Is the Kindle really greener?
“Paper or plastic?” is not a question you expect to apply to how you consume reading material. It is a question generally reserved for the grocery store – determining which material will best serve for carrying the bounty of dishwasher detergent and cereal from one place to another. However, with the mass availability of e-readers rivaling the printed word, like Amazon’s Kindle, the paper or plastic dichotomy moves into an entirely new realm. E-readers are marketed as “green”, but are e-readers really better for the environment? What is the right answer to “paper or plastic?”
The best way to answer that question is by conducting a dust-to-dust comparison, or life-cycle assessment (LCA). LCA’s investigate the full environmental impact from production to disposal, and all resources used in-between. One such study says plastic beats paper, hands-down. Erika Engelhaupt, of Environmental Science & Technology, did a study in June of 2008 where she estimated that by reading 20 e-books a year, plus 2 newspapers as e-book subscriptions, she’d save approximately 700lbs of paper in newspapers and 20-40 lbs in books. This equated to saving about one tree per year, according to her calculations.
To assist her with the life-cycle assessment she turned to Greg Kozak, who had conducted an LCA for his senior thesis at the University of Michigan in 2003 comparing e-readers and college textbooks. According to Kozak’s study, the reason e-readers win isn’t just about the trees. “There’s a lot you should look at in terms of the natural resources needed to produce a book, but there’s also the physical storage of those books, shipping books, and consumers driving to the bookstore,” he told Engelhaupt, “with an e-reader, you eliminate those.” When looking at greenhouse gasses, his study found that paper textbooks produced 4 times more greenhouse gasses than an e-book reader did, and conventional books required over 3 times the raw materials and 78 times more water than e-books. The Kindle in particular is greener than most e-readers, requiring only a fraction of the energy resources per hour than most of its competitors, due to its non-backlit screen. Amazon also offers a recycling program for unwanted Kindles.
Personally, I’ve always been a bit skeptical of new technology that claims to be “greener” than the old stuff. I’m still not sold on the hybrid car argument because I wonder if the resources used for the extra components (such as batteries) actually use more petroleum in their manufacturing and distribution than the vehicle will conserve over its lifetime. I felt the same about the e-readers when they first came out. However, it’s hard to ignore the evidence that the Kindle just might be a step in the right direction.
I’d be curious to see what others think, and hear from any Kindle owners who wish to share their experiences.
To read the full study by Engelhaupt: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es087144e
For Greg Kozak’s senior thesis: http://css.snre.umich.edu/css_doc/CSS03-04.pdf
I’m curious to see what you think. Take my poll:
September 3, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I’m not yet a Kindle user because the price point is too steep for my tastes at the moment; but it’s only a matter of time. I know there have been a number of studies showing the Kindle is greener. I personally think the data are too few at this point to make any determination at this moment in time (read number of e-readers produced); ultimately e-readers will win out logically particularly as we master more efficient ways to produce them. the proliferation of magnetic induction as a means of power, and fewer toxic chemicals both in the device and in production waste if not a better way to break down toxins during this process will ensure this. It’s one of those things that if everyone was on the bandwagon we’d get there sooner kind of things (more efficient) but there is much more at play when it comes to books than just the materials and the waste. the relationship of people and their books have an element that is philosophical, and because of this, it will take time to get there, and therefore a heavier impact on the environment in the mean time.
September 3, 2009 at 4:03 pm
You make a great point about the connection between reader and book. I’m unsure that e-readers will ever fully replace books, or that they should. There is something about flipping the pages of a book that is extremely satifying – the smell, the feel, etc. There will always be those books I need to buy.
However, I do think the majority of my books could be read with a Kindle with equal enjoyment to that of a physical book. Maybe not the same enjoyment, but equal. Those Kindle owners I have spoken to are avid fans, the majority saying the device has reignited a love of reading that had long been extinguished. Severl said they’d read more during the few months of owning the Kindle than they had all year.
Going back to the environmental issue – my research for this post highlighted to me just how one-sided the informational gap is. While there is a plethora of information available about resources and toxins involved in the printing and binding process for physical books, there is relatively little information readily available regarding the manufaturing of the Kindle and the components its made of. For example, Engelhaupt had to use a 5 year old senior thesis as her main source of e-reader research.
IMO, with the knowledge we have today, it seems that the Kindle offers more positives than negatives.
September 3, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I agree completely that the Kindle offers more environmental positives than negatives. But I think the philosophical issue of the book is very important here and is more often than not cast aside as unimportant.
Personally, (and please don’t hurt me) I won’t ever use an e-reader except for work purposes, if I can ever afford one. This is partially because, for me, reading is not about just words strung together on a page, it’s an experience. Books are living breathing things to some of us. For me, books are my life. I am a reader, a writer, and an editor–books are how I make my living. Personally, my quality of life would diminish severely if I were to just swap out my books for an e-reader.
I’m all for helping to make the world a better place and take care of our environment. But there are so many ways this can be done that do not decrease massively the quality of life of so many people out there who feel as I do. And I will do them happily. But books? Books are a huge part of my soul and without them, that part would die. Some might think this dramatic. But books are who I am.
September 3, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I think the digital medium is inevitable but as indicated, there is the perception of elevated importance of writing that is presented on parchment as opposed to digital copy not only by the reader but also the writer. There seems to be an inverse relationship with the proliferation of email, texting, and other digital forms of written communication and the quality of the writing. One needs to look no further than my own writing skills to illustrate this. A book in hand holds more meaning to the reader than just the words just as a handwritten note holds more meaning to the recipient than an email; after all, they had to think before they wrote, and focus on the grammar, spelling, and punctuation instead of relying on the guidance of a computer.
The replacement of paper as the medium of literature with some digital form is inevitable at some point whether in our lifetime or not is yet to be determined. There are some incredible advancements in paper-like digital medium which may offer the benefits of digital copy and also provide some texturally tangible experience. Perhaps this along with finding the right presentation style will aide in this progress.
But until we either separate the means of delivering written work from the quality of the content or we find a medium of delivering digital copy with some kind of tangible experience, this debate will stay around.