Quote:
Originally Posted by NormHart
Hum... Are ebook readers really more environmentally friendly than pbooks?
Looking at them from an resource view point, I doubt it. Trees are a renewable resource. Cut one down, plant one, forestry husbandry is fairly well understood. Not always practiced but understood. On the other hand what is required to produce an ebook reader? Petroleum for the plastics, mining for the metals, and chemicals for circuit boards, batteries, eink, glass etc. etc. That doesn't sound so good, does it? Most of the ereader resources do not appear to be renewable.
OK how about from an environmental impact view point? If you drop a pbook in the forest and no one sees it what happens? Over a decade or so the pbook will decay into the ground, much of it will eventually be eaten or consumed as fertilizer. True, the inks and any bleaching as well as the binding glues may have a negative effect but, all in all, a relatively modest impact IMO. Now dropping an ereader will impact the environment much more. The plastic could remain un-degraded for many decades, some of the metals would eventually rust away but many other would remain as would many of the chemicals. The most impact would probably be from the batteries, depending on their construction.
Recyclable? Again the ereader comes off a very poor second. Recycling paper products is a fairly low tech process and is commonly practiced. eProduct recycling, on the other hand, is a world wide mess.
How about the impact of the supporting manufacturing industries? Paper industry vs Petroleum Industry, Mining Industry, Electronic Manufacturing Industry. At best, IMO, this is about even although I suspect, when one factors in such things as support for internet connectivity the overall industry impact is substantial.
I admit that 1 ereader does not equal one pbook, in fact using the Kindle2 as a base, 1 ereader equals about 1200 pbooks. I also admit that it is nowhere as simple as what I've listed above but I question the ebook = green comments.
|
I read an interest book on industrial ecology called Down to Earth. It gets into this question although with other consumer products. For example, people assume a paper cup is more environmentally friendly than a Styrofoam cup but it actually isn't. A Styrofoam cup is much cheaper to manufacture and to transport, requires less energy to make, and can be recycled or burned for energy. A paper cup requires a lot more energy to create, is more pollutive due to the paper manufacturing process, such as the release of chemicals into rivers.
There was some research done on the Kindle. They analyzed the environmental impact and concluded that the Kindle has a net benefit after 23 books read...although they looked at the carbon footprint, which I think is an okay proxy.
some links i quickly found
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/arie...fficiency-king