A relatively new phenomenon is the E-Reader, be it Kindle, iPad, or a number of other new competitors coming into the marketplace. When you think about it, these devices would seem to be more environmentally friendly than your typical paper and cardboard book, even a paperback. Should we be buying our loved ones e-readers or traditional books this holiday season?
There is a certain tactile value to "real" books, just feeling the paper, turning the pages. I find that I miss this when using an e-reader. But on the surface, the e-reader would seem to be much more green. In fact, my colleague "Mr. Green" at Sierra Magazine recently explored this dilemma and came to a surprising conclusion, which I will reveal momentarily.
E-reader vs. paper book is a provocative question, one that could just as easily have been "do your prefer flying cars or conventional road going cars" a few short years ago. The key to the answer is that basic tenet of sustainability: life cycle analysis. We must consider not only the trees needed to make paper versus the manufacturing of electronics products, but the shipping costs, fuel, and ultimately, the energy needed to recycle these materials at the end of their days. Not to mention, what ultimately happens to e-waste? Where do the non-recyclable remains end up?
Mr. Green's conclusion -- as well as a recent New York Times piece on the same subject -- was that unless you're a fast and furious reader, the energy required to manufacture and then dispose of an e-reader is probably greater than what's needed to make a traditional book. If you're reading 40 or more books per year on your e-reader, that would be the right choice. But if you use it only occasionally, probably better to stick to a "regular" book. This conclusion is reinforced by a study referenced on the website of TerraPass, a carbon offset business. Unfortunately, the study itself is not available for publication but its authors said e-readers are the more environmentally responsible choice only if you are reading in excess of 23 books per year.
The New York Times article also explored this subject, with a slightly different conclusion. Using similar data, an outfit called Cleantech did a study which looked at the question sort of in reverse, saying if you were to read three books a month over four years, the e-reader would significantly outperform conventional paper books in carbon emitted.
Clearly, like many green subjects, ours is a young industry, and as such, definitive answers are hard to come by. At least, subject to interpretation. Either way, I hope that today's generation will read more and watch less, be it through paper or electronic means.
Here's the best answer, though: go to the public library next time you are downtown. Borrow three or four books, finish them all, then return 'em next time you're near the library. This is truly the most sustainable way to read: the good old fashioned public library. At Sierra Club Green Home, we preach "reduce, reuse, and recycle" and library books can be read by dozens of people over their lifetime. And once they are finally too dog-eared and beaten up to grace library shelves, they can be easily recycled since they are generally all paper (even the leather on deluxe bound editions can be recycled).
Follow Jennifer Schwab on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SCGreen_Home
I do agree that if one doesn't read a lot, then it is probably best to stick with traditional books, those ereaders are just so very expensive.
If you buy mostly remaindered books, which would be otherwise pulped, or if you buy mostly used books, you are beating the everlivin TAR out of the e-reader, on that basis.
E-books, on the other hand, never have to be "remaindered" or pulped. If sales for a particular book drop to single digit sales per year, I am confident that Jeff Bezos and his counterparts at i books, B&N, and Google will find away to keep them available. Publishers and authors will be happy for the occasional $ that comes to them.
Our household has owned two Kindle 2s and one Kindle 3. One Kindle 2 is still in the home, one is donated, and the Kindle 3 is mine. We have over 600 books archived, buy the e-versions of the NYT, our hometown paper, and the occasional issue of various other papers 1 or 2 times a week, subscribe to Time, Newsweek, and The Nation.
I'm very environmentally aware, but I'm not feeling guilty on this one. A little sad that this article makes it out like reading more than a token amount or donating old readers is crazy talk. (I mean, is there anyone who doesn't donate, give away, or sell their old readers?)
The cost of downloading books is usually still less than the price of print, but I don't really feel bad about spending money on reading anyhow. It's only costlier in the sense that I can know go on book buying shopping excursions 24 hours a day and while wearing jammies.
My archived books are still archived. They can be sent to a new reader, my laptop, my phone -- well, if my phone was not the most simplistic version available. My archived books are also shared by my husband since we share an account. (What the heck, I say, I know him pretty well.)
Amazon will probably not go down, but even if the site did crash, the Kindle holds 3,500 books. You can also store your books on your laptop.
Book lending is coming soon. I actually like to buy books as gifts though. If they own a Kindle, I can gift them a download. If they don't, I would purchase a print copy.
I know people have concerns. I'm not about to tell others what they should worry about, but the only thing on your list I honestly nodded at was the battery thing. After the K1, but batteries stopped being changeable. I've never had a battery die though, not even after years of use.
I don't see e-readers managing that kind of loving and dedicated longevity.
Regarding the article:
#books per month ignores the size of the book. I read histories, often these are BIG FAT SUCKERS that hurt my hands to hold for very long. My Kindle solved that problem. Caro's Master of the Senate was as light as a feather.. on my Kindle anyway. But I only manage to read ~1 of these/mo.
I would love to know if there is a 20/80 rule for readers, and particularly for ebook users. My guess is that it would hold true (or close to it), i.e,, that ~20% of readers consume 80% of the books, AND that 80% of Kindle owners come from this 20% (and are making up a larger and larger portion of it every day).
Feel of the paper? Please. If you are really into what you are reading, you are not noticing paper... unless it cuts you when you turn the page.
I still think my Kindle is very green.
Anyone interested can google "ebooks for troops."