Ebooks have been heralded by many as a new green technology that can reduce pollution, help with global warming, and save our forests. Others have responded more skeptically. Within the environmental community, there is significant debate about this and many are still on the fence. I intend to argue here that the widespread use of ebooks instead of paper books, has a net negative effect on the environment. This does not, mean, however, that there is not room for improvement in how we make and use books.
The first major issue is that ebooks are manufactured from non-renewable materials, whereas books are made with a renewable resource, namely trees. There are several different electronic devices (or ereaders) available today. The all have components made from various types of metal and plastic. The metals need to be mined, and there is not an unlimited supply of them. The plastic is made from fossil fuels, which also needs to be extracted from the earth. Obviously all of this produces pollution and generates CO2 emissions.
There is also the issue of the manufacturing process. First, sophisticated components, such as memory and CPU chips need to be manufactured and shipped. Then these components need to combined with other components to make the final product, which again needs to be shipped. This industrial process uses a fair amount of energy, most of which is likely generated using fossil fuels. More fossil fuels need to be used for all the transportation.
Ereaders, like most electronic devices, often contain toxic chemicals. This includes things like heavy metals, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), arsenic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Some companies have made a point to phase out these materials in their products, and provide reporting on how their products are manufactured and with what components. In the case of many ereaders, though, this type of disclosure and guarantee has not been provided.
In order to actually use an ereader, you need energy. These devices contain batteries, which need to be charged by the user. Again, in most cases this energy is primarily coming from fossil fuels, generating yet more CO2. In many areas of the world, however, people still do not have a reliable source of electricity and according to some statistics 1.6 billion people live without any electricity at all. Those people need an education, and for that they will need books, not ereaders.
One of the main benefits of ereaders is that despite the financial and carbon cost of the device, once you have one you can use it for a long time, and use it to read dozens of books. One study concluded that, on average, after a year of use the carbon generated from the lifecycle of the device would be offset. However, when we look at similar devices, such as cell phones and iPods, we see a high turnover rate. People often buy new versions of these devices every year or two. This short lifespan generates a lot of waste and pollution and negates much of the potential carbon savings.
There are other objections to ereaders as well, such as problems with copy protection or DRM, readability and ease of use. These aren't specifically environmental concerns though, so I will leave them out of this discussion. (One exception being that DRM often prevents reuse, which is environmentally hamful.)
So, let's compare all of this to books. Books also need raw materials, of course. In the case of modern books, this means trees. Trees are natural products and will replenish themselves over time. Deforestation is a major issue, however, as it causes extensive environmental and social problems around the world. One way to avoid this is to ensure that the trees used for books (or paper generally) are sourced only from areas that are certified to be engaged in sustainable forest management practices.
Unfortunately the publishing industry follows several practices that are wasteful and energy inefficient. By selling books on a consignment basis, the result is that a large number of books are shipped to stores, many are never sold, and large numbers are then shipped back. This is wasteful in many ways. The excess production has wasted trees and other resources, and consumed excess energy. These unnecessary books have also been shipped back and forth, burning fossils fuels for no benefit.
Several things can be done to improve things. First, bookstores should just purchase the stock they believe they can sell to their customers. Publishers will need to cooperate with this practice and not obstruct it. Books should also be printed locally, so that transportation is limited, and trucks don't need to ship stock all across the country. In the future, Print on demand technology can reduce waste even further by not printing books until they are ordered.
Books also have the advantage of being long lasting. Treated well, they can easily last for 50 years or more. They can be reused by many people, even across generations. A single book can be loaned or given to friends and may be read by many people over its lifetime. Public libraries help to institutionalize this sharing. They make it much easier for people to read any book they want, without having to purchase a new copy (which would of course have to be printed.)
Devices for storing and reading electronic books may be useful in specialized areas, but their widespread use, as a replacement for paper books, is not a good idea. It would be unsustainable because of the use of non-renewable resources, and would have an overall negative impact on the environment and efforts to curb global warming. However, while we should continue to use books, we must be more efficient and less wasteful in how we make, ship and use them.
Posts
20 comments:
Did it occur to you that e-book readers will be manufactured in far less quantity than paper books? You only need one e-book reader per person at any one time (less, actually, since some people will just read on their mobile phones, thus reusing an existing resource), whereas each and every paper book has to be printed in thousands, if not millions of copies. Oh, and you also need energy to read a paper book, unless it's in broad daylight.
Granted, paper books typically lasts much longer than electronic devices. It's their only real advantage.
Thanks for the comments Felix. You're right about one ereader being used for lots of books. I discussed this in the article when I mentioned the time required to offset the carbon impact.
