I really appreciate the attempt to compare website carbon footprint vs blog post.
> The book needs to be read by at least two to three people before its environmental footprint becomes smaller than the one caused by reading all Low-tech Magazine articles online.
Divide the total energy consumption over a time period by the total number of page views and you get a decent first cut. That doesn’t factor in the transit or the end device that is viewing those pages but it’s a neat metric to start at.
TL; DR: Printing the book is a waste of energy but we're going to do it anyway.
Do they factor in the amount of energy they spent picking this tiny nit, which could have been spent on more productive things like reducing car and aircraft use, or campaigning to make sure the democrats put up a good, centrist candidate next time and America returns to fighting global warming ?
philips|11 months ago
> The book needs to be read by at least two to three people before its environmental footprint becomes smaller than the one caused by reading all Low-tech Magazine articles online.
tonyarkles|11 months ago
Divide the total energy consumption over a time period by the total number of page views and you get a decent first cut. That doesn’t factor in the transit or the end device that is viewing those pages but it’s a neat metric to start at.
damnitbuilds|11 months ago
Do they factor in the amount of energy they spent picking this tiny nit, which could have been spent on more productive things like reducing car and aircraft use, or campaigning to make sure the democrats put up a good, centrist candidate next time and America returns to fighting global warming ?