of both print and online publications. The results are pretty mind-boggling, to say the least, and there were so many factors taken into account, that I wouldn’t even want to list them all here!
It’s fairly up to date, and granted, it used European facts and figures, but the basis for this model can certainly relate similarly to the USA as well.
They took into account virtually everything that has to do with putting together a newspaper, from what it takes when getting the electronic images onto your computer, including the tree felling, and processing the pulp for paper, to building and shipment of pieces and parts for your computer from manufacturers in China!
Comprehensive is an understatement here, as they went above and beyond the call of duty. But the results they got are absolutely fascinating.
If you read the paper for about 30 minutes, the total energy it takes to get that information to you is just about the same for each medium.
As far as global warming goes, this will surprise you. Thirty minutes of reading the news on the internet spews out 10 percent more greenhouse gases per year then reading a newspaper. Toxic waste generated by internet reading - and this takes into account the plastics used for computer manufacture and inner components - are almost 40 percent higher than a newspaper.
However, if everything is factored in from printing the paper to reporting and fuel used, lights in the office and all things considered when it comes to actually getting the information, as opposed to the computer where there is less travel, and everything can be punched into the unit by a keyboard, in total, there is only a slight difference between the two, with the computer coming out on top.
The amount of time spent reading factors into this greatly. If a person only scans and reads news on the computer for only 10 minutes or so, there is a huge ecological advantage to getting your news electronically, which equates to nearly triple the environmental advantage.
In Sweden, where they use a lot more electricity generated from hydro plants as opposed to coal-fired electricity production, the environmental impact is about 33 percent less across the board. That fact lends credence to the idea that if sustainable energy can be used instead of traditional methods, this figure becomes even lower still.
Right now, there is not that much of a difference between getting your news from a newspaper, or getting it online. But all that information will change as more and more sustainable sources of power become available, whether it’s solar panels on the roof, or windmills out on the plains, and computers will generate far less of an environmental impact then the old traditional newspapers. This just adds a little more proof that sustainable energy is the way of the future, Because Action speaks louder then words!
Source: BecauseAction.com
