The debate on the switch from the printed page to electronic ‘ebook’ form has been brewing on Nature Network for a while (see here, here, and here), but there is factor that has yet to be addressed: the environmental impact of books vs. ebooks. Today I found this great article in Environmental Science & Technology in which the author compares the environmental costs for each medium. Overall, ebooks win out for their reduced carbon footprint, but still generate some potentially nasty waste when they’re thrown out.
I’ll let you read the article yourself, but I wanted to leave you with an interesting tidbit regarding the environmental impact of newspapers and the various ways to read them (i.e. in print, on an e-reader, or online):
”...reading online for 30 minutes has the same overall effect as reading a print newspaper.”
And here I thought that I was being ‘environmental’ (whatever that means) by avoiding actual newspapers like the plague.
I wonder with the life-cycle analysis of printing out journal articles vs. online vs. e-reader would show? As I am in the process of slowly moving my office overseas, I decided to get rid of virtually all the paper copies of journal articles that I had, and I can tell you that over the past five years, I accumulated an obscene amount of paper.
As environmentally friendly or unfriendly eMedia may turn out to be, I have trouble seeing the demise of books/newspapers/magazines. Sure, there will be cutbacks, but I think the print media is in better shape than music companies since there’s a physical difference (and most would say a massive advantage) to holding a book, seeing the artistic qualities of a magazine, etc.
I agree, Jeff – e is good for some, print is also good for some (lots). Disclaimer: I’m an oldie.
I completely agree with you both. In fact, the article I linked to actually suggests that paper doesn’t have that different of an environmental impact versus, say, reading the same content on your computer. I just thought it was interesting to think about when considering what medium you choose to read. It would be nice if we had the option to similar life cycle analysis on other supposedly ‘green’ products such as compact fluorescent light bulbs. I’ve actually heard that in some colder localities it’s ‘better’ to use the old standard incandescent bulbs because the heat they produce offsets using traditional ways to heat your home. Now how did I get talking about this and how does this relate to ebooks? Anyway…
”…reading online for 30 minutes has the same overall effect as reading a print newspaper.”
The problem with this kind of argument is that it isn’t real world. In my case:
a) I normally only read newspapers in restaurants/bars, i.e. multiuse papers so my carbon footprint is much less than someone buying a paper (and I don’t want to eat breakfast over a laptop)
b) The 30 minutes of online reading – what resources wouldn’t be used if I didn’t do it? The will be minimal change to the server/internet useage, and my computer would have been switched on anyway, so the incremental impact is negligable.
So it seems it doesn’t really matter how I read newspapers, and I suspect this sort of complexity applies to many e-book versus print arguments. (Does that take into account buying secondhand books, for instance?)
In the end there are much bigger influences we can have on our carbon footprints, and it’s better to stick to the medium that works best for the use. With most books, I’d suggest, that’s still paper at the moment.
”…reading online for 30 minutes has the same overall effect as reading a print newspaper.”
I do not substitute the Origin of Species in Book paper for ebook.
Brian, your points are good ones, I have witnessed similar lines applied to artificial vs real Christmas trees, and disposable vs cloth nappies. The initial assumption about which is the most “environmentally friendly” does not (arguably!) bear scrutiny when you apply your kind of “real world” reasoning—which is another way of putting what Nick writes in his interesting post, I guess.
Right on Brian, there are an awful lot of assumptions in a study like that, but don’t you think they are still worthy of the effort just for the sake of making people more conscious of what they are consuming?
As an aside, I was thinking this morning about how maybe the resistance to ebooks is similar to how the music industry is going through a major revolution in the digital era right now. Actual album sales are at an all time low, digital sales are seemingly rising by the day, and everyone has an ipod to listen to their music. I’ve actually completely abandoned buying actual physical copies of albums now and buy everything exclusively in a digital format. The amount of space I save in CD cases alone is worth not having the liner notes (who reads those things anyways?). People will argue over sound fidelity (as they will argue over the ‘feel’ of paper), but mp3s are now a main fixture in the music industry. The future of ebooks is unknown, but their convenience, portability, and cost-friendliness are likely to make them an integral part of publishing in the future.