How green is the new iPad - part 7: break-even point between ebooks and paper books

This is the the final chapter in our our 7-part series, where we're exploring the carbon footprint and environmental impacts of the new iPad, comparing it to those of the iPad 2 and trying to figure out if Apple has made any progress from environmental perspective with its new iPad and what's the new break-even point between books and ebooks on the iPad.

On every part of the series we're looking into another part of the carbon footprint of the new iPad. We already covered production, energy efficiency, packaging, restricted substances, recycling and the total carbon footprint. Today we're looking into the break-even point between books and ebooks on the iPad.

Break-even point between books and ebooks on the iPad:

Here is the information on the break-even point of the new iPad (source: Apple's report)

For this comparison, I'll use the figure of 7.46 kg CO2 to represent the lifecycle carbon emissions of an average book. This is also the figure I used for the comparison made for the first model of the iPad.

This figure was presented on the Cleantech report (The Environmental Impact of Amazon's Kindle) and according to the report based on three independent studies that used life cycle analysis calculators to assess the impact of raw materials (I know it's much higher from the figure of 4.01 kg presented on the 2008 Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry report, but I believe it helps to make the comparison more conservative).

So, given that the carbon footprint of the new iPad is 180kg CO2, then the break-even point is: new iPad = 24.1 paper books.

It means that putting aside all the other uses of the new iPad, then from a carbon footprint point of view, it becomes a more environmental friendly alternative option for book reading once you finished reading your 24th book on your new iPad (or 25th book if you want to be more accurate).

If you make the comparison based on the 4.01 kg CO2 per book (provided by the Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry report), the break-even point is 44.89 books.

This is of course a conservative estimate since the iPad, as a tablet computer, has many other users and actually reading ebooks is not the most popular use of these devices. If you take other uses in consideration, the break-even point may be lower.

Here is the information on the break-even point of the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report - revised version):

Using the figure of 7.46kg CO2 to represent the lifecycle carbon emissions of an average book and given that the carbon footprint of the iPad 2 is 130kg CO2, then the break-even point is: iPad 2 = 17.4 paper books.

It means that putting aside all the other uses of the iPad 2, then from a carbon footprint point of view, it becomes a more environmental friendly alternative option for book reading once you finished reading your 17th book on your new iPad (or 18th book if you want to be more accurate).

If you make the comparison based on the 4.01 kg CO2 per book (provided by the Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry report), the break-even point is 32.4 books.

Our take: The new iPad has a significantly higher break-even point comparing to the iPad 2, representing the differences between their carbon footprints.

Bottom line: Making the argument that reading ebooks is greener has become a bit more difficult with the new iPad as the break-even point has gone up. This is definitely not the direction it should be going with newer versions of the iPad. Better devices should also mean smaller carbon footprints, otherwise this might be a technological progress, but it's definitely not a sustainable one.

Here are the parts of the series that were released so far:

Part 1 - production
Part 2 - energy efficiency
Part 3 - packaging
Part 4 - restricted substances
Part 5 - recycling
Part 6 - carbon footprint

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

How green is the new iPad - part 6: comparing the carbon footprint of the new iPad and iPad 2

After a short break we're back with our 7-part series in which we explore the carbon footprint and environmental impacts of the new iPad, compare it to those of the iPad 2 and try to figure out if Apple has made any progress from environmental perspective with its new iPad and what's the new breakeven point between books and ebooks on the iPad.

On every part of the series we're looking into another part of the carbon footprint of the new iPad. We already covered production, energy efficiency, packaging, restricted substances and recycling. Today we're looking at the total carbon footprint.

Total carbon footprint:

Here is the information on the total carbon footprint of the new iPad (source: Apple's report):

	Emissions
Production	120.6
Customer use	45
Transport	10.8
Recycling	3.6
Total	180

Here is the information on the total carbon footprint of the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report - revised version):

	Emissions
Production	85.8
Customer use	29.9
Transport	11.7
Recycling	2.6
Total	130

Comparison between the carbon footprint of the new iPad and the iPad 2:

	new iPad	iPad 2	Change
Production	120.6	85.8	40.6%
Customer use	45	29.9	50.5%
Transport	10.8	11.7	-7.7%
Recycling	3.6	2.6	38.5%
Total	180	130	38.5%

Our take: The picture is very clear - the new iPad has a significantly higher carbon footprint comparing to the iPad 2. Other than transportation, where we see some decline in emissions, all the other parts of the life cycle of the iPad have became more carbon intensive.

