There should be a 20% tax on pbooks

[Tony1988]

Originally Posted by markbot

You're forgetting about the cost and consumption of resources to actually manufacture the book, the contamination of water from paper mills, resources to transport it (energy, packaging waste, time, etc), cost to store it, and annoyance of dealing with the waste when it is tossed.

In conjunction with the tax, I'd propose that the government prevent the prevention of reselling and loaning ebooks. There should be a way to transfer the ebook like a pbook....if we are to get rid of pbooks.

Pollution of electronics is bad....but environmental impact of pbooks is probably worse overall. a lot of people read ebooks on tablets and computers where they already have a device and don't need to purchase a special device.

I also believe they should greatly increase US gasoline taxes to like $4 per gallon instead of having those CAFE standards. They can gradually institute the tax so people have time to change behavior. I can guarantee u that very few people will buy an SUV if there is a $4 gas tax. the UAW would make passing the tax extremely difficult though, if not impossible. the tax monies could go toward creation of solar power plants and such. the other added benefit is that in effect the tax would transfer wealth from OPEC to the home country as it means that the home country would be effectively collecting some of the oil price increase instead of OPEC. OPEC would not be able to raise the underlying price as high since the cost to the consumer has the added tax to stifle demand.

pbooks are laughably antiquated...the sooner they are minimized the better. imagine a world that instead of using telecommunications and email, you'd have to write a LETTER and send it via post, every time! HAHHAA, that is so pathetic. this is how I view pbooks.

but I agree, the 20% tax would create other problems we'd have to deal with.

Seriously, why are you trying to save the world???? Who are you trying to save the world for??? Putting all these taxes on commodities wont save the world. When I was younger and more optimistic I would have probably thought stuff like this was a good idea, but ya know eventually you grow and learn that the inevitable is going to happen, no matter how many trees we save or how many restrictions we put on how we use and recycle resources.

An asteroid could hit the earth tomorrow, the super volcano could erupt tomorrow, nuclear war could break out tomorrow, a plague could break out tomorrow, a new ice age could start tomorrow, all of this stuff will happen over the course of years. Its not if but when.
Saving trees and gas is dwarfed by all of this stuff. It wont matter in the end. Mother earth will expel us when the time is right and it will renew itself with the few billion years it will have left before the sun goes nova. Humans will no longer be here. So really why all the fuss?

[Crusader]

I've never bought the 'ebooks are better for the environment' movement. Those trees used for the books are planted specifically for that purpose on a renewable bases. Those trees act as a carbon sink. Paper mills are much more environmentally friendly now with the better technology they use and the pollution (if any) has been minimized.

[Cpl Punishment]

I have nothing to back this up with, but I'm guessing, producing an e-reader probably does more environmental damage than paper book making...

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Cpl Punishment

I have nothing to back this up with, but I'm guessing, producing an e-reader probably does more environmental damage than paper book making...

Compare a book case with 730 books in it to an ereader with 730 books in it.

[QuantumIguana]

I get advertising flyers in my mailbox that go to everyone, so I can't even opt out of them. They go directly to the trash. THAT is wasted paper. I have paper books printed in 1900. That is a good use of paper.

Disposable plastic, that is a waste. An e-reader is a good use of plastic. Something you use once and throw away is a bad use of plastic. A reusable aluminum bottle keeps plastic out of a landfill and saves you money - free tap water vs. expensive bottled water adds up quickly. I like the aluminum bottles that you can buy beverages in, when you're done using it, it can be recycled like a can.

Then there are garbage burners that burn at an extremely high temperature so its emissions aren't polluting. There aren't a lot of them in operation yet.

Paper books and e-readers are really far down the list of sources of pollution.

Originally Posted by markbot

Here is an article on the topic...the evidence in this case is carbon footprint, which you may or may not believe is valid. But carbon footprint can be a proxy for energy use in general. Thus an ereader is more efficient, energy-wise, after forgoing about 22.5 new books...thus after the first year of usage., approximately.

