What is the environmental impact of e-readers compared to paper books? This question has kept experts running in mathematical circles ever since e-reader sales boomed in 2007. There are literally dozens of factors that could be weighed in determining the eco-friendliness of e-readers. How many trees must be cut down to manufacture the product? How much water is used to produce one e-reader? One paper book? How much electricity and fossil fuels are consumed in the manufacturing process? How many nonrenewable natural resources are used? What about toxic chemicals? These are just a sampling of the questions environmental experts are asking. I’ve gone as deep in my research as one possibly can using the internet, and have come out more confused than ever. So instead of trying to answer these questions comprehensively, I’m instead going to outline the myriad of factors that must be weighed when trying to figure out the environmental impact of e-readers and paper books, draw my own conclusions, and let you do the same.
Water Consumption
Every year, the publishing industry uses over a hundred billion gallons of water to print untold numbers of books. Researchers estimate that seventy nine gallons of water are needed to manufacture one e-reader and seven gallons for one printed book (two gallons if the book is printed on recycled paper). E-books require a little under two cups of water to produce. Doing the math, an e-reader becomes more efficient in its water use after reading about a dozen books on it.1 It’s realistic to expect that someone who spends $150 on an e-reader will read at least that many books on it during its lifetime, so in this category, the e-reader obviously comes out on top.
Deforestation & Recycling
According to Conservatree, the average tree can be processed to produce about eight thousand pages.2 Lets say that the average book contains about 150 pieces of paper (remember there are two numbered pages per one physical page). This would mean that the average tree can produce roughly 50 books. That means that you would have to read 50 books on your e-reader in order to save one tree, right? Perhaps, but it’s important to remember that, as of 2008, approximately 600 power plants in the United States were powered by coal.3 This is a significant percentage of the total number of power plants in the U.S., so there’s a good chance that some trees are being destroyed to charge your e-reader. The plus side of this is that most e-readers have an extremely long battery life, thus using very little electricity to power them. We also have to factor in the 5-10% of recycled paper used in the publishing industry.4 All this taken into account, it would seem that e-readers have less impact on forests than paper books do.
Nonrenewable Resources
E-readers, like all electronic devices, require the extraction of exotic metals, including lithium (used to make the rechargeable batteries that power them) and columbite-taltalite, or coltan for short. Much of the world’s coltan comes from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where slave and child labor is often used by unscrupulous military groups to mine it. This may not be an environmental issue, but it certainly raises some questions about ethics. Gold is also used in trace amounts to build the circuits. Based on the research I have found, most of the minerals used to produce e-readers comes from common sand and gravel, and the same can be said for books.5 All said, books appear to win out over e-readers when it comes to using nonrenewable resources.
Chemicals & Toxic Waste
The manufacturing process of both e-readers and paper books requires the use of toxic chemicals, but those found in the ink of printed books are nowhere near as scary as those used to manufacture electronics. Heavy metals such as mercury, cadmium, and lead are commonly found in the hardware of such devices, as are brominated flame retardants, phthalates, and beryllium–all extremely toxic, carcinogenic, or both.6 What’s worse is that many of the “recycling” programs set up to deal with discarded e-readers ship the machines to China or other developing countries where unprotected workers dismantle them by hand and are exposed to lethal substances in the process.7 The alternative? Throwing the reader away in a landfill, where the dangerous chemicals will leach into the ground and water. This is not to say that the printing industry is without health and environmental problems, but the human risk factor is significantly higher for e-readers, and the ethics are seriously questionable. On this issue, the paper book comes out a winner.
Transportation & Fossil Fuels
The manufacturing process of an individual book isn’t much to balk at, but the transportation from factory to warehouse to bookstore or home is worth considering. Ordering books online is far more efficient than driving to the bookstore to buy them. Shipping one book 500 miles by air produces approximately the same amount of pollution as creating the book itself. On the flip side, driving just five miles to the bookstore and back produces 10 times the pollution as producing the book does. Manufacturing one e-reader produces the same amount of pollution as driving 300 miles to a store, plus the pollution created to ship the device to the consumer.8 If you drive to the bookstore every time you buy a book, an e-reader is eventually going to pay itself off in environmental karma. Ultimately though, purchasing books online is likely going to end up using less fossil fuels overall.
Electricity Usage
Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris wrote an excellent article for the New York Times which sums up the electric efficiency of e-readers very well.