Bottom line: Apple is doing a poor job when it comes the carbon emissions of the iPad, not ensuring that a newer version will also be a greener one from a carbon footprint standpoint.

Next part on our series: Breakeven point for ebooks vs. books

Here are the parts of the series that were released so far:

Part 1 - production
Part 2 - energy efficiency
Part 3 - packaging
Part 4 - restricted substances
Part 5 - recycling

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

How green is the New iPad - part 5: Recycling

Last week we started a 7-part series in which we explore the carbon footprint and environmental impacts of the new iPad, compare it to those of the iPad 2 and try to figure out if Apple has made any progress from environmental perspective with its new iPad and what's the new breakeven point between books and ebooks on the iPad.

On every part of the series we're looking into another part of the carbon footprint of the new iPad. We already covered production, energy efficiency, packaging and restricted substances. Today we're looking at recycling.

Recycling:

Here is the information on the recycling of the new iPad (source: Apple's report):

Through ultra-efficient design and the use of highly recyclable materials, Apple has minimized material waste at the product’s end of life. In addition, Apple offers and participates in various product take-back and recycling programs in 95 percent of the regions where Apple products are sold. All products are processed in the country or region in which they are collected. For more information on how to take advantage of these programs, visit www.apple.com/recycling.

Here is the information on the recycling of the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report - revised version):

Through ultra-efficient design and the use of highly recyclable materials, Apple has minimized material waste at the product’s end of life. In addition, Apple offers and participates in various product take-back and recycling programs in 95 percent of the regions where Apple products are sold. All products are processed in the country or region in which they are collected. For more information on how to take advantage of these programs, visit www.apple.com/recycling.

Our take: Basically, Apple copied the text it used for the iPad 2. The only thing is that Apple, as we showed in part 1 - production, is actually using more materials in the new iPad comparing to the iPad 2.

Bottom line: Apple is static when it comes to recycling and the offer stays the same. We'll have to see if it will manage in the future to provide consumers further incentives and to recycle their iPads. To be fair it's also important to mention that Apple products' recycling rate is 70 percent, which is pretty high comparing to its competitors.

Next part on our series: Total carbon footprint

Here are the parts of the series that were released so far:

Part 1 - production
Part 2 - energy efficiency
Part 3 - packaging
Part 4 - restricted substances

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

How green is the New iPad - part 4: Restricted substances

Last week we started a 7-part series in which we explore the carbon footprint and environmental impacts of the new iPad, compare it to those of the iPad 2 and try to figure out if Apple has made any progress from environmental perspective with its new iPad and what's the new breakeven point between books and ebooks on the iPad.

Every day we're looking into another part of the carbon footprint of the new iPad. We already covered production, energy efficiency and packaging. Today we're looking at restricted substances.

Restricted substances:

Here is the information on the restricted substances of the new iPad (source: Apple's report):

Apple has long taken a leadership role in restricting harmful substances from its products and packaging. As part of this strategy, all Apple products comply with the strict European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS Directive. Examples of materials restricted by RoHS include lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and the brominated flame retardants (BFRs) PBB and PBDE. iPad goes even further than the requirements of the RoHS Directive by incorporating the following more aggressive restrictions:

• Mercury-free LED-backlit display
• Arsenic-free display glass
• BFR-free
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)−free

Here is the information on the restricted substances of the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report - revised version):

Apple has long taken a leadership role in restricting harmful substances from its products and packaging. As part of this strategy, all Apple products comply with the strict European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS Directive. Examples of materials restricted by RoHS include lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and the brominated flame retardants (BFRs) PBB and PBDE. iPad 2 goes even further than the requirements of the RoHS Directive by incorporating the following more aggressive restrictions:

• Mercury-free LED-backlit display
• Arsenic-free display glass
• BFR-free
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)−free

Our take: Basically, nothing has changed in the newest version of the iPad when it comes to restricted substances. The text is the same text, which means that no new steps have been taken to improve the new iPad from hazardous substances use standpoint.

Bottom line: Apple is static when it comes to restricted substances. We'll have to see if it gets more innovative about it in the next version or maybe this is as good as it gets.

Next part on our series: Recycling.

Here are the parts of the series that were released so far:

Part 1 - production
Part 2 - energy efficiency
Part 3 - packaging

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

How Green is the New iPad - part 1: comparing materials and production footprint to iPad 2

The new iPad has been with us almost 4 months (time goes by so fast..) and we figured it's about time to make a comparative analysis of its carbon footprint. In the next week or so we're going to explore the carbon footprint of the new iPad, compare it to the carbon footprint of iPad 2 and try to figure out if Apple has made any progress from environmental perspective with its new iPad and what's the new breakeven point between books and ebooks on the iPad. Every day we'll look into another part of the carbon footprint of the new iPad, starting today with production.