I would agree though, that ebooks are very useful for existing devices such as computers or mobile phones. If someone is happy to read a book on their computer rather than having a physical copy or an ereader, that's great.
Interesting, but dont forget the large manufacturing facilities that produce university and school textbooks use quite a lot of energy, as well as the entire process to manufacture the book, including the plastic coatings they use. Not to mention that most electronics are able to be recycled if properly disposed of. I use my laptop to read e-books, and I am going to be using it regardless, so it only makes additional pollution and waste to but a textbook.
Ben, good point about textbooks. I think another big problem is that many professors make money from their textbooks, and deliberately come up with new issues every year or two. Of course, they then set the course requirements so that students need the latest version of the book.
This is very wasteful and prevents students from buying used textbooks. I think universities and colleges should pass regulations to limit this practice. In the vast majority of cases, there's no reason to update a textbook at anywhere close to that frequency.
As for recycling, that's good, but remember that reduction and reuse take priority over recycling. Recycling can use a lot of energy.
I would like to point out that the bulk of trees used for paper are grown specifically for that purpose. What this means is that the deforestation is NOT being caused by a ravenous greed for paper. It is being caused by a need for farm land that isn't being properly thought out.
Your arguments about recycling. Recyling of metals has been ongoing in the tech industry for the last few decades. The precious metals, alone, used in our electronics can be more easily and cheaply (in terms of money and carbon-producing energy, since much of the components are removed by hand before being shredded and separated for reclamation) than mining new, raw ore and processing it into the needed materials.
Yes, plastics can be a big issue in this, since it's cheaper, cleaner and easier to make new than to recycle old, but there are issues with the recylcing of paper, too. We'll leave that for another discussion, though.
All in all, I can't say I buy into your arguments. Only the early adopters go through electronics at the rate that would be dangerous to the environment, really. More normal, lower-middle class, people will either buy and keep up new, or like me will buy used and keep them until they no longer function.
Let me state up front that I'm all for paper backs. Having said that, I own an Ipod touch and laptop, and I read books on both. I don't need an ereader to complicate things.
One thing about textbooks and ereaders: Professors should be allowed to assign only the best or most salient chapters of a textbook. In other words, instead of buying the entire 500-page book, students should download and be charged for purchasing only the chapters they will be reading. There is no reason for these text behemoths to be published every other year or so, and such a practice would cut down on wasteful publishing.
Another point I'd like to make about waste. I've worked in a bookstore. You cannot believe the number of paperbacks that are trashed every quarter, with only the covers of the books returned to the publisher for a refund. That waste is "unseen" and used book stores are prevented from selling the coverless books. The entire publishing industry needs to be rehauled.
@Random Bastard @Ben You've both touched on a related issue that bothers me: low reliability of modern electronics. I understand that manufacturers have to cut corners somewhere if they are to reduce prices, but this is going too far. My first cellphone suffered a total systems failure after 3 years. The one I have now seemed like it was going to do the same after 9 months; luckily, it turned out to be sturdier than that. And hopefully my laptop will turn out to be sturdy as well - I lack both the money and any desire to replace it. But it's unlikely to last past the next couple of years.
Still, all my electronics put together probably cost less that my paper books, and I don't own much of a library. Just wish more people would give their devices a chance. (For all it's shortcomings, the iPhone does entice people to read books on it.) And maybe one day we'll actually do something about all that office paperwork. What do you think?
Luci, you're right about the trees, I made this point too. But if you agree that books aren't causing deforestation, then doesn't it follow that books are more sustainable than ereaders? Book manufacturing is (or can be) much less impactful on the environment than electronics production.
As for recycling electronics, please see this:
http://current.com/items/76355482_pollution-to-protest.htm
Third world children are dying to recycle our waste. This is why we need to reduce and reuse before recycling.
There are a number of huge problems with your assumptions, but I will summarize them as this:
Oil and metals also occur naturally (the raw materials for e-readers).
Making paper also causes pollution, and also requires energy input.
Anon, you are correct about oil and metals occurring naturally, but they don't replenish. What do we do about peak oil when oil becomes too expensive or hard to obtain? Many specialized metals are also potentially close to, or past peak.
However, you're right about paper also causing pollution and using energy. We should strive to reduce the pollution as much as possible and try to power paper production using renewable sources. Still, paper production is a much lower-intensity activity that the production of electronics. (Remember, you have to include all the resources required to design and build CPUs, memory chips, display screens, etc.)
In the case of music downloads vs. CDs, it seems like there's a pretty clear win. Do you agree?
Jason, I would definitely agree that MP3s are better than CDs, especially if they are being listened to on a computer which is likely to be on anyway. Unlike books, CDs are made from plastic (oil) which is non-renewable.
