16 replies to this topic

[greenmama]

I have an e-reader and I love it. I also love all of my paper books. I'm not certain which is better for the environment.

Obviously the paper books use trees, but I'm not sure what all goes into the actual printing of books. What sort of pollution does that create and is it less or more than the pollution created in the manufacture of e-readers.

E-readers use electricity, but a solar charger could be used to offset this. The main problem I see would be the manufacture of the reader, and of course you aren't just going to buy one reader and never upgrade. So how recyclable are these readers?

Thoughts, ideas?

[artistry]

I am kind of biased against e-books, which I think are great for convenience, but I like my hard cover books, as I collect books. I love the look of stacked books on shelves. "o) I would think that e-books would be on the order of a mini computer or I-pad, in it's disposition, after usage.

[Hardison]

I prefer physical books to, but it seems hard to deny that electronic books are the future. Digital books will save a lot of trees, but I do wonder about being able to recycle the e-reader itself.

[ACSAPA]

I prefer real paper books. I can deal with digital magazines, because magazines are disposable anyway. But I like real books with pages. So I'm not planning to switch to electronic books until I have absolutely no choice. This is one area where I know I'm not being green but I don't want to change it.

[greenmama]

I did a little research and it turns out for now paper books are probably more green unless you do a lot amount of reading - 40 or more books a year.

http://www.themillio...ally-green.html

The above article goes very indepth into the subject. This should make those of you that aren't big e-reader fans feel better.

I'll continue using my ereader in addition to my beloved paper books. I think ereaders have a real future, but will always love the smell and feel of paper books. I feel better knowing I'm not one that replaces gadgets everytime a new one comes out. It also helps if when you do replace your ereader you recycle it properly.

[FlanneryCam]

I am a paper book fan. I will always be into paper books. But I read a lot. Probably 100 books or more a year. I keep my books, I re-read them, and if I get rid of one, I donate it to Goodwill or whatnot. So I'm not creating waste with my habit.

E-books aren't my thing. They're green in the sense that they are data. But--and here's the rub--how many e-readers will you go through in a period of 5 years? I know I go through about 2.5 iPods in 5 years. And it is impossible to recycle electronics! (I know it's not impossible... But it's not easy.)

[adam_a]

I'm a voracious reader as well, about 100 books a year. I either check mine out from the library or buy them used at Half Price Books. i very rarely buy them new.

I think the main problem with ereaders in that they come out with new and better ones too quickly that will lead to them being disposed of. They contain a bunch of bad stuff that shouldn't be put in landfills. They also take some sort of energy source to use while you can read a book by sunlight or candlelight (beeswax candles in my case). Also when I'm done with a book I can loan it out, give it as a gift, or sell it back to Half Price Books. You can't do that with an ebook.

Maybe I'm being a curmudgeon and resisting change here, but I think the real benefits of ereaders would be to replace newspapers, magazines, and text books.

[Sandra Piddock]

I read at least 150 books a year, and I prefer regular books, although I have an e-reader programme on my computer, so I suppose that's slightly more environmentally friendly than an e-reader. Books are expensive here in Spain, so I get a lot of my books from the local book exchanges. You pay 2 Euro for a book, then when you've read it, take it back and change it for another book and pay 1 Euro. There's a group of us who pass books around, so it's even cheaper, and the books get to be read again and again.

[Julie]

What a great question - to my shame I hadn't even though of this issue. I have an e-reader and as I read 2 or 3 books a week I find it very cost effective. I live in a remote place - so I also save on petrol and the resulting carbon footprint. I get newspapers on my e-reader and put my current writing projects on there (2 screenplays and 2 novels) - thus saving paper.

It is my first e-reader and I think that the way I use it is better for the environment than how I would have to source my "stuff" if I didn't have it.

However, you have made me aware of the recyling issues when I need to replace it - which I hope won't be for some time, unlike the person who's iPod lasts about two and a half years - I've had my iPod for 9 years and counting ......

[dissn_it]

My first thought was that the e-reader books would be better but after reading the posts here, I am not so certain. With the paper books, they can be read by lots of other people by donating them to libraries after reading them. They can also be recycled much easier. It is a great question and there does seem to be pros and cons to each type of book. As Shifter posted, the ebooks are an advantage to folks living in remote areas. I think that it depends on the individual and their situation as to which option is better for the environment.