First, I have to say Apple should get kudos for the fact that it is releasing the carbon footprint of every new iPad it is releasing. No matter how their CSR is far from perfection or how they're behind most of the companies when it comes to sustainability or CDP reporting, when it comes to disclosing the environmental footprint of its products Apple is leading the way. e-reader and tablet sellers like Amazon or B&N are not even close to Apple, making basically every comparison between the environmental of books and ebooks on their products impossible. Therefore we should definitely appreciate the fact that Apple provide us with this detailed information.

Second, I want to mention that Apple revised the environmental report on the carbon footprint of iPad 2 (here's a link to the original report and here's the updated one). Apple of course excels in updates but this is still interesting given the fact that the revisions are quite substantial. We'll talk about it specifically in later on this week.

And after this long introduction we can finally start the first part of our analysis, which will be focused on production. We included not just information on the the new iPad and iPad 2, but also on the first iPad to give us a better understanding of the changes we see in the latest version of the iPad.

Production:
Carbon footprint of the new iPad - 120.6 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 85.8 kg CO2e
(Carbon footprint of the iPad - 75.4 kg CO2e)

Change: +40.6%

The new iPad continues a trend (at least according to the figures of the revised environmental footprint of the iPad 2) of growing carbon footprint when it comes to production. As you can see this is a significant increase of 40 percent and it's not clear what's the reason for it, as Apple claims that the materials have a reduced carbon footprint, which also helps to maximize shipping efficiency.

Here you can see the materials used for the new iPad (source: Apple's report):

And here are the materials used for the iPad2 (source: Apple's report - revised version)

Here's a comparison of the data presented in these graphs (weight, in grams):

	New iPad	iPad 2	Change
Display	132	142	- 7.0%
Plastics	10	19	-47.4%
Other metals	28	26	+7.7%
Circuit boards	40	40	0.0%
Glass	112	115	-2.6%
Battery	205	131	+56.5%
Aluminum	135	140	-3.6%

Let's see first what Apple says on the materials of the new iPad:

Apple’s ultracompact product and packaging designs lead the industry in material
efficiency. Reducing the material footprint of a product helps maximize shipping
efficiency. It also helps reduce energy consumed during production and material waste
generated at the end of the product’s life. iPad is made of aluminum and other materials
highly desired by recyclers.

Here's our take: First, it's interesting to see that Apple talks about reduction of the material footprint. If Apple refers to weight then the weight of the materials on the new iPad (662 grams) is actually greater than the weight of iPad 2 (613 grams) in total. If Apple refers to the carbon footprint of the materials then we have no way to know whether it's true or not, as Apple doesn't provide the figures - only weight and the carbon footprint of the production, which probably includes more elements (any in any case is higher in the new iPad).

Also, other than the battery which is heavier on the new iPad, it seems that Apple has managed to achieve in general incremental reductions. Only the change that was made in plastic is rather substantial with a reduction of almost 50 percent.

Bottom line: When it comes to production the new iPad is actually going backwards, generating a significant higher carbon footprint. While Apple claims that the materials have lower footprint, we have no way to know it due to lack of data and we can see that in total the weight of materials used to build the iPad has gone up in the new iPad. In all, the big picture is quite disappointing to those who were looking to see improvement and progress with regards to the production and materials efficiency of the iPad.

Next part on our series: comparing energy efficiency.

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

How green is your iPad? Should you still check it with Mike Daisey?

This was a good week for Apple. The company announced that
it has sold three million of its new iPad, and Mike Daisey, one of the people who became a major critical voice against Apple was caught lying to the radio show This American Life about his investigative trip to China.

I wrote yesterday on Triple Pundit about the latest findings about Daisey and what we can learn from this story. Here's the first paragraph of the article (Does It Matter if Mike Daisey Lied to This American Life about Apple in China?):

Ira Glass, the host of This American Life (TAL) had unpleasant news for his listeners last Friday. He has found out that Mike Daisey’s story about Apple in China, which TAL broadcast in January, contained significant fabrications. “We can’t vouch for its truth and therefore we’re retracting the story,” Glass said. This was certainly a humiliating moment for Glass and his show’s staff that pride on their high standards of journalism. The news is especially painful, given that this story was one of their most popular with over a million people downloading and streaming it to date. Add to that the role this show had in creating a tipping point in the public’s attitude towards Apple’s practices and you can understand why Glass is so sorry for having Daisey on his show in the first place.

