Let's forget the fact that some of us upgrade our cameras every year (which isn't a bad thing as many people prefer to buy used). I got to thinking as to whether digital photography is more environmentally friendly than film. I don't know the facts but here is my reasoning and conclusion. Most film cameras are 35mm. So lots of wasted cassettes, film spools, cardboard boxes and unwanted prints. Then there are the chemicals (I don't think they're that toxic but they must used up some amount of carbon dioxide to make and distribute them). Then you have the consumables like film sleeves and envelopes as well as batteries (hopefully rechargeables!). Plus the fuel (if any) to drop off and pick-up film (but this can be done in tandem with other shopping). On an individual level the impact is lessened. If you have your own darkroom you won't have wasted prints or envelopes and you won't have to travel to get your negatives. Electricity is need for the safelight and enlarger and, if you have it, the film dryer. Some people own motorized film developing machines. However, the cameras usually last a long time unless you're using disposables (I never understood how people could buy those f-----g things). And many cameras were heavily motorized thus increasing the need for electricity. But with digital photography you don't use chemicals. You use electricity for everything. Not just for the camera but for the computer. Most computers are bought for other reasons so cannot be seen as part of the cost of a digital camera. However they may be used for longer periods thus using more energy. Some upgrades would be done specifically for photography. Storage needs are greater and some photographers (illogically IMHO) back-up to optical discs which are usually non-reusable and non-recyclable. Lots of paper is used, just like with film photography, and the chemicals are the dyes and inks, not the developers, fixers and stop baths. The ink cartridges are usually thrown away after use. Like with film cameras they only need to be made once and last for a long time. They do have more parts in them so when it's time to recycle them it will be more like dealing with a computer than a camera. But there is more waste involved with digital cameras. The old memory cards which are impractical for use today have to be discarded. However, there aren't as many as we'd think as back then there were fewer made and sold. Memory cards of 512MB and more are still useful today. But when they fail they're effectively disposable. So I think I've covered a lot of ground (not everything I don't think). So my conclusion: electricity is the driving force behind digital photography. Not a huge amount is needed, at least for the cameras. And some computers are very efficient. In the future you will be able to generate electricity effectively for free (e.g. solar) with low-cost equipment. So IMHO digital is the more environmentally friendly. But there's a bit of a footnote here. The volume of cheap, good, used digital cameras has made their 35mm equivalents almost worthless, thus creating junk and landfill. Most of those old 35mm cameras won't be recycled. So in a way, film cameras have become the landfill, but through no fault of their own. It's Monday night and I felt like a bit of a rant. Hope nobody minds.