E-reader versus the real thing: Which is Greener?
I cannot decide if I think that e-readers will eventually replace all books, or if books are here to stay. I sure hope that the latter is correct; I would hate to live in a world where I would have to stare at a screen to read everything (yes, I know these things are supposed to have screens on them that make it look like you are reading from the pages of a book). I already spend too much time staring at the computer, why add another screen to my life?
Many people see the Kindles, Sony readers, iPads, Nooks, and more as a step towards a “greener” environment. Well, just how much good does an e-reader do for the environment in comparison to a book with paper pages? Here are some fun comparisons.
Most of these comparisons come from an article in the NY Times a while back. They obtained their conclusions by doing a life-cycle assessment. This assessment evaluates the ecological impact of a product at the different stages in its life. Here is a summary of what they found.
In terms of the materials, one e-reader uses about 33 pounds of minerals such as columbrite-tantalite. It also needs about 79 gallons of water during its production. In comparison, a book uses about 2/3 of a pound of materials and 2 gallons of water to make the pulp for the paper. During the manufacturing process, an e-reader uses 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels that result in 66 pounds of CO2 while books (recycled or not) use 2 kilowatt hours and don’t even produce 1/100th of the greenhouse gasses that the manufacturing of an e-reader entails. In terms of transportation, driving 5 miles to the bookstore and back to get a book will cause about 10 times the pollution and resource use as what went into the making the book. However, you’ll need to drive to a store 300 miles away to create the amount of toxic impacts that result from making the e-reader. As for the actual reading– your e-reader wins this battle because of its high energy efficient screen (unless you read your book without a light).
The NY Times has come to the conclusion that “with respect to fossil fuels, water use and mineral consumption, the impact of one e-reader payback equals roughly 40 to 50 books. When it comes to global warming, though, it’s 100 books; with human health consequences, it’s somewhere in between.”