Bottom line: the social dimension of the manufacturing phase of the iPad, as well as other products of Apple (and also the Kindle by the way) still seem far from being sustainable or even satisfactory, no matter if Daisey is accurate in 100 percent or not. In any event, it's recommended to wait for the completion of the audit made now by the FLA, which hopefully will provide us with an objective analysis about the situation at Foxconn.

Links to other articles I wrote for Triple Pundit can be found at http://www.triplepundit.com/author/raz-godelnik/

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

How green is the New iPad?

The New iPad was revealed this week by Apple and as always made a lot of buzz. So much was written about each and every specification of the new iPad model and it looks like the perfect timing to ask the question that is most important to us - how green or eco-friendly the New iPad is?

Exactly one year ago (March 9, 2011) I asked the same question about the iPad 2 in an article on TriplePundit entitled 'How Green is the iPad 2?'. I developed there a model based on 3 criteria that was supposed to help figuring out. Here's a reminder of this model:

An upgraded device could be valued as a green upgrade if it meets the following three requirements:

1. It includes at least five significant improvements to the previous model.

2. It improves the environmental and social impacts of the previous model by at least 20%.

3. The company releasing the new model sets up a goal of reusing or recycling at least 95% of the old models when replaced with the new model.

Now, let's see if the New iPad meet these criteria:

1. 5 significant improvements comparing to the previous model

Let's look at a comparison that was published on Huffington Post between the New iPad and iPad 2 (you can click on the infographic to see it in full size):

So what do we have here? Better resolution, better storage capacity, and that's it. So maximum of 2 improvements you call significant. Bottom line: Apple doesn't meet the first criteria.

2. At least 20% improvement in the environmental and social impacts of the previous model

We still need to wait and see as Apple didn't publish yet the carbon footprint of the New iPad. My guestimation is that the improvement in the carbon footprint will be in the range of 10-20 percent, but again, we'll have to wait and see. With regards to the social footprint, I guess any new improvements that will come out as a result of the Fair Labor Association's audit will be implemented in the manufacturing lines of all the iPad models so the New iPad doesn't really change anything.

Bottom line: the jury is still out.

3. Setting up a goal by Apple of reusing or recycling at least 95% of the old models when replaced with the new model.

Apple hasn't said anything about such a goal and it's quite clear this issue is not on its agenda, at least not the New iPad release's agenda.

Bottom line: Apple does not meet this criteria.

As you can see of the three criteria, Apple might be able to meet one at best. Therefore we can conclude that while the New iPad might be pretty, worth the money and even cool, it is certainly not green. Hopefully with the next iPad (iPad 4?), Apple will do a better job when it comes to makes its devices more sustainable.

For more information on how green is the iPad visit our iPad webpage at http://www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant a tree for every book you read!

Why the question now is when and not if Barnes and Noble will file for bankruptcy

In the last couple of years I started thinking B&N might file for bankruptcy because they have no strategy to transform their brick and mortar stores from a liability back to an asset. Now, after reading Julie Bosman's article 'The Bookstore’s Last Stand' on the New York Times, I'm more positive about it than ever.

Unfortunately after reading this article, I'm afraid the realistic question we need to ask is when B&N will go bankrupt and no if they'll actually do it. Here are five quotes from the article that will explain why:

1. "Mr. Lynch says Barnes & Noble stores will endure. The idea that devices like the Nook, Kindle and Apple iPad will make bookstores obsolete is nonsense, he says." - It's a 3-page article, yet you won't find there a word of explanation from CEO Lynch why its nonsense and how he plans to save his stores.

2. "For all the bells and whistles and high-minded talk, Barnes & Noble doesn’t exactly have the cool factor (or money) of, say, a Google or a Facebook." - Say no more. Do you really believe B&N can out-innovate Amazon and Apple with their very limited resources? I doubt that.

3. "Carolyn Reidy, president and chief executive of Simon & Schuster, says the biggest challenge is to give people a reason to step into Barnes & Noble stores in the first place. “They have figured out how to use the store to sell e-books," she said of the company. "Now, hopefully, we can figure out how to make that go full circle and see how the e-books can sell the print books.”" - She is right and I guess she also knows B&N haven't provided yet any good reason for most readers to step into their stores. I can only wonder if she believes they'll actually find a way to do it.

