Post by: krissel on November 18, 2009, 01:43:32 AM
This is what we all hear constantly:
QUOTE
We’ve exported more waste paper than any other product. In fact waste paper is this country’s single largest export! The paper has gone primarily to China where it is recycled into cardboard and shipped back to us as containers and then ultimately devoted to landfill.
But of course there is more to it:
QUOTE
During 2006 energy consumption from data centers and servers consumed 61billion kilowatt hours of electricity. The consumption rate for data centers doubled from 2000-2006 and is set to double again in 2010. Additionally, e-waste now constitutes the most significant toxic waste stream in our landfills and it is the single largest toxic waste export.
Ultimately:
QUOTE
Thinking that we can transition from books to ebooks, and satisfy the fundamental needs of all 6.7 billion people on the planet is a fallacy. We don’t have clean water in many countries, let alone 3G towers to feed our Kindle’s today’s newspaper news. 2 billion people don’t have clean water in the world. As publishers, advertisers, and consumers, we have to find ways to encourage development of both sustainable print and digital media supply chain management technologies. We need to reframe the issue. Today’s print vs. digital media debates are a zero sum game. Regardless of which media wins the war of words we all lose. The fact is we will need both print and digital media for many years to come and we need them to both become far more sustainable than they are today.
http://blog.metaprinter.com/2009/03/news-m...with-don-carli/
Post by: sandbox on November 18, 2009, 06:08:52 AM
agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)
2006 U.S. Govt figures
from wiki
Exports $1.283 trillion f.o.b. (2008)
Export goods industrial supplies, 29.8%; production machinery, 29.5%; non-auto consumer goods, 12.4%; motor vehicles and parts, 9.3%; food, feed and beverages, 8.3%; aircraft and parts, 6.6%; other, 4.1%. (2008)
Main export partners Canada, 21.4%; Mexico, 11.7%; China, 5.6%; Japan, 5.4%; Germany, 4.3%; United Kingdom, 4.1%.[7]
Paper doesn't even register.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on November 18, 2009, 04:38:58 PM
Post by: Paddy on November 18, 2009, 05:14:02 PM
http://community.machinedesign.com/blogs/e...aste-paper.aspx
The US government figures refer to dollar value.
In 2005, the US exported $5,180,080,000 worth of pulp and waste paper. Canada, interestingly enough, exported slightly more than that (have to wonder how much of it went to the US!!).
Anyway, that's approximately 0.3% of the annual export amount. (if you don't mind the slight inaccuracy from using 2006 export totals and 2005 paper totals...)
While not being able to read is certainly a handicap, the ability to read doesn't automatically confer the ability to think independently - nor does it guarantee the absence of prejudice and hatred. There are some very troubled regions in the world where the literacy rate is at or above 90%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...y_literacy_rate
Post by: sandbox on November 18, 2009, 11:53:20 PM
I would suspect if military exports were considered, that argument would hold some weight? No
Of course there are no absolutes in comprehension or accuracy in the reading material for that matter.
I've had the unique opportunity of working on Reservations and hanging out in Chiapas Mexico 25 years ago, and from that perspective reading has little value. You could be the best reader in the world and die of hunger when forced to live off the land. An illiterate person in a literate society or some agrarian societies is a shame, but in a hunter-gatherer society it has no place. Foragers learn by example, by doing and have little time for words. I wonder how many of those very troubled 90% would actually benefit from literacy more than a piece of un-assaulted land?
I think it would cause more dissatisfaction and demand on dwindling resources if everyone were literate. On the other hand if everyone had the foraging skills a Chiapas Native the strain on the flora and atrophy in the economy would put the First World in a pickle. Literacy is not everything and in the end could mean little more than something else to do with your time. Quality of life is subjective.