Save money now: 27 ways to lower your utility bills
In the current economic climate, its been a bit rough for those that want to go green on a budget. Not everyone can...
Read the rest of this articleEnvironmentally, Kindle can't hold a candle to the library
With the proliferation of Kindles and Nooks and iPads, perhaps it is worth revisiting if such E-readers are really more environmentally friendly than paper books. Unfortunately, the answer to that question is not at all clear-cut, and depends a lot on the reader’s behavior. The more books you read, the better Kindles and iPads are from an environmental standpoint. But the best option is to use your local library.
Without question, paper books consume a lot of trees. In 2008, the US book industry emitted 12.4 million metric tons of carbon, with nearly 63% of those emissions from forest impacts. Reducing the footprint of the book industry would require reducing the amount of paper consumed by book production. Certainly, an electronic device that has access to millions of E-books would have to be greener than paper books.
Or maybe not. The manufacture of an E-reader, as well as powering the device, also emits carbon (as well as other chemicals). According to Apple, the greenhouse gas emissions over the life of an i-Pad is equivalent to 287 lb of carbon dioxide. Although Amazon is less forthcoming with its environmental report card, the carbon footprint of the Kindle has been estimated at 370 lb CO2. Since a printed book accounts for an average of 8.85 lb of greenhouse gas emissions, one would have to buy 30-40 books over the lifetime of the E-reader just to break even on greenhouse gas emissions.
Obviously, a serious reader would not have a problem consuming that many books. But how many people simply throw away a book they bought after reading it? We loan books to friends, donate to the library, or sell them to a used bookseller. Unlike most E-books, a paper book, once purchased, can be read multiple times by multiple people. And even if paper books accumulate on a shelf, they still continue to sequester carbon – rather than emit carbon as an E-reader does while charging.
After all, the most sustainable option for readers is using the library. A library card may not get you noticed as much as an i-Pad or Kindle, but it is a much greener way to find books for entertainment and enlightenment.
Comments
Most people have 30 books on their Kindle within about 12 hours of purchase... that's a pretty strong green argument.
A very weak analysis. The article ignores the obvious fact that all newspapers, magazines, and other periodicals, including heavy textbooks, encyclopedias, seminar handbooks, employee handbooks, tests . . . will all be on ebooks in the near future-with much better ebooks. The energy for transportation-including postal delivery, newspaper delivery-warehouse energy, retail store energy, energy to destroy the many unsold books, magazines, newspapers, etc. is massive. Ebooks, in just a few years, will save a massive amount of energy. (It makes no sense the the Kindle's CO2 emissions would be greater than the much larger and more powerful iPad).
Actually it does. How long does that Kindle that you have last? I have books that I was given as a child that were passed down by my parents to me. That they read when they were children themselves. An eReader just can't hold a candle to that. And how many employee manuals, textbooks and whathave you does an average employee use? I can guarantee that it is disproportional to the amount of CO2 used by an eReader. As for newspapers and all of that, I can already get that on my computer or cellphone. Many people are already not bothering to go to the trouble of purchasing a newspaper subscription because of that. To say that eReaders are the complete solution to the amount of CO2 used for the production of newspapers is a fallacy. And as for postal delivery, we have email already which has largely replaced letter writing so you are wrong again.
Take a minute to look past that shiny new device. How much energy do you think is used to recycle it?
Phil's comment above is dead on. It's quite an oversight to ingore the liquid fuels used to transport various print mediums, or consumers like me driving miles to puruse the used book store for what may or may not be there. And while society can realisticly green electrons by replacing coal plants with gas generation (a halving of CO2 emissions), and replacing those in turn with next-gen. wind power that incoporates load-basing energy storage (no, not batteries), it's very difficult to see a similar path for liquid fuels. I think a full accounting tips the scales heavily toward the electronic alternatives.
Phil's comment above is dead on. It's quite an oversight to ignore the liquid fuels used to transport various print mediums, or consumers like me driving miles to puruse the used book store for what may or may not be there. And while society can realistically green electrons by replacing coal plants with gas generation (a halving of CO2 emissions), and replacing those in turn with next-gen. wind power that incorporate load-basing energy storage (no, not batteries), it's very difficult to see a similar path for liquid fuels. I think a full accounting tips the scales heavily toward the electronic alternatives.
I agree with Phil's comment and think that a ebook-reader will be greener than the paper versions of the books. I also have serious doubts that the kindle has a 370lbCO2 footprint while the iPad supposedly only 287lbCO2. This doesn't add up if you compare the kindle with the iPad and even the quoted article states that the estimate for the kindle is questioned by some This should be noted, also, in this article!! My kindle barely uses any power. I read a lot on the kindle and can't put my finger on when I last recharged it. The iPad has a power consumption on the order of Watts, with its backlight and sophisticated computing going on. The iPad is meant to be used for much more than e-reading, and thus it can (and does) use more power and should have a much higher lifetime CO2-footprint than the kindle, also when you include the CO2 for the manufacturing! Just touch the IPad and the kindle! Which one gets warm during operation? There you go!
Matt - how about giving up reading entirely. That would be much greener than going to libraries. And why not tear down the library and plant some trees - let's go the extra mile. How about we commit suicide. The more of us, the better for the planet.
I'm being sarcastic, but the point of ecology is how we evolve in a sustainable way. Proposing to go back to libraries and sift through yards of shelves instead of doing a simple search on a portable device that consumes extremely little energy does not seem to be evolution to me.
And I agree with all the above comments, I too believe you totally got your facts wrong.
Are we calculated the carbon footprint of driving to the library?
Well, I've definately learned something new today regarding the carbon footprints of books vs. ereaders. I guess I still see the benefit of saving alot of trees. The amount of paper we go through, and I'm not even talking just books is absolutely mind boggling. I see how they both impact the environment, but I'd like to think the Kindle or other ereaders is revolutionary in keep trees in the ground.