4. "And yet, in three years, he (William Lynch, CEO, B&N) has won a remarkable number of fans in the upper echelons of the book world. Most publishers in New York can’t say enough good things about him: smart, creative, tech-savvy — the list goes on." - It's definitely great to have a nice guy at the top of the pyramid, but with no answers on how to transform the stores back from a liability to an asset and with little vision on how to keep B&N in business, not to mention relatively poor results, Lynch needs less fans and more people that will tell you what he's doing wrong and how to fix it.

5. "No one expects Barnes & Noble to disappear overnight. The worry is that it might slowly wither as more readers embrace e-books." - two years ago no one in the media would even speculate such a thing. Now it has became a reasonable assumption, which shows you how high the probability that B&N will file for bankruptcy is.

To learn more on our B&N index series visit Barnes and Noble Bankruptcy Index on our website.

You can find more resources on the future of bookstores on our website at www.ecolibris.net/bookstores_future.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Working to green the book industry!

How green is your iPad? Update 1: Apple introduces the iPad Textbooks

We talked earlier this week about how green is the iPad, and we have two interesting updates about it. Here's the first one - Apple announced earlier today on a new software aimed at revolutionizing the way teachers teach, students learn and publishers create educational content.

Apple said, according to Mashable, that the iBooks store’s new textbook category will eventually include “every subject, every grade level, for every student.”For now, however, Apple is starting with high school textbooks from partners McGraw-Hill, Pearson and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Apple’s Phil Schiller said that 1.5 million iPads are already in use at schools, including more than 1,000 one-to-one development programs.

How will textbooks look on the iPad? Check this report from Engadget:



What's our take on this move? We think it definitely helps in making the iPad a greener device. Textbooks are very wasteful given the fact that they're updated very often, many times only with minor changes. Then more copies are been printed and students can't use used copies anymore and need to buy new ones. This system doesn't make any sense from an environmental and social perspectives and is far from being sustainable.

Now, on the iPad, they have not only more features and added value, but also an option to be updated without wasting paper or other resources. So kudos to Apple and hopefully other and cheaper tablets will provide similar options so students who can't afford paying $499 for the iPad would still be able to reduce their textbooks' footprint and read them on a tablet.

For more information on how green is the iPad visit our iPad webpage at http://www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant a tree for every book you read!

How green is the iPad? Ask Mike Daisey

Although Mike Daisey describes himself as a lifelong Apple super fan, he'll probably say not so much, at least when it comes to the social impact of the iPad (as well as other Apple products). Why? Listen to the opening episode of the year of This American Life (see below) and receive the answer.

I also wrote about it today on Triple Pundit. Here's a paragraph from the article:

Mike Daisey describes himself as a lifelong Apple super fan. One day he saw some photos from a new iPhone, taken by workers at the factory where it was made and started wondering who makes his Apple gadgets. He decided to investigate and traveled to Shenzhen, where the main factory of Foxconn is located. Foxconn is the largest contract electronics manufacturer in the world with clients including Apple, HP and Microsoft. The manufacturer’s factories were also home to at least 12 workers suicides last year. Daisey wasn’t the first one to investigate what happens in Foxconn, yet his report is different and will probably trouble you more profoundly than written reports.

For more information on how green is the iPad visit our iPad webpage at http://www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant a tree for every book you read!

5 reasons why the Nook spin off gets B&N closer to bankruptcy

Barnes & Noble announced this morning it is beginning “strategic exploratory work” to separate its rapidly growing Nook digital business. If you follow our blog, you're probably not that surprised - as we reported again and again on the B&N Bankruptcy Index series, B&N behaves for a long time like the Nook is its core business and not its 703 bookstore.

So you're probably wondering - would this spin-off will help B&N to avoid bankruptcy? Actually, I believe it only gets them closer to this unfortunate faith. Here's five reasons why:

1. B&N bookstore business is declining and B&N has no clear strategy how to transform it back from a liability to an asset. Frankly, this announcement only demonstrates that B&N is giving up on the brick and mortar stores and putting all its energy and resources just into the Nook. Don't believe me? Just count look how many times B&N mentions its bookstores in its press release from today (hint: less than one).

2. B&N is focusing all of its resources on one egg - the Nook. It's a good egg, but even if it will have a bright future as B&N is expecting it's still too risky, especially in a market where your competitors are are Amazon and Apple.