I would say, though, that we all probably purchase portable players for MP3s too often. Some people buy a new iPod every couple of years. In this case it would probably be better if we all used them for a longer period of time before replacement, say at least 5 years.
Fortunately, at least in the case of Apple products (which are the majority of the portable music market) any iPod made since the original in 2001 still works with any Mac or PC today, with the lastest version if iTunes. Also, Apple hardware is usually reliable and long lasting, so this just makes it more feasible to use (or reuse) for a long time.
While we're on the subject, let's hear it for libraries. Like Canada Guy I suspect that books are more sustainable than e-readers, especially if they are printed in vegetable inks on paper grown in properly managed forests and printed on demand. But apart from reference books, most of us just read them once and then - what? Much better to borrow from a library, where the same book can be used by maybe hundreds of readers over its lifetime.
TRC, good points. Another thing everyone should do is donate their old books to libraries if they don't think they will ever read them again. And *never* throw out your old books! I've seen people throw perfectly good books out with the garbage, talk about waste!
I think it's outstanding that there is a blogger-(google)-driven ad for the Kindle e-reader above the comments box.
I see a lot of handwaving and no figures on actual costs in your blog posting, and I also see one other thing missing from your thinking: in addition to books, many to most ereaders can (easily or with a little work) replace newspapers as well as books.
As far as device pitching goes: my ereader is a Palm TX. If I had my druthers, I'd still be using my old handspring, but I left it behind on public transit a while back. The current tool is pretty rugged and used for much more than just books, and cost far less (on ebay) than any of the newer ereaders do.
Anon, that is amusing. :) I have no control over them, though, of course.
I'd agree with you on newspapers, we can probably reduce them a lot, although it seems like they're going out of business anyway. More people getting their news over the net is good.
In the end, when we are past peak-oil, we just might not be able to manufacture a lot of these devices anyway, we'll need the remaining precious supplies of oil for more important things. This is why they are unsustainable. We should always been able to make books though, so long as we don't keep deforesting everything.
Every year 2.35 billion books, 24 billion newspapers and 359 million magazines are published in the US (source: Purdue Research Foundation and US Environmental Protection Agency, 1996).
Not taking in consideration additional 115 billion sheets, printed every year from personal computers (source: Worldwatch Institute), 17 billion catalogs and 65 billion pieces of direct mail (source: American Forest and Paper Association) and considering the average of a book/newspaper was 1 lb, we consuming 1,015 gallons of water just to process the pulp, as 324 liters are needed to produce 1Kg of paper (Source: Environment Canada).
The paper and cellulose industry is the third largest user of fossil fuels worldwide (Source: Garner, JW Energy Conservation Practices Offer Environmental and Cost Benefit. Pulp & Paper, October 2002).
Besides, it contributes with dust, proliferation of dust mites, methane release (by rotten), and the release of dioxin (by product of chlorine gas used in paper bleaching).
The books distribution chain is a very complex process, which produces CO2 in the transportation (back and forth as many books are returned every day to the editors), employ resources such as air-conditioning and the use of chemicals to keep the facilities where books are stored and smoke as a large part of such books end up being burned.
Ebook readers will eventually replace the PC, which means we will not be producing more electronic devices as we do today...
I am pretty sure your vision is quite partial and if you research the sources I mentioned above you will start seeing from a very different perspective.
Good luck
Thanks for the stats, peixe. I completely agree we need to change the industry to reduce much of the waste. I also mention in another article that junk mail should simply be banned.
If we get rid of the waste and inefficiency, and especially if we can move to on demand printing, we can greatly improve things, and ensure that our use of resources for books and paper is kept at a sustainable level.
Well, seeing that airlines had a larger drop in traffic in 2009 than in 2001 (post 9/11!), and there is zero chance of economic recovery in the U.S., some things about e-readers (and lots of gadgets) become clear.
We can already imagine a world without space travel, because we have that now. Who knew 1969 would be the apogee of our scifi achievements. Now imagine the faraway world of 2015, and there's no such thing as passenger airlines. If we can't even keep planes in the air, will we have server farms, cell towers and all of the support systems that eReaders require? Doubtful
Currently, print may be more wasteful and inefficient as described by some readers, but it has the potentiality to be carried on with some pulp, a press, an awl and some leather. eReaders future is not nearly so bright.
Thanks for the comments Anon. Yes, if we need to, we can always produce books on a small and local scale, without needing any large infrastructure to do so. If the industrial economy collapses, how do you make more e-readers?
Btw, I agree space exploration is probably close to an end, I wrote another article about that in case you're interested. This is a bit sad for me, since I grew up hoping to see people land on Mars.
Post a Comment