Paper vs. paperless: Which makes reading greener? - Page 2

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-09-2009, 08:48 AM

Toxins have been mentioned a few times related to electronics production. It is important to realize there are also toxins in the chemical baths used to pulp, recongeal and bleach paper, by some estimates as many as 32 individual toxic chemicals. When the process is done, the water and toxic chemicals are dumped straight into the local water table. (We can probably add the toxins and lubricants inherent in the paper-producing machinery, some of which is certainly washing into that water table as well.)

Recycling is an important part of this equation, and as many have pointed out, we really don't have a proper electronics recycling system down yet. Paper recycling can also stand improvement, as some estimates say as little as 5% of paper actually gets recycled, and by anybody's account, paper can only be recycled a limited number of times (generally considered around 3-4 times) before it is non-recoverable.

But comparing e-book readers to paper, you must consider the sheer number of books that are generally replaced by a single reader... not 2 or 3, or a dozen... but hundreds, even thousands, that can be replaced. Even if you only have a few-score books on your reader, you are making a significant environmental savings over the production of scores of books.

And the figures get even better for non-dedicated readers, like computers, PDAs and cellphones... since they were manufactured for other purposes, you can consider that they did not require manufacturing for e-book reading... or that the amount of resources used for that device must be subdivided among all the tasks they fulfill, meaning the reading task will only amount to a fraction of the overall manufacturing costs, down (depending on the number of tasks fulfilled by the device) to near-zero. Of course, PDAs and cellphones are much smaller than dedicated devices and computers, meaning less material was used in manufacture... you want the smallest footprint, read on a cellphone,r PDA or Blackberry.

So there really is no comparison, to my mind: E-books win hands down, in a dedicated or non-dedicated device environment, over paper.

LDBoblo · 10-09-2009, 11:47 AM

People who use ebook readers exclusively seem to produce a lot more methane...that could have a detrimental effect as well.

Kali Yuga · 10-09-2009, 12:12 PM

I currently believe that ebooks are far "greener" than paper books.

In the US (which is about 1/3 of the global book market, iirc), in 2006 1.5 million metric tons of paper were used to produce books, and only 5% or so of that was recycled materials. Of that, 1 billion books were unsold, and little of that was recycled. And about 70% of the source of paper for books -- and the industry's carbon footprint, coincidentally -- is in cutting endangered forests, rather than sustainably managed ones. Source: http://www.ecolibris.net/book_industry_footprint.asp

The book industry could get greener by shifting to recycled materials or some type of rapid POD (thus reducing waste), and ebook impact hasn't been studied in-depth. But I expect that the environmental impact of storing and distributing ebooks is still lower than the impact of printing, warehousing and shipping paper books.

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

10-09-2009, 08:48 AM	#16
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Toxins have been mentioned a few times related to electronics production. It is important to realize there are also toxins in the chemical baths used to pulp, recongeal and bleach paper, by some estimates as many as 32 individual toxic chemicals. When the process is done, the water and toxic chemicals are dumped straight into the local water table. (We can probably add the toxins and lubricants inherent in the paper-producing machinery, some of which is certainly washing into that water table as well.) Recycling is an important part of this equation, and as many have pointed out, we really don't have a proper electronics recycling system down yet. Paper recycling can also stand improvement, as some estimates say as little as 5% of paper actually gets recycled, and by anybody's account, paper can only be recycled a limited number of times (generally considered around 3-4 times) before it is non-recoverable. But comparing e-book readers to paper, you must consider the sheer number of books that are generally replaced by a single reader... not 2 or 3, or a dozen... but hundreds, even thousands, that can be replaced. Even if you only have a few-score books on your reader, you are making a significant environmental savings over the production of scores of books. And the figures get even better for non-dedicated readers, like computers, PDAs and cellphones... since they were manufactured for other purposes, you can consider that they did not require manufacturing for e-book reading... or that the amount of resources used for that device must be subdivided among all the tasks they fulfill, meaning the reading task will only amount to a fraction of the overall manufacturing costs, down (depending on the number of tasks fulfilled by the device) to near-zero. Of course, PDAs and cellphones are much smaller than dedicated devices and computers, meaning less material was used in manufacture... you want the smallest footprint, read on a cellphone,r PDA or Blackberry. So there really is no comparison, to my mind: E-books win hands down, in a dedicated or non-dedicated device environment, over paper.

10-09-2009, 11:47 AM	#17
LDBoblo Wizard Posts: 1,385 Karma: 16056 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Asia Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Sony PRS-505	People who use ebook readers exclusively seem to produce a lot more methane...that could have a detrimental effect as well.

10-09-2009, 12:12 PM	#18
Kali Yuga Professional Contrarian Posts: 2,045 Karma: 3289631 Join Date: Mar 2009 Device: Kindle 4 No Touchie	I currently believe that ebooks are far "greener" than paper books. In the US (which is about 1/3 of the global book market, iirc), in 2006 1.5 million metric tons of paper were used to produce books, and only 5% or so of that was recycled materials. Of that, 1 billion books were unsold, and little of that was recycled. And about 70% of the source of paper for books -- and the industry's carbon footprint, coincidentally -- is in cutting endangered forests, rather than sustainably managed ones. Source: http://www.ecolibris.net/book_industry_footprint.asp The book industry could get greener by shifting to recycled materials or some type of rapid POD (thus reducing waste), and ebook impact hasn't been studied in-depth. But I expect that the environmental impact of storing and distributing ebooks is still lower than the impact of printing, warehousing and shipping paper books.

Advert