3. B&N doesn't have the deep pockets Apple and Amazon have. Just look at the balance sheets of these three and compare how much cash each of them has - Amazon has $2.8 billion, Apple has $9.8 billion, while B&N has $23 million in cash and cash equivalents (latest figures available). Now, who do you think has a better chance to develop better tablets and e-readers in the near future?

4. Bad management - B&N would have a much better chance if it would have spun off its management instead of the Nook. Why it's a bad management? How else you can call a management that takes an asset like 700+ bookstores and makes almost zero efforts to save it from bankruptcy?

5. "Mr. Lynch said Barnes & Noble doesn't see itself as a competitor with Apple, as it focuses more on digital reading, but said internal research shows customers prefer the Nook over the Kindle." (Wall Street Journal) I wish I have a faith in a company that this is the worldview that directs its strategy and this is the quality of research data it uses. Unfortunately I really can't.

To learn more on our B&N index series visit Barnes and Noble Bankruptcy Index on our website.

You can find more resources on the future of bookstores on our website at www.ecolibris.net/bookstores_future.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Working to green the book industry!

When Amazon tries to compete with Apple in the tablet market

Amazon tried to penetrate the tablet market lately with its new Kindle Fire, trying to create a cheap yet quality alternative to Apple's iPad, by far the most dominant tablet computer. As we learn today from the New York Times, it might be more difficult than what it looked like to Amazon in the first place.

The article ("As Kindle Fire Faces Critics, Remedies Are Promised") reveals that the Kindle Fire is generating a lot of negative customer feedback and therefore Amazon Amazon, although it does not say so, is soon likely to release an improved version of the device.

What's wrong with the Kindle Fire? The article explains: "A few of their many complaints: there is no external volume control. The off switch is easy to hit by accident. Web pages take a long time to load. There is no privacy on the device; a spouse or child who picks it up will instantly know everything you have been doing. The touch screen is frequently hesitant and sometimes downright balky."

Some analysts think customers can still live with it, given the $199 price tag - “I would have expected things to be even worse at this point,” Gene Munster, an analyst with Piper Jaffray, said, adding that initial buyers were usually the most critical. Pricing will save the Fire, he predicted. At $199 versus $500 for an iPad, “Amazon has a lot of air cover to have a B-level product.”

But Amazon can't count on it, which is why we're going to see soon, according to the article probably in the spring, an improved version of the device.

The lesson to Amazon is clear - you need to come more prepared when you try to penetrate new markets and generate high expectations of your new products.

The lesson to consumers is also clear - don't buy the Kindle Fire now. Save your money and wait for the Kindle Fire 2.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Check our special holiday offer!

Would Apple be willing to follow Microsoft?

We have reported many times in the past on the problems problems with Apple's supply chain, especially in China. Apple is making an effort to improve the current situation and even engaged lately with Chinese environmental groups, after these groups accused some of the company's suppliers in China of various environmental violations. So, I'd like to take the opportunity and offer Apple another option: Follow Microsoft.

I know Apple doesn't like to think of itself as a follower and not a leader, especially when we're talking about Microsoft, but this might be different. As I reported on Triple Pundit, Microsoft announced that starting in 2013 it will require a cross section of its suppliers to provide reports on their adherence to the requirements listed in the existing Microsoft Vendor Code of Conduct.

"Microsoft said vendors also will be encouraged to make their reports public and that it will include a summary of information from the vendor reports in its annual Citizenship Report. This is meant not just to provide further visibility to the company’s stakeholders, but also to make vendors understand that their reporting is not going to read just by Microsoft, but will be shared with the public (at least a summary of it). Hopefully it will encourage vendors to take reporting as well as the implementation of Microsoft’s standards more seriously."

Since Apple also has a code of conduct for its suppliers and is struggling with the challenge of holding their suppliers accountable I think this step might be a good fit for them.

So what do you say Apple? Are you ready to follow Microsoft?


Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting Sustainable Reading!

How green is the Kindle Fire? Amazon week - Part 2: Comparing Kindle Fire, iPad 2 and Nook Color

Yesterday we started our Amazon week to examine some of the impacts of the new Kindle Fire and other new Kindle products. Today we'll try to compare compare Kindle Fire with iPad 2 and Nook Color and see which device is greener.

First, we need to acknowledge the sad fact that currently only Apple publishes information on the carbon footprint of its device, as well as information on its eco-friendly features, such as having an arsenic-free display glass, being brominated flame retardant-free, PVC-free, and so on.

