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 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 3: Packaging

Last Thursday 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 and energy efficiency. Today we're looking at packaging.

Packaging:

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

The packaging for iPad 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. In addition, its packaging is extremely material efficient, allowing up to 52 percent more units to be transported in an airline shipping container compared with the original iPad. The following table details the materials used in iPad packaging.

Packaging Breakdown for iPad (U.S. Configurations, in grams)

Material	Retail box	Retail and shipping box
Paper (corrugate, molder fiber)	212	445
High impact polystyrene	70	70
Other plastics	9	9

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

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. In addition, its packaging is extremely material efficient, allowing up to 52 percent more units to be transported in an airline shipping container compared with the original iPad. The following table details the materials used in iPad 2 packaging.

Packaging Breakdown for iPad (U.S. Configurations, in grams)

Material	Retail box	Retail and shipping box
Paper (corrugate, molder fiber)	207	440
High impact polystyrene	68	68
Other plastics	9	9

Here's a comparison of the data presented in these tables, showing the change in %:

Material	Retail box	Retail and shipping box
Paper (corrugate, molder fiber)	2.4%	1.1%
High impact polystyrene	2.9%	2.9%
Other plastics	0.0%	0.0%

Our take: Nothing has really changed in the packaging. Apple basically provided the same specifications on packaging it provided for the iPad 2. In terms of weight the packaging of the new iPad actually uses more materials and weights more, which also means it has a larger carbon footprint.

Bottom line: Apple has failed to make any improvements whatsoever in the packaging of the new iPad. If anything, it only made it heavier.

Next part on our series: Restricted substances.

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

Part 1 - production

Part 2 - 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 the New iPad - part 2: comparing energy efficiency with the iPad 2

The new iPad has been with us almost 4 months and we decided it's about time to analyze its carbon footprint. Yesterday we started a 7-part series in which we 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. Yesterday we talked about production. Today we're looking at energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency:

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

iPad uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manage 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.

Mode	100V	115V	230V
Sleep	0.65w	0.65w	0.70w
idle - display on	5.26w	5.26w	5.46w
power adapter, no load	0.07w	0.07w	0.09w
power adapter efficiency	80.90%	80.80%	79.90%

And here is the information on the energy efficiency of the iPad 2 (source: Apple's report - revised version):

iPad 2 uses power-efficient components and software that intelligently manage 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.

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	80.90%	80.80%	79.90%

Here's a comparison of the data presented in these tables, showing the change in %:

Mode	100V	115V	230V
Sleep	41%	59%	56%
idle - display on	70%	71%	73%
power adapter, no load	0%	0%	0%
power adapter efficiency	0%	0%	0%

Here's our take: When it comes to energy efficiency it looks like the iPad hasn't made any progress. It either moves backwards, using more power (sleep and idle mode) or shows no change at all (power adapter - no load, power adapter efficiency).

Is it really important? The answer is yes! Customer use is about 25 percent of the carbon footprint of the iPad, so better energy efficiency generates substantial improvements in the carbon footprint, which unfortunately is not the case here.

Bottom line: Apple has failed to make any improvements whatsoever in the energy efficiency of the new iPad. If anything, it only made it less efficient.

Next part on our series: 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!

Comparing B&N Nook Tablet, Kindle Fire and the iPad 2 - which tablet is greener?

Barnes & Noble unveiled yesterday its new $249 Nook Tablet, just weeks after Amazon.com released its Kindle Fire tablet, which sells for $199. The timing of both companies is no accident - just ahead of the holiday shopping season, anticipating a growth in sales of tablet computers this year.

Just like when the Kindle Fire was out, you can already see detailed comparisons between the new Nook Tablet, the Kindle Fire and the iPad 2, which are all competing each other in the tablet space this season. As you can see here for example, some comparisons also add to the game the older Nook Color, which can also be considered as a tablet.

We would like to add our green perspective, checking which one among these 3 or 4 options is the most sustainable one.

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.

I might sounds like a broken record, but although we have seen so much progress in the tablet market, this situation hasn't changed unfortunately so far. 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 (or four) by default. Once Barnes & Noble and Amazon will change their mind we will be able make a meaningful comparison among the three tablets. Until then, Apple's iPad 2 rules!