Even though I agree that we should be trying to minimize our negative impact upon the environment, I frequently have doubts about environmental claims. The biggest problem is that people tend to equate environmental impact with the stuff that they can see (e.g. deforestation). Yet even when they calculate for the invisible stuff (e.g. carbon footprint), the calculations often aren't rigorous. For example: why should the carbon footprint be a valid proxy in the case of ebooks vs. pbooks? We know that pbooks are disproportionately skewed towards carbon due to transportation (of raw materials and finished goods). Is that also the case for ebooks? ereaders, for example, are highly dependent upon the refinement of materials. That involves other chemical processes that can be incredibly damaging.

But let's take that 20 pbooks per 1 ereader argument anyhow. Then you have to consider things like how many books do people read? If a typical ereader lasts 2 years (probably longer for eInk devices and shorter for tablets, just because of the upgrade mentality) then you need to read at least 10 books per year to reach the environmental break even point.

Overall, I do agree with the taxation to offset environmental impact philosophy, but it needs to be done at the manufacturing level. If a semiconductor components manufacturer or a pulp mill goes in, their environmental impact should be assessed and they should be taxed based upon the expected cost of environmental clean-ups. This will force consumers to make better decisions because the costs will be passed on to them, and it will entice manufacturers to clean up their act.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by markbot

If governments in the developed world are serious about environmental conservation, they should seriously consider a 20% tax

why 20% why not 30% or even better 50?%

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

why 20% why not 30% or even better 50?%

Let's do some math!

Assume that 20 pbooks have the environmental impact of 1 ereader, and assume that that calculation was based upon an average $10 paperback. Finally assume that the typical ereader costs $200 (less for eInk, but less avid readers will jump at the tabletesque ereaders).

Now $200 over 20 pbooks means that our assumed typical pbook should have a $10 tax. Convert that to percent, which is totally fair because bigger and more expensive books will have a larger environmental impact, and we see that we should be taxing pbooks at 100%.

Ereader fanatics of the world rejoice: the pbook would effectively be dead under that taxation policy!

(Note: In a fit of sarcasm I embellished the calculation by using a cheap pbook and an expensive ereader.)

[Crusader]

No, to be fair to the world their should be a 150% tax on anything that is readable regardless of the format. Readers are the worst polluters in the world with their ceaseless consumption of words without nary a thought for the impact they are having on poor mother Earth!

(If you really want to make an environmental impact for the good rather stop eating meat, driving cars or fly anywhere - those have the highest carbon footprint. Hey, let's put a 300% tax on THOSE!)

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by Crusader

No, to be fair to the world their should be a 150% tax on anything that is readable regardless of the format. Readers are the worst polluters in the world with their ceaseless consumption of words without nary a thought for the impact they are having on poor mother Earth!

(If you really want to make an environmental impact for the good rather stop eating meat, driving cars or fly anywhere - those have the highest carbon footprint. Hey, let's put a 300% tax on THOSE!)

Actually, no. Not for a high percentage of the world's population.
The whole carbon as damaging to the environment rather than a normal part of the environment thet works to equalize external impacts is goofy, but if you really believe it... stop heating and cooling the buildings you live, work, recreate, and do commerce in. also, every road doesn't need to be paved. Settle for dirt or gravel in outlying areas.

And quit mowing and landscaping with powered equipment - that's a pure vanity.
Have an area that forbids outside clothes drying? Conceited people who want to limit the freedom of others to do the right thing for mother earth deserve to have every dime of federal tax dollars cut off.

[Crusader]

Originally Posted by Phogg

Actually, no. Not for a high percentage of the world's population.
The whole carbon as damaging to the environment rather than a normal part of the environment thet works to equalize external impacts is goofy, but if you really believe it... stop heating and cooling the buildings you live, work, recreate, and do commerce in. also, every road doesn't need to be paved. Settle for dirt or gravel in outlying areas.

And quit mowing and landscaping with powered equipment - that's a pure vanity.
Have an area that forbids outside clothes drying? Conceited people who want to limit the freedom of others to do the right thing for mother earth deserve to have every dime of federal tax dollars cut off.

