My iPAD has made me more green!

[wescravn]

How has my iPAD made me more green you ask?

I have been using goodreader for all those pesky pdf's, and ebooks. It isn't the best iphone/ipad reader at all, but it does allow wireless sync, and ftp access via webdav. I have begun to replace those old printouts with pdfs and now can read on the go. GREEN STEP #1

Zinio reader on IPAD has made my need to have magazines a non-entity now.
I love zinio and the way it aactually reads, and is crystal clear. I can now through out those old magazines, etc. Green Step #2

I love iCreate, and now that is the reason you would want to view it on the ipad. Not to mention the subscription is ten times less. Green Step #3

US Today, Wall Street Journal, etc have replaced newspapers, so now thats Green Step #4.

I can truly say that my iPad has made me more green and more environmental conscious. Thanks apple.

 

[GoCubsGo]

I think those without an iPad can be environmentally conscious. However, I agree. Now you mention iCreate and I'm going to have to check that out. I pay $15 USD an issue only if they have something I'm dying to try and learn. Otherwise I read it in the bookstore multiple times to try and save cash. I'm looking into it now.

I just wish my local paper had the same online app. I only subscribe to the E-Edition these days, though in some way I miss having the actual paper in hand. I don't miss the mess or the clutter though.

 

[Runt888]

There's some debate about this - paper is a very recyclable, very bio-degradable, and very renewable resource. An iPad is not (yes, some of it can be recycled, but it's not in the same league as paper). Also, it doesn't consume electricity to read a magazine or newspaper (other than lights in the room, but I'm assuming you're not reading your iPad in the dark).

There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to "going green." The real costs of electronic vs. paper isn't always easy to discern.

I'm not trying to say that using an iPad can't make you more green (for example, electronic delivery of newspapers is far more efficient than having someone delivery a paper copy to your door every morning), but some of your rationale is a little iffy.

 

[vini-vidi-vici]

I find that I have my computer on less, as im doing basic surfing tasks with my ipad instead. I think the iPad is more energy efficient. It's a pretty minor savings in the grand scheme of things, but it's something anyway...

 

[alia]

There's some debate about this - paper is a very recyclable, very bio-degradable, and very renewable resource. An iPad is not (yes, some of it can be recycled, but it's not in the same league as paper). Also, it doesn't consume electricity to read a magazine or newspaper (other than lights in the room, but I'm assuming you're not reading your iPad in the dark).

There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to "going green." The real costs of electronic vs. paper isn't always easy to discern.

I'm not trying to say that using an iPad can't make you more green (for example, electronic delivery of newspapers is far more efficient than having someone delivery a paper copy to your door every morning), but some of your rationale is a little iffy.

I agree with some of this, but I also think that the costs to recycle paper (electricity and chemicals) as well as the electricity and fuels associated with print production and distribution eat into whether paper or electronic copies are more green. I guess eventually people will do studies on both options to see if they can pinpoint what is actually better for the environment. In the meantime, I do think that OP is probably right to a certain extent. Also, not everyone recycles their paper.

 

[Chris Rogers]

I think I read a similar debate somewhere (Gizmodo?) and the main idea was that it takes energy to run the servers (the 'cloud'), and the more stuff you have on it, the more energy that is consumed. I can't remember right now (wouldn't mind being corrected)

Anyone read a similar article?

 

[MVApple]

Well sorry to burst your bubble but as other people pointed out, going "green" isn't always easy to calculate. One of the best things you can do to really go green is not buy a new iPod or iPad in this case, every year.

According to one study, a Kindle user needed to replace about 300 books in order for the waste of the two to equal out.

In one study, paper cups were pitted against styrofoam cups and the result was that the two were pretty much equal in waste and neither one was better for the environment. Mcdonalds at the time was getting a lot of bad publicity for using styrofoam so they switched to cardboard and I believe after the study was releasted they switched back.

It's no easy task to actually calculate all the variables involved. I bet you'll have to replace quiet a few books and magazines in order for the environmental impact of the two to equal out, its probably higher than what the average person thinks it is.

 

[Trek2100]

I think I read a similar debate somewhere (Gizmodo?) and the main idea was that it takes energy to run the servers (the 'cloud'), and the more stuff you have on it, the more energy that is consumed. I can't remember right now (wouldn't mind being corrected)

Anyone read a similar article?

There are always 2 points of view and usually one side cannot convince the other HOWEVER, most greenies I've talked to forget about the massive consumption of electricity for the internet, computers and servers, cell towers, etc, etc, etc. and production of all of the components for the aforementioned. If you consider all of the materials used, how they are obtained (trucks, bulldozers, etc that run on fossil fuels), parts and production processes, then "Green" is a fantasy. There is no such thing as a green computer or most anything else that is produced by manufacturing processes when you consider the "entire" picture. My soapbox is over for the evening. I'm going into a green sleep. Oh crap, are my meds green I'm not anti-green. We should conserve the resources we have and use them wisely. I just get tired of the argument.

 

[sammich]

I think I read a similar debate somewhere (Gizmodo?) and the main idea was that it takes energy to run the servers (the 'cloud'), and the more stuff you have on it, the more energy that is consumed. I can't remember right now (wouldn't mind being corrected)

Anyone read a similar article?

Yeah, that kind of thing is easily forgotten. But if you think about it, the cloud servers are actually highly optimised, highly efficient machines designed to store and send data. Your home machine is idle like 95% of the time but still consuming energy.

However, online servers may be doing a whole lot more than just sending and storing data, they get used to mine your data, and send you things like recommendations or 'you may also be interested'.

If you consider all of the materials used, how they are obtained (trucks, bulldozers, etc that run on fossil fuels), parts and production processes, then "Green" is a fantasy. There is no such thing as a green computer or most anything else that is produced by manufacturing processes when you consider the "entire" picture.

Not sure if it's true anymore, but *apparently* over the life of Hummer and the Prius, the Hummer is better for the environment because of the plastics used.

 

[sniffies]

green - greener - greenest

 

[racer1441]

There are a lot of gray areas when it comes to "going green."

Or just do nothing and say you're going green. It's all a big fat imaginary cause anyway.

 

[Trek2100]

Not sure if it's true anymore, but *apparently* over the life of Hummer and the Prius, the Hummer is better for the environment because of the plastics used.

Does that mean you can bury the Hummer safely? LOL, I'm just joking with you. My friend has a Hummer (H3) and the maintenance costs are high and parts are ridiculous but they are fun to drive.