[fancyfingers]

With the way society trades their gadgets in every time a new one comes out, I would say books are greener than ebooks. I can see the perks for those cute readers, but I will take a book over any computer or electrical gadget any day. The only power I trust is good, old fashioned elbow grease. In other words, a book will be there even when I lose power. I can light a candle and still read. If the power goes out, no reading.

[BuddhaStarlight]

I am old school and will never use one of those Kindles. I don't care if they are better or not, they're just plain wrong!

I just can't stand a lot of electronic energy around me. The computer exposes me to enough. The last thing I want to do is get off my computer when I'm done working for the day and go curl up in bed with another electronic item. I love that energetic "silence" that sitting somewhere quiet with a book brings me.

[Phil]

Well I'm a convert.  My wife got a Kindle Fire last Christmas and uses it every day.  I've taken it up as well and place it in a glad bag so I can soak in the tub and read.  I do like hard bounds too but going forward we'll only buy for the Kindle.  We have a Kindle Paper White on order as well, it is best for outside while the Fire is best inside.  The Paper White is supposed to weigh less than a paperback

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The only drawback I would see would be the batteries but books, as lovely as they are, are made from trees
that were cut down.
I would guess that a small percentage of them end up in libraries or recycled to second hand stores.

[Phil]

The batteries are rechargeable like a laptop so no frequent changes.  L-ion batteries last a long time and there are electronics recyclers so readers aren't all a detriment.  My wife has been slowly getting rid of her books and she donates them to our library.

I guess this begs the larger question, what if everyone in the world wanted a reader?  As a scientist and an optimist I think we could handle that.  The alternative, what if everyone in the world wanted a hundred books?  That in my mind would be worse.

I've been thinking about upgrade mentality, perhaps my home theater experience could shed some light.  Like most HT enthusiasts, I've gone from a 300 pound CRT projector behemoth to one digital projector after another.  I'm on my fourth now.  Each one has had lower fan noise, higher resolution, better contrast, and lower "black level" than the last.  All will show a picture but each upgrade has made the experience more and more enjoyable.  I will upgrade again in a year or three.

I've also gone from VHS to Laserdisc to DVD to now Blue Ray and eventually 4x Blue Ray, (already in the works).  Again each upgrade has made the HT experience better.

Most people have gone from 45's and LP's to CD's and now to Ipods/downloads as well for the same reason.

Since I don't even own a smart phone, I fail to see the need for constant upgrades but to someone who uses one all the time, my guess is they would say the same in defense of their pet "toy".

As a libertarian I also believe everyone in the world is entitled to the life we lead, we have no right to say "I got mine, too bad for you!"

So what is the answer?  If everyone on earth had a car, a refrigerator, a TV, a microwave, a game console, a smart phone, etc., what would the world look like?  I think the magic of true free market capitalism would automatically sort this out.  As resources became scarce, prices would go up and you'd have to work hard enough to afford what you wanted.  If you were lazy you wouldn't get to have as many 'goodies' as your hard working neighbor.

Of course free market capitalism has slowly been replaced with crony capitalism, capitalizing gains, socializing losses, etc. but that's a whole different discussion.   The good news is, in the end the free market always wins.  Even in highly controlled Soviet Russia, the black market accomplished what socialized central control could not.

As interesting as seeing a century in to the future might be, I'd opt to see a thousand years ahead.  I believe we humans will survive and thrive as a whole.  It will  be survival of the fittest of course, when has it not?  I wonder what the environment will be like then, the average life of an American would be like, if there is still such an animal.

OK, back on topic!

[Shortpoet-GTD]

When records went to tapes, I got a few; then I got a few cd's but not as enthusiastically as vinyl.
The same thing with VHS  tapes; they went to disc then to blue something..........I never made the transition.
I thought-screw them.
They just want me to buy more stuff-use more resources.
So I have a perfectly fine vcr (that's the other thing-when disc's first came out, you couldn't record on them
from tv, so why bother?), tons of "vinyl's" I still listen to, and a few cd's that skip.
New, imo, isn't always better.
Maybe old fashioned; more accurately, probably is cheap. (And stubborn refusal to their "buy" bs.

[Phil]

That's the way I feel about smart phones.  Service is expensive enough without data capabilities.  Some people spend $150/mo more than I do with my plain phone service.  That would buy me a dozen Blue Rays/mo!   The Blue Rays can be watched again and again, the data is used once and gone forever.