Are ebooks really better for the environment?
JA
July 20
I can’t say I’m all that excited about the prospect of the ebook. The physical act of reading, as far as I’m concerned, is much more enjoyable when the paper is literally in your hands. That said, there is one thing that could swing me – I’d be prepared to sacrifice aesthetics if it were true that ebooks were more environmentally friendly than their paper counterparts.
This has been the main argument of ebook supports for years now, and I’m curious about the real evidence of this. Last week, Jeff Vandermeer of Ecstatic Days posted the question on facebook. The thread of replies was interesting, but altogether inconclusive. There has also been lots of discussion on various blogs, but again it’s difficult to tell the expertise of the writers. However, I'll try and give a laymen’s roundup of the arguments so far.
According to these articles by Sustainablog, Self-Publishing Review and Brad’s Reader, the environmental issues with paper books are:
- transportation costs (printers to warehouse to retailer etc)
- costs and wastes associated with returns and pulping (eg. when booksellers over-order and are forced to send books back to the publishing house)
- pollution caused by paper mills, such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide, and particulates, which contribute to global warming
- also chemicals such as chlorine used to bleach paper.
The main issue with ebooks, on the other hand, are to do with manufacturing and energy consumption. According to Tim Winstead’s on Ecstatic Days ‘you’d have to analyse the manufacturing impact of the glass (and electronics associated with the display), the semiconductor content, the battery content (probably the worst), and the plastic. Assembly (everything would have to be RoHS compliant, but it would add some)…then add the packaging, paper/plastic and shipping’. And of course there is the environmental damage of charging the reader and increased use of the Internet for links and downloads etc.
The studies posted online so far seem to conclude that ebooks do have a softer environmental impact than paper. This summary from Grist:
‘A MS candidate named Greg Kozak pitted textbooks against e-book devices [PDF] in 2003. He found that… books were responsible for four times the greenhouse emissions as e-readers. In ‘04, two UC-Berkeley students evaluated newspaper vs PDA-based e-newspapers [PDF], and decided that a newspaper released 32-140 times the amount of CO2, and used 26-185 times the amount of water. A 2007 study in Sweden... also looked at newspaper and found that newspaper's biggest impact was in the paper production, while energy was the big impact for reading on the internet; for e-devices (the Kindle, etc.), production of the e-object is the biggest impact. The study concluded that reading e-newspapers had less impact than an actual newspaper.’
Another blog, winningly called Fat Knowledge, conducted a study into reading the New York Times for a year in the form of a newspaper and on a Kindle. The conclusion was that ‘reading the physical version of the NY Times for a year uses 7,300 MJ of energy and emits 700 kg of co2. Reading it on a Kindle uses 100 MJ of energy and emits 10 kg of co2. The Kindle therefore saves 6,500 MJ and 690 kg of co2 a year.’
However, there are other asides that are difficult to quantify here. Fat Knowledge admits that its analysis relies on a number of assumptions, including some creative guesswork about the life-cycle of an ebook and their manufacturing. Also, it’s hard to find out how many people will read the product (thereby increasing or reducing it’s environmental impact). One or several people may use the same ebook or print edition. And what about the impact of libraries or second-hand bookshops?
If anyone knows of other more detailed studies, I’d be interested. As a small aside, Jeff Sparrow over at Overland has posted some interesting thoughts on using iPhones and ebooks here and here.
Our Friends
- Overland
- Alien Onion
- Ampersand Duck
- Andrew McDonald
- A Pair of Ragged Claws
- Arts Victoria
- Australia Council for the Arts
- Ben Eltham
- Bookshow blog
- CAL
- City of Tongues
- Crikey
- darkly wise, rudely great
- David Astle
- Elmo Keep Does Stuff
- The Ember
- Fly the Falcon blog
- Going Down Swinging
- Griffith Review
- Hackpacker
- Harvest
- HEAT
- Island
- Killings blog
- Literary Minded
- Lorraine Crescent
- Lynden Barber
- Mandy Ord
- Marcus Westbury
- Matilda
- Meanland
- Melbourne University Publishing
- Mel Campbell
- The Monthly
- Musings of an Inappropriate Woman
- Oslo Davis
- Paul Callaghan
- Read, Think, Write
- Sleepers Publishing
- Sorrow at Sills Bend
- SPLOG
- Tom Cho
- Virgule
- Wet Ink
- Wheeler Centre
Comments
20 Jul 09 at 9:58
Thanks so much for this summary - I've always been on the bandwagon in arguments about 'where's the evidence that e-anything is better than paper?' taking into account the different type of waste you're producing (afterall, plastic is a by-product of refining oil, a fossil fuel that we may not have for much longer) plus energy usage (electricity to charge lithium batteries) etc.
However, a point that I haven't seen any commentary on (please correct me if I'm wrong) but what of the considerations/effect on our eyes after hours of reading e-books, especially on small screens? Aren't there studies that show that looking/reading from a light source tires the eyes out quicker than reading off paper? So, which is better for our personal health? I can see the convenience advantages for certain times (searchability, 'marginalia' for research), but curling up with an e-book reader on a Saturday afternoon for hours, how will it affect our eyes?
...20 Jul 09 at 10:06
Though slightly off the environmental topic, this article highlights another interesting/worrying issue about e-books - namely, that publishers/distributors are able to 'steal' back the books they've already sold you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html?_r=1
...20 Jul 09 at 10:11
Aiden, yes - that happened after Jess had written this post. It's very relevant to the ebook debate, and very concerning.
...20 Jul 09 at 12:41
As far as the concern about eyestrain, the new ereaders coming out do NOT use an old-fashioned back-lit LCD technology. Instead they use what is called epaper. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epaper
Epaper technologies are generally b&w, and have difficulty showing animations, but they use no electricity except when they change what is on a page (when you turn a page in a book), and require no backlighting. Ideally you can read them in sunlight, and they create no more eyestrain than paper.
...23 Jul 09 at 11:01
I started my blog when I first started reading ebooks. I'm in the book industry so there is a strong loyalty to the printed work. I've been reading from e-readers (two) and from e-book portals on my laptop. Heavy reading (several hours at a time) on the portals produced strong headaches and neck pain. I tracked it over a week. I was reading at night, at home. I had to decrease my ebook reading on the computer. I haven't found any problems yet with the e-readers.
...03 Aug 09 at 3:12
well, just aswell cheap buy uk stock really cheap electronics products. Make me looking foward to xmas already :)
...23 Sep 09 at 9:19
I use an erader for quit some time and read a lot on it. Indeed no headache or whatsoever at all. I use a BeBook and love it. I am even gonna get the BeBook mini so me and my girlfriend can share both. I bought mine on http://www.bebook.net.au
The only minor on the BeBook is that they do not look as slick as a sony or kindle. but at least it is sold and supported in Australia.
...