06-09-2008, 06:14 PM | #1 | |
I'm Super Kindle-icious
Posts: 6,734
Karma: 2434103
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Long Drive, Calinadia Candafornia
Device: KDXG, KT, Oasis
|
Paper vs. paperless: Which makes reading greener?
Just ran across this blog entry in the Los Angles Times regarding the eco-friendliness of ebooks vs. the carbon footprint involved in producing paper books. It has a nice comment from Fictionwise at the end.
Paper vs. paperless: Which makes reading greener? Quote:
|
|
06-09-2008, 06:52 PM | #2 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,999
Karma: 300001
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, California
Device: TWO Kindle 2s, one each Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS-500, Axim X51V
|
Quote:
Studies like this must always be viewed from the lens of "if the information is newer than 10-years-old, it must be ignored". That way the study or review doesn't have to try to understand emerging trends and technologies - those things *frighten* people, don't you know? |
|
Advert | |
|
10-08-2009, 10:57 AM | #3 |
Enthusiast
Posts: 31
Karma: 144
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Washington DC
Device: Sony ?
|
Kind of apples and oranges
It's pretty clear that if you read enough, that an e-reader has to win.
Or maybe not ... ? Let me be more careful. If the amount of CO2 produced by generating the electricity used in the distribution and consumption (powering the reader) of an e-book is smaller than the the amount of CO2 released in cutting down trees, making paper, manufacturing the p-book, and shipping the p-book then, for a sufficiently large number of books, e-books are more environmentally friendly. Eventually the fixed environmental costs of manufacturing the reader become irrelevant. Ergo, read more! Counter argument: What if you read only second hand-books? A book can last a long time, perhaps longer than a reader ... |
10-08-2009, 12:45 PM | #4 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,999
Karma: 300001
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, California
Device: TWO Kindle 2s, one each Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS-500, Axim X51V
|
Quote:
So the question now becomes, are we so wedded to the philosophy of AlGore-ism that we'd rather slaughter millions of trees each year for book and newsprint production or would we rather eliminate 90% of dead-tree production and face a possible maintenance or slight increase in CO2 production from power systems that recharge our ereader batteries. Our choice. Me, I'd rather save the trees as they DO filter out excess CO2. Call me crazy. Derek |
|
10-08-2009, 01:17 PM | #5 |
Wizard
Posts: 3,490
Karma: 5239563
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Device: Kindle 3|iPad air|iPhone 4S
|
Isn't the greatest problem that fossile fuels release "saved-up" CO2 in great quantity over a very short time? I.e. wood=paper is not the issue, but the energy spent to produce and distribute a paper book versus and ebook reader + e-books?
I would assume it's still too early-days to give a good and substantial answer to the (fossile fuel) energy spent on e-books - hardware and software included - issue. The whole life-cycle of a product is complex. Environmentally speaking, cotton is a really big baddie - but try to tell people that polyester might be a better choice in some instances.... It's the good old logic vs. feeling. |
Advert | |
|
10-08-2009, 01:21 PM | #6 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,300
Karma: 1121709
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Amazon Kindle 1
|
Neither are going to be perfect. I have little problem with paper as long as people are not being wasteful in using it and a recycling everything they can. I still use paper books for my academic work and print out PDFs as I have to be able to highlight and write notes in the margins etc. so I never have to read them twice. But I keep them permanently, or give them away or recycle them (printouts).
Ebooks inherently are better on that front since they don't use paper. But there's still plastic to make them (thus dependence on petroleum), and problems with waste when idiots through them away when they break rather than recycling the device and it's battery properly. |
10-08-2009, 01:23 PM | #7 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,895
Karma: 6995721
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Idaho, on the side of a mountain
Device: Kindle Oasis, Fire 3d Gen and 5th Gen and Samsung Tab S
|
In their current iterration, I think ebooks will lose. Although a paper book consumes more resources initially, paper books are traded, sold, etc. I learned it was a sin to throw away a pbook, like it was a sin not to eat your vegetables (starving children . . ). Although an ebook is more convenient and initially costs me less, including driving to the bookstore, the fact that it is one use only will make it less efficient. JMHO
Debra |
10-08-2009, 01:44 PM | #8 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,999
Karma: 300001
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, California
Device: TWO Kindle 2s, one each Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS-500, Axim X51V
|
Quote:
Derek P.S. I often share my ebooks with my mother by the simple expedient of putting it on my second Cybook Gen3 - both of which are registered with Mobipocket, Fictionwise and BooksOnBoard. |
|
10-08-2009, 01:45 PM | #9 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,490
Karma: 5239563
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Device: Kindle 3|iPad air|iPhone 4S
|
Quote:
Then there's the waste of the metals used for the electronics. AFAIK, this kind of waste is not properly harnessed by anyone yet. Even if you "recycle" rather than throw in the dump. "Recycling" doesn't always mean that the waste is properly taken care of. For a more total view on environmental impact, there's also the water spent on production. |
|
10-08-2009, 01:49 PM | #10 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,999
Karma: 300001
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, California
Device: TWO Kindle 2s, one each Bookeen Cybook Gen3, Sony PRS-500, Axim X51V
|
Quote:
Derek |
|
10-08-2009, 02:18 PM | #11 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,244
Karma: 3439432
Join Date: Feb 2008
Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (300ppi), Samsung Galaxy Book 12
|
The vast majority of trees which are cut for paper pulp are quick-growing loblolly pines which will be re-planted almost immediately, larger, older, nicer trees are usually cut for lumber, so one should be able to let the 8.85 pounds figure stand for paper products w/o concern for deforestation.