If you like to read a book in bed at night for an hour or two, the light bulb will use more energy than it takes to charge an e-reader, which has a highly energy-efficient screen. But if you read in daylight, the advantage tips to a book.
Basically, if you do most of your reading without using any lamps, paper books are more efficient. If you do most of your reading using artificial light, an e-reader would be more efficient. Assuming that most people turn on a lamp while reading, the e-reader wins out on the electricity issue.
Disposal & Biodegradability
Individuals usually dispose of unwanted books in eco-friendly ways, such as donating them to a library, taking them to a book exchange, or giving them to a thrift store. Unfortunately, libraries and bookstores that receive too many donations often incinerate them or send them to a landfill. In this case any harmful chemicals in the ink will either be released into the air or leached into the ground and have a doubly harmful impact on the environment as its manufacture did.9 At least books are biodegradable. E-readers on the other hand, are not. Composed of plastics and metals which contain toxic chemicals and heavy metals, e-readers usually see one of two fates. Either they find their way into the hands of a poor worker in a third world country who disassembles them by hand (see above), or they are dumped in a landfill, never to biodegrade, destined to leach those nasty chemicals into the earth for decades to come. One up for printed books.
Conclusion
Both the publishing and electronics industries have a long way to go if they ever want to be considered eco-friendly. Both printed books and e-readers have their environmental pluses and minuses. The e-reader comes out on top in 3 of the 7 categories listed above: water consumption, deforestation, and electricity usage. Printed books win 4 out of 7 times: nonrenewable resources, toxic waste, fossil fuels, and biodegradability. Deforestation is a huge issue worldwide, and electricity usage contributes to this problem. Water consumption also poses a threat, though we have not seen the effects of it too much in the U.S. Perhaps my biggest concern is toxic waste, which both e-readers and printed books produce to some degree. But there is no doubt that it is significantly easier to dispose of a paper book safely than an e-reader. The toll that electronics are taking on poverty-stricken workers in China is devastating. Disgusting. Downright cruel. And there seems to be no end in sight. At least printers are starting to clue in to the potential of making nontoxic ink from soybeans. In the electronics industry, there are no alternatives in sight for PVC, heavy metals, and phthalates. For these reasons, I’m sticking with paper books.
1Brian Palmer, The Washington Post
2Conservatree Statistics
3U.S. Energy Information Administration
4Eco-Libris Book Publishing Industry Statistics
5Daniel Goleman, The New York Times
6Greenpeace International
760 Minutes, CBS News
8See endnote number five.
9See endnote number eight.
The last thing I want is another electronic gadget to add to my busy day. I already have a computer, iphone, and enough electronics to stare at or use. It is a pleasure to have more time with a battery free book. Computers and ereaders are just another way for us to use electronics that distract us from real things, real people, love, friends, nature, and good food. Too much TV is a problem, but now we have even more new forms of TV watching on many new kinds of electronics. Will we make enough time for quiet contemplation, prayer, privacy, deep reflection, calm, less distractions, less stress, and natural simplicity?
A paper book, paper letter, paper essay, and writing with a pen and paper are all far more personal. We must not lose this important part of our history and civilization.
You bring up a lot of excellent points. Perhaps because I am so used to living in a free nation where access to information is virtually unlimited, I hadn’t really thought about the possible consequences of giving more power to information-controlling companies like google and Amazon. But I think if we’re not careful a future where information is controlled and limited by an elite few is within the realm of possibility.
I also appreciated your comment about the distraction of electronics in our everyday lives. “Will we make enough time for quiet contemplation, prayer, privacy, deep reflection, calm, less distractions, less stress, and natural simplicity?” So many studies these days indicate that we are not making enough time (and sometimes no time at all) for any of these things. And electronics undoubtedly play a huge role in that. We have forgotten the importance of these simple practices and tried to replace them with more efficient methods, but the very purpose of prayer, reflection, simplicity, etc. lies in the non-efficiency of them! The replacement of personal relationships with electronics-centered ones (texting the kids when dinner is ready, posting family photos on Facebook instead of sending them framed in the mail, emailing instead of writing a snail mail letter, etc) also has tremendous consequences. E-readers are just one more electronic gadget which will lure us away from a more meaningful life.
I loved your article. I am thinking about getting an e-reader sometime and your article was very informative in the pros and cons of both books and e-readers. Thanks.
I do have a question though. In any of your research, did you find anything about how one can be affected by reading on a screen vs. paper?
