Is digital photography a "greener" alternative to film photography?

What about silver usage, hazardous chemicals?

No, you just need to adjust the white balance to compensate for your lighting conditions.

I don't know. It has reduced film manufacture and developing chemicals, but has increased battery manufacturing, camera manufacturing and computer use by a much larger proportion due to ease of use. Plus, a trail of outdated cameras at a much higher rate. Okay, I think not.

i am going to go with digital photography being less green,
because of mass appeal that has come with digital photography. everybody has digital camera nowadays, but they also have computers and printers which all take energy to use, and since technology gets better and people have to buy new computers, cameras, printers and batteries as well.
so much energy is spent on the waste created by digital photography. Also all the periphery industry it has spawned, cell phone, websites, automated photo developers, all these use energy and produce waste.
--non slr film cameras do not use batteries
*additional info not supporting my opinion:
Film developing uses an array of extremely toxic, strictly regulated chemicals. The book Toxics A to Z: A Guide to Everyday Pollution Hazards describes how one film chemical, hydroquinone, has been known to cause eye and skin irritation.

The Environmental Protection Agency says that leftover processing solutions can contain high amounts of heavy metals like silver that were once part of the film paper. While silver recovery systems remove most of the chemical, other dangerous solvents are used to clean film-developing machinery.

Kodak claims that 90 percent of photographic effluent is water, while the remaining chemicals (except silver).are broken down by light and microorganisms in the soil.

Improvements have been made to dramatically reduce the environmental impact of digital photography, says Jim Blamphin, spokesperson for the Eastman Kodak Company. Heavy metals have been eliminated in camera production, the amount of batteries needed has been reduced and camera mass has been decreased by 50 percent. Blamphin notes that recent software developments enable the downloading of 1,000 images in less than 11 minutes, thus saving on energy usage

just a few thoughts
great question!!!!

I don't think so. There are more chemicals for the individual to be in contact with in standard printing, but the sheer waste produced from:
making the plastics and the chips to make digitals
the mass transport of these goods
the short lifespans of the products, leading to
the frequent disposal of them.

The developing process is certainly greener, but the whole chain is not. My camera is 30 years old and works beautifully.

Digital photography doesn't force one to use a computer or the internet, these are phenomenons on their own. Existing without photography.

Digital photography utilizes these medias whereas film would have required more processes example tons of film, processing with chemicals, printing for everyone and every time you needed other to see your work. Due to less printing, paper is saved. which in turn reduces the need for trees to be cut down. people utilize the internet to share their personal images as well as their portfolios to prospective employers.

Scanning also becomes an issue when using film.

Battery with the film camera can't go the long hours unless an external battery supply is used. Therefore more battery are needed as manufacturers are not developing film camera as compared to digital cameras.

I think that digital photography is going with the times and therefore saving energy whereas film would require 2 or 3 extra steps to keep up with technologies as they advance.

I'd say that if you had two worlds that focused on each of the photography disciplines, one being film, and the other being digital, you'd probably find that the world doing film is greener. Just because of the fact that all digital technology requires less green manufacturing and creates more pollution and waste and uses more energy. And think of all the digital cameras that are outdated and what happens to them and their batteries. God I have bad grammar

edit: I have to add that mechanics are more involved with the film side than the digital side. Even though you're using film, and paper, and chemicals to develop your prints, think of all the computers and machines and printers that are required for the digital side.

Well I have not used a darkroom and chemicals for years. From that standpoint it is greener. However, the waste created otherwise due to outdated materials such as computers, flash cards, cameras and printers might do the same or more damage to the environment.