Here's a page which indicates most CO_2 production is for energy: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html And here's a page which indicates that CO_2 production is a much larger problem for the manufacturing of electronics: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/49730 w/ a ratio of 12 to 1 for energy usage to weight, so my PRS-505 weighs roughly 9 ozs., so presumably required 108 ounces of fuel to manufacture (on-going energy usage is not considered) http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm gives us a figure of 19.4 pounds of CO_2 per gallon of gasoline which equals roughly 16.36875 pounds of CO_2 to make the ebook reader. So getting two books for the Sony should make it roughly break even, and each printed book beyond that which is not purchased should result in a net reduction of CO_2 emissions, since the energybulletin.net page indicates that the embodied energy usage for electronics is much greater than the lifetime usage. William Last edited by WillAdams; 10-08-2009 at 02:21 PM. Reason: attempt to clarify |
10-08-2009, 06:15 PM | #12 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,305
Karma: 1958
Join Date: Jan 2009
Device: iPod Touch
|
CO2 is one thing, but a lot of electronic devices use a lot of oil to produce the plastic they are encased in, then have additional sometimes toxic chemicals. I can't quite recall the name of the metal, I think it is chromite, that most electronic devices contain and there is a kind of 'blood diamond' style trade in it as children slaves work to produce it in African countries. It's in every iPhone, every PSP, every Kindle.
So producing the materials that go into an electronic device can be costly, then recycling the device is also problematic - how long does it take for a kindle plastic case to biodegrade? 1000+ years? Will it leech toxins into the soil as it does so? Carbon is especially a problem for us in the short term if you subscribe to global warmin theory, but some of the other chemicals and plastics will also be a problem and many years to come. |
10-08-2009, 11:30 PM | #13 | |
Wizard
Posts: 1,385
Karma: 16056
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Asia
Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Sony PRS-505
|
Quote:
|
|
10-09-2009, 04:47 AM | #14 | |
Wizard
Posts: 3,490
Karma: 5239563
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denmark
Device: Kindle 3|iPad air|iPhone 4S
|
Quote:
|
|
10-09-2009, 08:08 AM | #15 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,244
Karma: 3439432
Join Date: Feb 2008
Device: Amazon Kindle Paperwhite (300ppi), Samsung Galaxy Book 12
|
Recycling of electronics should be mandatory. If it isn't in your locality, get involved and get funding for it, and arrange for it to happen. It's just a matter of being personally responsible. If all else fails, Best Buy (and presumably other retailers) will take electronics in for recycling for a small fee (offset by a matching gift card in the case of Best Buy).
My locality does an electronics recycling once a year, so I just save everything until then. Where my sister lives in California, they'll accept any electronic device in the recycling bin and recycle it, but she pays a bit more for her waste management bill than I do. William |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
reading paper vs using an eReader | ps56k | News | 12 | 11-22-2009 07:28 PM |
Reading Comics on the iPhone - New App Makes it Possible | erikeric | Apple Devices | 11 | 02-15-2009 08:28 PM |
BBC Article on 'Paperless Paper' | higgs | News | 2 | 10-15-2008 02:26 PM |
Environmental study: 30 min of e-paper reading = 30 mins of print reading | Steven Lyle Jordan | News | 36 | 12-14-2007 03:29 PM |
Where reading paper books is like having sex | Alexander Turcic | News | 27 | 04-24-2007 09:35 AM |