As an avid reader and conscientious consumer, I am interested in aligning my book-buying habits with environmental values. What is the most eco-friendly way to read books?
Asked by Lucia Constantine, '10, Palo Alto, Calif.
Let's take a look at a direct comparison between an e-reader, such as the Kindle, and paper books. The green press initiative estimates that over its lifetime, the carbon footprint of an e-reader is equivalent to that of somewhere between 30 and 70 paper books. The range is so wide because this estimate depends on a number of assumptions about the e-reader and your personal habits when it comes to reading, like when, where and how often. If you are an avid reader and intend to hang on to your reader for a few years, an e-reader is probably an eco-friendly choice.
If you are considering an e-reader, here’s breakdown of some major considerations when weighing whether to buy one or not:
Water:
As with most manufacturing processes, building books and e-readers takes water. It takes seven gallons of water to produce a single paper book. An e-reader takes 79 gallons. That's about 11 paper books to one e-reader. Since the average e-reader owner will go through 11 books in under five months, and since each e-book takes only about an eighth of a gallon of water to produce, once you’ve got your e-reader there is significant savings in water per book. For this criterion, e-readers win.
Paper books: 0 E-reader: 1
Trees:
I couldn’t find data on how many trees it takes to make an e-reader, but it’s pretty easy to estimate trees used for paper books. One tree can produce about 8,330 pages, depending on the quality of the pages. Most books use low quality paper, but magazines, textbooks and those big, glossy, coffee-table books use high quality paper that takes about twice as much wood to produce. If a typical novel has 150 pieces of paper, then 55.5 books can be made from one tree, and you'd have to read that many books on an e-reader to save one tree. At a rate of one book per week, you wouldn't quite save a tree each year. Since there is also a growing movement toward recycled paper, which prevents the consumption of new trees, I’ll give this one to e-readers, but clearly the advantage is not as great as one might have thought.
Paper books: 0 E-reader: 2
Precious Metals:
Books don't have too many precious metals in them. E-readers, on the other hand, use gold and other precious metals in their circuit boards. They also use lithium in their rechargeable batteries. These metals are non-renewable resources and are often mined in ways that are neither humane nor good for the environment.
Paper books: 1 E-reader: 2
Chemicals:
Where printed books get away clean in the precious metals department, they make up for in harmful chemicals. Making the ink can involve some unpleasant chemicals. There is small movement toward using soy-based ink, but soy products come with their own concerns. The binding agents in books are mostly glue these days, and these, too, contain volatile and unpleasant compounds.
Paper books: 1 E-reader: 3
Transportation:
Both books and e-readers have to be transported to the vender, and then to your home. Driving five miles to the bookstore to buy a book emits five times the carbon it took to produce it. Since you can download e-books from any Internet connection, you don’t have to drive anywhere to get a new one. You can lower the environmental cost of a book by ordering it online and having it delivered to your house.
Paper books: 1 E-reader: 4
Electricity Demands During Use:
Innovations like E-Ink keep operational energy demands low for dedicated e-readers. On the other hand, paper books don't need to be plugged in for recharging. Books do need an alternate light source and some newer e-readers use less energy to charge than a bedside lamp does to light your latest mystery novel. E-Ink is different than an LCD screen, however, so you would need a bedside lamp to read at night just as you would for a paper book. It’s therefore unclear which has the advantage here so I’m going to call this one a tie and give neither a point.
Paper books: 1 E-reader: 4
Recycling:
In our consumerist culture, e-readers are likely to be abandoned as soon as new model comes out. They could be tossed into a landfill, sent to recycling centers of dubious credentials, or—if they are not broken—passed on to someone else. E-readers, with their mix of rare earth elements, PVC and glass are much harder to recycle than books and can pose significant health risks.
Books are simpler to recycle since they are made of paper. Books can also be passed on to family or friends, sold to a second-hand bookstore, or donated to a library or charity. As the New York Times points out though, a lot of books are incinerated rather recycled, which is not eco-friendly. Overall, I’m giving this to books anyway.
Paper books: 2 E-reader: 4
Overall carbon footprint:
As we said at the beginning of the Nitty-gritty answer, e-readers have a huge carbon footprint. Almost two-thirds of an e-reader's carbon footprint is due to manufacturing. This is the same amount of carbon that it takes to make 40-50 books. The rest of the carbon footprint for an e-reader is a mix of carbon usage during its useful lifespan and recycling; the same goes for books, but the total is likely to be smaller for books, so they get the point.
Paper books: 3 E-reader: 4
Given these parameters, the e-reader is slightly more eco-friendly. If the price isn’t prohibitive, and you read at least 30 to 40 books a year, it’s probably your most sustainable option. Whether you end up getting an e-reader or not, enjoy your reading.
Acata Felton, '12, is a biology major.