That’s an excellent question! I wrote an article comparing the severity of eye strain that a reader will experience when reading paper books and e-readers. I also plan to write an article in the future discussing the potential health effects that the 3G wireless technology (used in e-readers and cell phones) may have.
There are a few more issues many do not address.
Which books are better and necessary for most to read well? Does everyone really need a few thousand books? How many books does each person need? How many will be shared and over what time period?
Ereaders and ebooks are more expensive than buying many used books. What kinds of bad jobs are needed to get more money to buy ereaders?
Ereaders will be stolen or break. Many ereaders will end up in land fills with their toxic wastes.
A book can be quickly flipped through to find a page, quote, or side note.
A book can be beautiful, artistic, with fine bounding, and passed along for generations. One owns a book, some for a lifetime. An ebook is not tactile and owned as an object.
If more and more use ebooks, then how will used books be wasted due to this?
Will many library books also be wasted?
Books are reused for hundreds of years, not like ereaders or computers.
A public library clearly is best, where many people share the same books, or a place where books are recycled and reread for a long time. A book can be read over and over again by many people and given away. Ereaders are not given out to another person easily.
No one can read thousands of books really well, so it is irrelevant how many books are stored on a more expensive investment of ereaders over a lifetime and all the resources to make them and to recycle them.
Books probably help kids to learn how to read well and to concentrate better.
Books are more private, and ereaders can record what you read and how often.
In the real world, before ereaders get better, the world will have a lot more toxic waste due to more and more old devices.
Ebook and ereader profits will go to who? How does the market change?
Will excellent writers and researchers be paid enough? No
Will more work be easily stolen?
Why an either/or argument? This is a false dichotomy. Many will still read and use both options, so the ereader is just adding to the first choice of having access to books that already exist.
The toxic wastes of ereaders and manufacturing and attempts to recycle carry far more ethical and moral weight.
Toxic wastes and terrible jobs to deal with this mess is horrible and immoral. Mining is also very dangerous, expensive, and it is hard to measure all the negative human impacts.
What are the jobs like for the production of ereaders? How many more mines are needed? Where? Who is affected?
Clearly books, which already exist now, are better without manufacturing billions of ereaders and dealing with toxic waste over the next 100 years. Mining the resources, along with oil needed for plastics, is worse than tree farms hemp farms. By products of certain crops can be used for books instead of being wasted.
One can truly enjoy and feel a book. One can cherish a book. A book can be written in, with fine hand writing. A book can be given as a gift and passed along for generations.
One can love a book. Can one love an ebook the same way?
These are some excellent points you make. Interesting what you said about children being able to learn better with paper books… I’m planning on writing a follow up article that will address the issues of children using e-readers, and the health impact they may have on the general population.
My biggest hang-up about e-readers has to do with your last question: I cannot love an ebook like a real book. Picking up a solid object, flipping through pages, and smelling the sweet scent of paper and ink is an essential part of the reading experience for me. Sure, I read some stuff online, but I can’t stick my nose in an e-reader and lose myself for hours like I can with an old-fashioned book.
A real paper book is best with kids as they are going to bed. A paper book is quiet, no buttons, and more restful for going to bed with. It is not another electronic gadget with lights and distractions.
Amazon is also becoming a giant corporation that will market and control books like no other. Do we want to give so much power to one company? Will they greatly control knowledge, education, and books in the future?
If we support the ebook industry we will clearly have less real physical community libraries and less local newspapers, excellent journalists, and less paid, professional reporters. Do you really want that? Why? We vote with our dollars and used books is clearly the green choice, along with recycled paper and smaller publishers and well paid authors who can make a living with good writing.
Amazon and other large corporations are just out to make lots of money and to sell you more gadgets like kindles. Ebooks are not new, Google put many online as well as smaller groups like Gutenberg.org
Amazon is trying to sell us something repackaged and new, but books online are not new and they have many have been free in the past. Every computer or phone is an ereader, so do not buy a kindle or kobo. Amazon and Google is trying to control the market and free flow of information. They should not have such a giant monopoly.
A real book makes us focus for longer, read more, and read one or a few books really well, over and over. We become closer with another human by reading their real paper book and connecting with history. Online reading, looking at a screen, and reading on the internet is not the same experience. We often read only small bits of information online or on our computers, unlike a long book where one can be focused, alone, and not distracted.