I agree completely with you. That entire post was meant to be filled with sarcasm.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by Tony1988

Seriously, why are you trying to save the world???? Who are you trying to save the world for??? Putting all these taxes on commodities wont save the world. When I was younger and more optimistic I would have probably thought stuff like this was a good idea, but ya know eventually you grow and learn that the inevitable is going to happen, no matter how many trees we save or how many restrictions we put on how we use and recycle resources.

An asteroid could hit the earth tomorrow, the super volcano could erupt tomorrow, nuclear war could break out tomorrow, a plague could break out tomorrow, a new ice age could start tomorrow, all of this stuff will happen over the course of years. Its not if but when.
Saving trees and gas is dwarfed by all of this stuff. It wont matter in the end. Mother earth will expel us when the time is right and it will renew itself with the few billion years it will have left before the sun goes nova. Humans will no longer be here. So really why all the fuss?

Nihilists are dangerous for society. If they want to commit suicide they can do so. For those that want to live and to continue the human race, I recommend that they try to become more efficient with resources...this is also better from a political perspective as energy diversification is easier to achieve if overall usage is lower.

Originally Posted by Phogg

The whole carbon as damaging to the environment rather than a normal part of the environment thet works to equalize external impacts is goofy

Actually, both extremes are a bit nutty. Yes, carbon is a normal part of the environment. Yet that does not mean that it does not play a role in the environment. Take global temperatures. If you do calculations based upon solar radiation and the Earth's albedo, the daytime highs would be around -20 C. Clearly that is not the case, because absorption and re-emission coupled with greenhouse gases (including carbon) drive the temperatures up. We can't even be certain that carbon equalizes external impacts, because we don't know whether the Earth's climate in stable equilibrium, quasi-stable equilibrium, or unstable.

if you really believe it... stop heating and cooling the buildings you live, work, recreate, and do commerce in.

You are advocating an absurd extremist view. A lot could be accomplished by using resources more efficiently. Maintain a comfortable temperature that is closer to seasonal norms. Dry your laundry outdoors when the weather permits, rather than always using a clothes drying. Mow your lawn less frequently and sure, use a manual mower. There are, of course, tonnes of things that people can do to get their energy usage under control. The trick is to ask which ones are worthwhile.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by markbot

For those that want to live and to continue the human race, I recommend that they try to become more efficient with resources...this is also better from a political perspective as energy diversification is easier to achieve if overall usage is lower.

That's debatable:

In economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes Jevons effect) is the proposition that technological progress that increases the efficiency with which a resource is used, tends to increase (rather than decrease) the rate of consumption of that resource.[1] In 1865, the English economist William Stanley Jevons observed that technological improvements that increased the efficiency of coal-use led to the increased consumption of coal in a wide range of industries. He argued that, contrary to common intuition, technological improvements could not be relied upon to reduce fuel consumption.[2]

The issue has more recently been reexamined by modern economists studying consumption rebound effects from improved energy efficiency. In addition to reducing the amount needed for a given use, improved efficiency lowers the relative cost of using a resource, which increases the quantity demanded of the resource, potentially counteracting any savings from increased efficiency. Additionally, increased efficiency accelerates economic growth, further increasing the demand for resources. The Jevons paradox occurs when the effect from increased demand predominates, causing an increase in overall resource use.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by markbot

Nihilists are dangerous for society. If they want to commit suicide they can do so. For those that want to live and to continue the human race, I recommend that they try to become more efficient with resources...this is also better from a political perspective as energy diversification is easier to achieve if overall usage is lower.

So why are you targeting paper books here when there are far more voracious users of wood pulp?

How many square yards or meters of landfill are consumed by books as opposed to plastics and Styrofoam/non-recyclable plastic packaging used to package our gadgets. More non recyclable items are used in the production of TV dinners, take out food/beverages daily than paper books produced in a month. Sounds like an extreme thing to say, but paper books are mostly recyclable and contain very little Styrofoam or plastic.

How many carbon emissions are emitted by books being disposed of as opposed to those emitted by transportation and the destruction and rebuilding of urban infrastructure.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but it seems that you have chosen to create/jump on a bandwagon because to address the problem in full might mean personal deprivation/inconvenience in another area and you chose to cast the blame away from yourself.

Helen