OCT 27

There is no way that this is an ecologically friendly product, it is just another hunk of Chinese made plastic and silicon, that consumed a major amount of natural resources during its manufacture.

PS: Wow. I wasn't even aware that Oprah could read!

I'm pretty sure most people, like me, enjoy reading physical books. We read off screens enough with our iPods and computers.

Holds up to 200 books at a time plus newsfeeds , blogs & even has a built in web browser with free whisper net. Living small as I do, I could never find room in my home for that many dead tree books & the bookcases to hold them.

I do really enjoy my kindle - mostly the freedom of being able to buy/download a book at any time, anywhere. It's easy to read on, and I like having multiple volumes, blogs, etc. in a single small package. It goes with me nearly everywhere. This said, I don't think of it as a "green" purchase - "real" books don't need to be charged, they can be shared, and aren't a hunk of plastic filled with electronic and toxic(?) components. I think of my Kindle as a reading choice that fits my lifestyle better than a regular book, from it's size/capacity to avoiding having to make trips to bookstore, ordering books online, or even a visit to our small and inadequate rural library. I think everyone has to evaluate what works best for their situation, and for me, I am happy with my Kindle purchase.

The message here about the Kindle being a green alternative is a good one, because I always was against these types of devices due to worrying about the disappearance of books...However, if books did stop being produced, that would probably have a nice environmental affect that I have never really thought about before.

Right now, I am loving the library and I have a little trouble reading a screen after a while, but I will definitely think more seriously about purchasing one of these now.

Thank you for the great post! :-*

Oh great we can be eco-friendly by making more gadgets and shipping the parts around.

Now if you're an avid reader of new titles, yes this is more efficient and green. But to read, what, 20 books? 10? Hmm.

This is not counting used books, library books, PDFs, and other pretty neutral reading methods.

Oprah has done the ebook thing before, giving her audience Rocket ebooks in 1999. LCD screens, no e-ink; I use an eBookwise, a near-cousin of those. Cheapest dedicated ebook reader made, if old-fashioned.

Some people get emotional about paper books, going on about the feel, even the smell, so ignore books. So ignore those and focus on paper we don't save, like newspapers and magazines. Replacing the printing and shipping of all that bulk has to be green, after some payback span for the device's manufacture.

what crap! i dont want read from some plastic lame toxic computer device! what utter crap! yeah right all you fat suburbinites need to grow gardens, stop using pesticides, try energy companies to suck it! go off the grid support local living. Oprah still doesnt fully get it or never will. if anything books are intimate and worth while.

Yes it is electronic. BUT...there are other things to consider. It also allows subscriptions to daily newspapers to be delivered electronically--no paper, no fuel to deliver, etc. For those of us who love to read new authors, this is great, because publishers will be more willing to risk publishing books by lesser known, or lesser-selling authors. You won't HAVE to be Dean Koontz to get published. A whole year's worth of textbooks could be carried by students on one paperback sized device--ending the injuries caused by hauling way overweight backpacks. And the textbooks could be updated without having to publish a whole new book every year, saving schools much needed funding.
No remainder books that don't get sold being shredded or dumped into a landfill (I used to work for a paperback distributor. When books didn't sell, we sent the covers back to the publisher, and the rest of the book went to landfills--thousands of books a day from just one small company! No inks to be disposed of.
Remember how newspapers can last for decades in a landfill? Well if they aren't published on paper, they can't be put in a landfill.

The Kindle's technology makes the appearance of the "page" look just like paper--not the normal electronic screen.

Free ebooks in other formats (like the hundred or so on my laptop) can be converted to a Kindle FOR FREE, and transferred to my Kindle. Eventually, libraries will be able to check out ebooks to readers that self-delete in three weeks.

Now consider people with disabilities that cannot see well enough to read a regular book--even a large print book, or those who physically cannot turn a page. The Kindle allows for re-sizing of the font to make reading possible for those readers. Touch a screen, and the page turns. And they can carry their books with them, instead of being forced to sit in front of a computer screen to read adaptive books.

A new release can cost close to $30. On Kindle, most of those same books are under $10. And, again, no paper is consumed.

I agree with many peoples comments. This definitely is NOT a green product. Plus reading a tangible book is a thing that real book enthusiasts won't readily give up. People that don't read books would be drawn to this product as a new gadget and never really use it.

Firstly, Oprah is not the first celeb to endorse Kindle...Whoppie has been singing Kindles praises for the entire time she has been on The View. Occasionally she has given them to the audience.

I am living green and sitting upon hundreds of books which I have read and have no place to put them, cannot keep them, cannot throw them away or donate them. I love the idea of the NEW Kindle which will be available next year. It will offer color displays for that non-drowsy reader feeling which comes offer the most veracious reader. I love the idea of downloading books without being tethered to a computer and reading my casual reads on the go, not killing a tree to grab some news is very green.

For those who consider tech gadgets not Green...please consider this, that gadget will sub for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of trees remaining in the ground cleaning the air that the production of that gadget produced to allow us to read disposable paper. The collectables and leather bound books will always have a space in my home but the magazines, newspapers and recreational reading will never again become clutter or recycled fodder.

If we knew that the Kindle was made to last, it might be worth it. If it is like the other electronic products out today, it will last maybe one or two years, and if broken, it is considered disposable rather than replaceable. Take palm products, cell phones, MP3 players, printers, etc. that do not last and are expected to last at most 2-3 years...and are replaced, not repaired. Just another short-lived costly electronic????

If you could get people who are really avid readers to convert to something like a Kindle, it could be EXTREMELY green. Consider this: if someone like me replaced their book collection with an electronic slab, they could rent an apartment with one less room to heat, etc.

Last summer I recieved a Kindle for my birthday and I love it. Its the best thing only if you really like to read and keep current with blogs. Once you try it you will love it too.

I am getting sick and tired of reading all of the stupid comments about not liking the idea of reading off of a screen. You people try to sound like you know what you're talking abut, but you clearly don't If you did, then you would now that the screen of the Kindle is not like a computer screen. It is an e-ink screen, so it is easy on the eyes and reads just like paper. You can even read it in direct sunlight, there is no glare.

http://www.amazon.com/Laura-Fa...B002D48KWG

Guys, please get on Kindle the book, Laura Fair Rose