For the last week we have tried to make you stop for a minute and think what is more ecological: printed books or e-books and Amazon’s Kindles. A question that might seem simple at first glance is in fact a headed debate, with pros and cons going each way. You voted, passed on the poll to others, stated your opinion, and now you wait for the researched results, as we promised.The waiting is over, we’ve done our job and now you can find out what you should lean towards.
 |
One’s first answer could be that a printed book is made by cutting trees and other technological processes that have a definite carbon-dioxide footprint, and one would be right. A study called Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry, released in 2008 by the Book Industry Study Group and the Green Press Initiative, states that “each paper U.S. book releases 8.85 pounds ( aprox. 4 kg ) of carbon dioxide”. According to this article, “digital books and magazines are at least two orders of magnitude more efficient than the print equivalents“. That is only common sense, making e-books a clear winner in front of their printed siblings. But is that really so?
That definitely applies for new copies that you buy from the store, but how about if you get your books from the library? In that case, it’s obvious that hundreds of people would be reading the same book over and over again, reducing its environmental impact, it goes the same for the recycled books. You might reply that borrowing a book from the library still requires you to drive there, as opposed to downloading an e-book directly on your home computer or e-reader. Depending on how further is your local library, the carbon-dioxide footprint might exceed that of making and downloading an e-book. Still, that doesn’t give us a definite answer because some people might choose to take their bicycle out just for the fun of it, confusing everyone even more.
How about the reading process? If you read your e-book on an e-reader like the Amazon’s Kindle, the consumed energy is surprisingly low. Kindle consumes energy when a page is turned or the screen is refreshed for some other reason, making it difficult to compare with Apple’s iPad, which is basically a computer, running constantly when turned on. As opposed to this, reading a printed book will leave a footprint only if you use a light bulb. The conclusion is pretty simple: reading at night is a clear winner for the iPad because it has a lit screen and doesn’t require additional light sources, while using natural light favors printed books and e-ink devices like Kindle and Sony eReader.
 |
We didn’t take into account the carbon-dioxide footprint of the devices themselves; because Amazon, Apple and other manufactures haven’t released any data about the environmental impact of their products manufacturing, we can only guess. There have been several studies and articles about this issue, some stating that the e-readers will help reduce the footprint of the whole publishing industry. Of course, that is certainly false if you buy your Kindle on a whim, read one e-book and then throw it in a dark closet or drawer, never to see the light of day again. The question that pops up is: how many books do you have to read on an e-reader to break even?
Yes, we thought of that too, so we found one study that states the following: “With respect to fossil fuels, water use and mineral consumption, the impact of one e-reader payback equals roughly 40 to 50 books. When it comes to global warming, though, it’s 100 books; with human health consequences, it’s somewhere in between.” Another one, written by Emma Ritch and published by Cleantech Group says that “Kindle has the same emissions as 15 books bought in person or 30 purchased online“. Since Amazon hasn’t provided any data regarding their manufacturing process, this is of course a humble estimation.
Even so, the basic idea is that any e-reader will become green after replacing a number of printed books. We won’t have the exact figures unless Amazon and other e-readers manufactures will provide them, but let’s suppose that you need to read 40 books from your e-reader device to break even. So, how quickly will your e-reader become green? It all depends on how many books you read per year. According to another study, “every person in the U.S. is reading about 3.3 books a year (including babies which actually have many books, sometimes more than the average adult“. That means your e-reader will neutralize its carbon-dioxide footprint in 40 / 3.3 = 12.12 years! It’s a lot, but usually the e-readers target are avid readers, who, as stated by the estimation of Forrester, “… purchase three e-books a month, or total of 36 e-books a year“. Sounds better, doesn’t it? This way, the e-reader will break even in 40 / 36 = 1.1 years.
As we said, the above data is an estimation, but it does give us some pros and cons regarding e-readers and paper books:
- If you like reading paper books for their feel and musky smell, you are better off getting them from the local library.
- You can help save energy by reading paper-books during the day.
- Remember that e-books also have a carbon-dioxide footprint. Don’t buy hundreds of them just to stack them on your computer or e-reader. Read chapter excerpts and decide if the e-book you are about the download will be put to good use.
- Don’t buy an e-reader just to show off. They are destined to heavy readers, who will put them to the best use and help the environment.