Unlike Apple, Barnes & Noble and Amazon either don't care about the environmental impacts of their devices or just don't think it worth the effort of sharing this information with their customers. Either way, Apple's leadership makes iPad 2 the greener device among the three. Once Amazon and Barnes & Noble will change their mind we could make a meaningful comparison among the three tablets. Until then, Apple's iPad 2 rules!

By the way, if you look at the features comparison between the three below, published by OSXDaily, you will see that the Kindle Fire is lighter than the other two (although it's thicker than the iPad 2), so it will be interesting to see if it also means it is more material efficient than the Nook Color and the iPad 2. Well, Bezos, we're waiting..





Tomorrow we will see what will be the impact of the new Kindle products on Barnes & Noble.


To read more on how green is your (and my) Kindle, visit our website at http://www.ecolibris.net/kindle.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. paper books environmental debate can be found on our website at http://www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.


Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant a tree for every book you read!

My article today on Triple Pundit on the new recycling offers coming from Apple

Here's an update on a new article I published today on Triple Pundit on the new additions to Apple's reuse and recycling program.

The article is entitled "Apple Will Recycle Your Old PC for Free". Here's the first paragraph of the article:

Last week Apple announced it is expanding its reuse and recycling options to computers from any manufacture. According to AppleInsider, if your product qualifies for reuse — meaning it has monetary value — you’ll receive an Apple gift card equivalent to its fair market value. If your product does not have a monetary value, Apple will recycle it at no cost to you. The website MacRumors reports that Apple also expanded its trade-in program to allow users to send in their used iPhone and iPad devices for gift cards.

To read the full article go to http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/08/apple-recycle-computer-free-ewaste/

Links to other articles I wrote for Triple Pundit can be found at http://www.triplepundit.com/author/raz-godelnik/

Image credit: Ron Wiecki, Flickr Creative Commons

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

Comparing between the iPad and the iPad 2 from a green perspective

Last week the environmental report of the iPad 2, where we learned that its carbon footprint is 105 kg CO2e, a reduction of 19.2% comparing to the footprint of the first model.

On Tuesday we started to look into the new report and showed what it means in terms of breakeven point with paper books. Today, in the second part of our analysis, we try to find out what the real "green" differences between the two models of the iPad are.

We'll look at each of the components of the life cycle analysis that Apple did to determine the carbon footprint of the iPad and the iPad 2 - production, transport, customer use and recycling. We'll also look into other specifications that Apple emphasizes on its report.

Production:
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 75.4 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 63 kg CO2e
Change: -16.4%

The iPad 2 is thinner and lighter than the original iPad. In terms of materials Apple mentions that "iPad 2 is even more material efficient than the original iPad, consuming up to 18 percent less material. The chart below details the materials used for iPad 2."

Here you can see the materials used for the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report):

And here are the materials used for the first iPad (source: Apple's report)

Here's a comparison of the data presented in these graphs (weight, in grams):

	iPad	iPad 2	Change
Display	155	140	-9.7%
Plastic	55	17	-69.1%
Other metals	40	25	-37.5%
Circuit boards	45	38	-15.6%
Glass	155	105	-32.3%
Battery	155	130	-16.1%
Aluminum	125	135	8.0%

It's interesting to see that the biggest changes are with the plastic and other metals and also that unlike the other components, the usage of aluminum actually increased in the iPad 2 in 8%. I believe that the efficient use of materials is the main reason for the reduction in the production's footprint. I also believe that this is also a place where Apple actaully saved money while reducing its product's carbon footprint.

Transport:
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 14.3 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 10.5 kg CO2e
Change: -26.6%

There's no explanation in the report where this reduction is coming from. One option this reduction is due to further efficiency in packaging - iPad 2 retail packaging consumes 51 percent
less material, which allows "up to 38 percent more units to be transported in an airline shipping container compared with the original iPad".

Apple also mentions that"the packaging for iPad 2 is highly recyclable. It uses corrugated cardboard made from a minimum of 28 percent post-consumer recycled content, and molded fiber made entirely from recycled content."

On the report of the first iPad, Apple wrote: "The packaging for iPad is almost entirely recyclable and uses corrugate cardboard made from a minimum of 33 percent post-consumer recycled content. In addition, its packaging is extremely material efficient, allowing more units to be transported in a single shipping container. "

As you can see, the percentage of post-consumer recycled content in the corrugated cardboard actually dropped from 33 to 28, although with the iPad 2, Apple mentions that the molded fiber made entirely from recycled content whereas in the first report it doesn't mention this fiber at all.

Alternatively, maybe Apple started using hybrid trucks?