Still, there are three more points to be made:

1. Apple's iPad is green only to some extent - when you look at the manufacturing part, and you have to look at it if you're taking a life cycle approach, the picture is far from being satisfying as we reported here couple of times and was reminded about lately in an article on Fast Company magazine. The only reason it doesn't disqualify Apple's iPad 2 from being considered the greenest among the three devices is that we don't know for sure that B&N and Amazon are doing better - the fact is that we only have information on Apple, but there's a chance that the same unsustainable practices that are associated with the manufacturing of the iPad devices can be associated with the manufacturing of the Nook and Kindle devices.

2. Both Kindle Fire and Nook Color are sold now in $199, which is way cheaper than the iPad 2. Their affordability is actually a sustainable advantage as one of the criticism against ebooks and e-readers / tablets is that it's only an option for rich people, while most people (the 99% maybe?) can't really afford it. With a price tag of $199, which will probably get even lower on the holidays it looks like the tablet experience is becoming more affordable than ever. And if you're only interested in ebook reading, don't forget you can buy a Kindle now for only $79.

3. One of the features of the new Nook Tablet B&N is focusing on is its battery life:

"Barnes & Noble developed revolutionary battery life with NOOK Tablet, enabling 11.5 hours of reading time or nine hours of video viewing – the equivalent of five full-length movies."

This feature has of course environmental implications (better battery life, less need to recharge it and consume electricity), but just don't forget these estimates are given for battery life with WiFi off, which as Geek.com makes very little sense given these are multimedia devices:

"It’s obvious that these estimates were given by companies whose background is in eReaders. While WiFi off estimates make sense there, they don’t with tablets. These are multimedia devices now, and customers want to know what their battery life will be like when using them that way. Who buys a tablet and then leaves the WiFi off? Okay, some will when reading on the train or watching videos in a car, but that’s not going to be the norm. We’ll look forward to some testing to see how both slates hold up with WiFi on."

So the bottom line is that when it comes to battery life the winner is still the iPad 2.

To read more on how green is the iPad, visit our website at http://www.ecolibris.net/ipad.asp

To read more on how green is Amazon 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!

How green is the Kindle Fire - part 5: The impact on Amazon's carbon footprint and its refusal to disclose it

This is the final part of our Amazon week. After discussing if the new Kindle Fire and other new Kindles will contribute to making e-reading greener (it will), and comparing Kindle Fire with iPad 2 and Nook Color and see which device is greener (iPad 2), and it's influence on B&N (big trouble for the bookseller), and the impact of the new Kindle products on independent bookstores, we'll talk today on the influence of the new Kindle Fire on Amazon's carbon footprint the company's refusal to disclose it.

The second point is easy to start with - I doubt if Amazon will change its policy not to disclose its carbon footprint because of the release of the new Kindle products. As we saw earlier this year, even pressure from shareholders didn't make a difference for Amazon. So what might create a change in its policy? I see three possibilities: 1. Pressure from customers - if there's anything Amazon cares about, it is what customers think. 2. A Greenpeace campaign - Greenpeace knows how to it. Just ask Mattel, Nike, Adidas, Kimberly Clark and a long list of companies that changed their practices following a Greenpeace campaign. 3. An ongoing pressure from shareholders - it can work in the long-run, if more shareholders will join and pressure the company.

Now to the new Kindle's influence on Amazon's carbon footprint - it's difficult to say as so little information is disclosed, yet it is clear that with many more millions of Kindles manufactured and sold, not to mention busier cloud network, there's a good chance Amazon's footprint will increase significantly. This is why we should hope to see Amazon becoming a leader not just in technology and consumer products, but also with corporate responsibility and carbon disclosure.

To read more on how green is the Kindle, visit our website at http://www.ecolibris.net/kindle.asp

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

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

My article today on Triple Pundit on why Amazon is so hush hush about its carbon footprint

Earlier today, an article I wrote, entitled Why Amazon Needs to Come Clean About its Carbon Footprint was published on Triple Pundit.

Here's a bit more from the article:

A couple of weeks ago, just before Earth Day, Amazon presented some interesting information about the green purchasing habits of its customers, showing how America is going green. One interesting piece that was missing in this report was how Amazon is going green.

Frankly, I really don’t know how green is Amazon because when it comes to its own footprint, Amazon is consistently more secretive than the CIA (which actually doesn’t mind sharing its green initiatives).

Will it change next month Next month, when shareholders will vote in their annual meeting on a resolution calling Amazon to prepare a report that will assess the impact of climate change on Amazon and make it public?

You can read the whole article at http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/amazon-carbon-footprint/

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!

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!