• Blog
  • About
  • Archives
  • Contact
  • Search

  • Archives

    • October 2008
    • September 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
    • May 2008
    • April 2008
    • March 2008
    • February 2008
    • January 2008
  • Categories

    • Housekeeping
    • Uncategorized
    • Worth Considering
    • Worth Discussing
    • Worth Distraction
    • Worth Knowing
    • Worth Reading
    • Worth Seeing

Link Banana

A Vaguely Intelligent Linkblog
« White Supremacists and Obama
Joel Stein and George Clooney »

Read It Online #

February 26th, 2008 | In Worth Knowing 

Unlike Wired’s Chris Anderson who counter-intuitively argues that it’s greener to read that magazine in print, Slate’s Green Lantern says — as do I — that’s unlikely.

The greener choice would be to read the paper online, correct?

The Lantern believes so, but the environmental difference between dead-tree newspapers and their online editions is a lot smaller than you might imagine. In fact, there are learned experts who contend that traditional newsprint ultimately comes out ahead, at least in terms of net carbon-dioxide emissions. Though the Lantern disagrees with some of the assumptions these contrarians make, it’s worth exploring their arguments in order to better understand how hard it is to calculate a product’s cradle-to-grave impact.

Interested in similar content on Link Banana?

  • Electric Dryers or Paper Towels (June 17, 2008)
  • Gas vs. Charcoal (June 23, 2008)
  • In Defense of Boxed Wine (August 18, 2008)
  • An Effective Carbon Tax (March 26, 2008)
  • Of Environmentalism and Orange Juice (February 19, 2008)
Tags: chris anderson, conservation, consumption, green lantern, magazines, newspapers, slate, wired

Via BuzzFeed

A david (b) hayes Production

Link Banana is powered by WordPress

THEME: Carter's Line by Ikiru Design

Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)