Customer use
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 39 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 30.45 kg CO2e
Change: -21.9%

Apple is presenting in the reports information on the energy efficiency usage, which should be the most relevant component to this part:

Energy efficiency in the iPad 2:
iPad 2 uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manages
power consumption. In addition, the iPad 10W USB Power Adapter outperforms the
stringent requirements of the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies.
The following table details the power consumed by iPad 2 in different use modes.

Power Consumption for iPad 2 (Wi-Fi + 3G)
Mode 100V 115V 230V
Sleep 0.46W 0.41W 0.45W
Idle—Display on 3.10W 3.08W 3.16W
Power adapter, no-load 0.07W 0.07W 0.09W
Power adapter efficiency 80.9% 80.8% 79.9%

Energy efficiency in the first iPad:
iPad uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manages power consumption. In addition, the iPad 10W USB Power Adapter outperforms the stringent requirements of the ENERGY STAR specification for external power supplies. The following table details the power consumed by iPad in different use modes.

Power Consumption for iPad (Wi-Fi + 3G)
Mode 100V 115V 230V
Sleep 0.42W 0.43W 0.41W
Idle—Display on 2.97W 2.96W 3.04W
Power adapter, no-load 0.07W 0.07W 0.09W
Power adapter efficiency 80.9% 80.8% 79.9%

I have to admit that I am not sure yet how this data, showing relatively modest power consumption reductions is translated into a 22% reduction in the carbon footprint of customer use. Did I miss something here?

Recycling:
Carbon footprint of the iPad - 1.3 kg CO2e
Carbon footprint of the iPad 2 - 1.05 kg CO2e
Change: -19.2%

In both cases Apple offers the same description:
Through ultra-efficient design and use of highly recyclable materials, Apple has minimized material waste at the product’s end of life. In addition, Apple offers and participates in various product take-back and recycling programs in 95 percent of the regions where Apple products are sold. All products are processed in the country or region in which they are collected. For more information on how to take advantage of these programs, visit www.apple.com/environment/recycling/.

Strangely, if you go to this webpage, you will find that Apple has no mention of the iPad there, but only computers, displays, iPods and mobile phones. Even if we assume that the iPad has similar recycle offering as the iPod (and I have to say I'm not so sure about it), it's still far from being convenient or attractive - you can either send your old device by mail or bring it to one of Apple's stores and get 10% discount when purchasing a new one. So the bottom line is that Apple, even though it minimize the material waste by using materials more efficiently still doesn't make a real effort to make sure the first model or the second model of the iPad won't end their life eventually in the landfill.

Apple's commitment to the environment:
There's an introduction to the report where Apple is emphasizing its commitment imporving the environmental performance of its products. This part (see below) hasn't changed and the text in the iPad 2 report is identical to the text in the iPad report.

Apple believes that improving the environmental performance of our business starts with our products. The careful environmental management of our products throughout their life cycles includes controlling the quantity and type of materials used in their manufacture, improving their energy efficiency, and designing them for better recyclability.

Restricted substances:
Comparing between the two reports, we find this part identical. In both cases Apple mentions that "
Apple has long taken a leadership role in restricting harmful substances from itsproducts and packaging. As part of this strategy, all Apple products comply with the strict European Directive on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment, also known as the RoHS Directive. Examples of materials restricted by RoHS include lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and PBB and PBDE brominated flame retardants (BFRs)."

According to the reports, both the iPad and the iPad 2 go even further than the requirements of the RoHS Directive by incorporating the following more aggressive restrictions:
• Mercury-free LED-backlit display
• Arsenic-free display glass
• Brominated flame retardant (BFR)−free
• Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)−free

General green specs:
Apple is providing a summary of the "green" specs in each report under "Environmental Status report". This report is identical for both models and include the following:

• Arsenic-free display glass
• Brominated flame retardant-free
• Mercury-free LED backlit display
• PVC-free
• Recyclable aluminum and glass enclosure
• Power adapter outperforms strictest global energy efficiency standards

And finally, here's a summary of the changes in the carbon footprint of each component:

	iPad	iPad 2	Change
Production	75.4	63	-16.4%
Transport	14.3	10.5	-26.6%
Customer use	39	30.45	-21.9%
Recycling	1.3	1.05	-19.2%
Carbon footprint:	130	105	-19.2%

More resources on how green is the iPad can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

More resources on the ebooks vs. physical books environmental debate can be found on our website at www.ecolibris.net/ebooks.asp.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!