Is an ebook "green" reading, as in environmentally friendly?

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, the CO2 output of paper, after you acquire it, is very small. It is larger after you throw it away, and it either burns or is decomposed in landfill. But the bulk of CO2 output (not to mention other polluting aspects) is in the production, processing (printing), storage and transportation to your home.

Surprisingly not in this thesis, he claims that 24% of the total CO2 combustion is during *use* of the book, having even more CO2 combustion in use than using an ereader... Which is either I have understood something totally wrong, or it is totally redicolous.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

One thing consumers could really use is information on those "breakeven points" for products... it would help make smart decisions (especially on products like "disposables," which often have no breakeven point). If we ever get serious about tracking environmental costs and impacts on products, and including those costs into pricing, breakeven data will be important.

Well, the whole idea of "breakeven" is to compare two items, and in this context, we're usually comparing durable goods to disposables. But to compare durable goods to other durable goods, we'd need a raw "energy to manufacture" value (and possibly "kilos of pollutants" as well). "Energy to manufacture" probably does get factored into the cost to the consumer, but "kilos of pollutants" often does not, resulting in one generation building up the environmental equivalent of debt that the next will need to deal with.

[tidixon]

I did not study this thesis in detail.. I just noticed how pro-e-reader it sounds in the introduction, so the endresult is not surprise... What I just wonder as example, how is "using" paper, *beside* production, transport, and recycling using any CO2 equivalent? I thought once produce and shipped to you, you can use it as much you want without any CO2 equivalent combustion... page 105 on the pdf.

yeah, that seems a little whacky. I looked around and it seems he is defining "use" of a book during its lifetime as transfer of ownership from one person to another. So... all the transportation and distribution costs associated with "used" books before they are destroyed/recycled.

[etitameh]

just stumbled across this article, which was originally posted in may, and thought of this thread. i skimmed the previous posts, and didn't see it mentioned -- i hope it's not a repeat!

"Would you like that book in paper or plastic?"

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

In fact, the article sums up nicely what we've been discussing here, IMO. An important aspect of the question, highlighted at the end of the article, is the need for a better assessment of materials used in electronics, and more comprehensive electronics recycling programs in place. Even the most efficient e-book reader is of little use in a landfill.

Once more efficient recycling systems are breaking down and reusing electronics components, there will be little room to argue the matter further... e-book readers will be the more environmentally sound solution.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Once more efficient recycling systems are breaking down and reusing electronics components, there will be little room to argue the matter further... e-book readers will be the more environmentally sound solution.

You seem so sure more efficient recycling systems will solve the matter, or that they can even exist for that matter. Recycling costs energy. Recycling of current-day and near-future electronic products will NEVER be energy efficient. You'd have to redesign every component from the ground up to increase the recycling efficiency, and you will STILL need to expend energy. And some things may not recycle well, or at all. That said, if it _is_ possible to recycle efficiently, paper may well turn out to be more readily recyclable than complex electronics. Recycling is not some magic wand which will solve all problems.

[LazyScot]

I'd always thought the mantra was "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle". Essentially the benefit of a reader is that you can reuse, which you can't with a book (well sort of). Which or p- or e- books makes sense probably depends on the number of books you read, and how long you will hold onto the device. If you are the sort of person who reads three or four books a year, and throws your gadgets into the bin (or leaves them in a drawer) after 6 months to get the newest model, p-books are probably better....

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

You seem so sure more efficient recycling systems will solve the matter, or that they can even exist for that matter. Recycling costs energy. Recycling of current-day and near-future electronic products will NEVER be energy efficient.

You have to balance that against the costs not only of manufacturing products from new resources, but the effort expended in (usually) digging up those new resources in the first place. So it is entirely possible (and, I think, very likely in most cases) for the process of recycling existing materials to expend less energy than digging up and using new materials.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

That said, if it _is_ possible to recycle efficiently, paper may well turn out to be more readily recyclable than complex electronics.

As the article points out:

Only about 5% of the paper used in books today is recycled, he says, compared with 38% of the paper used in all industries. And of all trees harvested for industrial uses, about 40% are used for paper.

So yes, paper, too, can be recycled much more efficiently than it is today. (Note: Paper recycling usually involves the same chemical- and water-heavy processes that create so many of the pollutants common to new paper production.) But that doesn't change the economy of scale that electronic readers have over paper, which the article tends to back up.

[nekokami]

I think multi-function devices which handle ebooks well will turn out to be an energy-win over pbooks (especially if you also include day planners, post-it notes, etc.), but I'm less sure about dedicated devices. For some of us who read hundreds of books per year, quite possibly. But that "device in a drawer/landfill" scenario still seems like a problem to me.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Certainly, the fewer devices you need/use, the better, just from an energy use standpoint. That equation can be improved by using renewable energy to power some devices. And the fewer devices, the fewer that end up needing recycling.

[igorsk]

Another article.
http://www.smartplanet.com/news/leis...-s-greener.htm

[Mambo]

My information is that UK consumes every year so much paper that is equivalent to a forest with the size of Wales.

I understand it's not only books, but an attitude change is needed to move toward electronic formats in all areas in order to bring breakthrough. So reading ebooks should become commonplace in order to help changing behaviours in the office.

As a minimum, we need to make distinction between materials that we read only once (newspapers, reports, novels) and those we refer to again and again (eg. dictionaries, textbooks).

I'm not sure about the direct impact of pbooks on the environment, but I believe that there is a huge indirect effect resulting from positioning paper based reading as the normal, accepted behaviour, whereas ebook enthusiasts are considered nerds, geeks, wierdos, etc. (that's my current experience ) That doesn't do good to the cause of reducing environmental footprint.

[Mambo]

Ebook readers would present a good case for using solar energy. I think a sony ereader could be easily equipped with a solar panel as it does not use much electricity on a daily basis. I wonder why Sony does not do that...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

About the only "new" thing I got out of igorsk's article link was an actual amount given to the amount of energy used to download an e-book. Well, not really... it referenced MP3 files, and guessed an e-book would be "smaller."

Other than that, the waste involved with paper books was, IMO, severely understated. And Mambo's point about other periodicals should be taken into consideration. Whether or not a reader competes closely with a novel, against daily newspapers and magazines there would be no contest... the reader would win hands-down.

To its credit, it does suggest that the recycling issues for electronic devices need to be considered, especially by the manufacturers themselves. Sony is behind the curve here... many major manufacturers, especially car makers, are looking closely at the recyclability of their products. Other computer and electronics makers need the same signal.

[LeserattePD]

I apologize if this link has been posted before, but I found this study

http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-04.pdf

which might be of interest to the discussion here.