What about sacred texts? Is a great book, a Bible for example, as great and good as an ebook? A Koran can be an ebook and be the same?
Ebooks and ereaders are not the same. They are different.
Used books are the most environmentally friendly and recycled for generations if the books are well taken care of. New electronic gadgets are obsolete in a few years and add to the waste stream fast. A paper book is easily biodegradable.
We must educate more people about the reality and truth about this issue. We are being marketed to by Amazon and Kobo who want to sell us their new products and gadgets.
Our privacy, libraries, good journalism, freedoms, and reading skills are at stake. We need good books and great books in paper form for a proper education. Many kids can no longer focus well, for long, and their writing skills are lacking as well.
Ereaders are clearly more toxic, wasteful, and more expensive than used and recycled books.
This is exactly the information I was looking for. I was thinking of buying an e-reader and now this article is making me reconsider. I was mainly thinking of the disposal of e-readers and the amount of toxins they carry. I usually buy electronics according to Greenpeace electronics guide but most e-reader companies are either doing very badly on the list or are not listed.
I had not even thought of the daylight versus night reading before reading this article (oh well, I thought I had a degree in science
). I like your detailed, comprehensive and systematic ways of explaining things. Thank you!
I have a question though: is it guaranteed that printed material does not involve any child or slave labor?
I had no idea Greenpeace had a green electronics guide! Thanks for telling me about that!
Excellent question about printed materials. I suppose there’s no concrete way for the consumer to know for certain whether the publishing industry uses child labor when printing overseas. I have never heard any reports of this, nor does a search on the topic yield any results. I think there’s probably a lot less of a chance of child/slave labor being used by the publishing industry, especially with companies who print their books in the US (which many more now do). Ink and paper manufacturing doesn’t seem to have any apparent ties with child/slave labor either.
A couple of things I have a habit of checking when I buy a book are 1)where it was printed and 2) if it notes that is was printed in an environmentally friendly way or on recycled paper. These can usually be found on the copyright page.
This is a really informative post, thank you! I’ve been looking into the issues about non-renewable metals in electronics, which is important but not usually addressed very well. Your point about having fewer devices, if possible, is a great one. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to read long things like books on a normal computer screen – it hurts my eyes too much after awhile – so ended up getting an ereader for traveling and reading ebooks.
I totally understand what you mean. I can’t read too long on a regular computer screen either.
Hi Kate….I prefer paper books, but am a eBook reader as well….promarily for books over 400 pages (easier on the hands) and travel easier…LOL
Good point about long books. I passed up buying an enormous copy of War and Peace a few weeks ago because I thought, “This is going to be ridiculously hard to read comfortably!”
I enjoyed this article a lot, which I discovered via Beck’s Book Picks. A friend of mine and I were having this conversation the other day going back and forth about print vs. eReaders. Technology changes so fast that I can see one person upgrading their eReader several times, even if the older model still works. I get hung up on that with the lack of recyclable options. To be honest, I do own an eReader, but still find I read a majority of my books in print.
I was thinking about getting en e-reader before I researched this article, but now I’m just trying to make more of an effort to get my books secondhand or online. It’s kind of a quandary since neither e-readers or books are very eco-friendly.
I get 85% of my books from my local used book store. I always know its a good book when its full of creases!
Same here, about 85%. Though with the economy the way it is that number might be inching up! = )
What an incredible piece. Amazingly written and very thorough perspective on e books against old fashion books. I’m guilty for buying books galore and have yet to make the jump into the E world. Will have to make the change after this article. Thanks for making the difference and again Bravo! Keep writing and churning out words for all to read and THINK.
Thanks for the encouraging words, Aisle B! I’m guilty of buying tons of books too, but I’m trying to get as many of them secondhand as possible.
This was an excellent article. It sounds like I should read a book during the day and an e-reader at night. LOL. I mainly read books, but when I do e-read its on my computer or with my husbands OLD PDA that I put mobipocket on. I am probably not e-reading very envirmontally friendly. However, I have a hard time paying for e-books b/c I don’t actually feel like i own them. Once I buy an e-book I am sorta stuck with it. With a book, I can pass it to friends or trade it in at a used book store.
I think the most environmentally friendly way to read e-books is probably by doing exactly what you’re doing–reading them on a multipurpose device like a computer or PDA. The fewer gadgets, the better in my opinion. Personally, I think using a little extra electricity has way less of an impact in the long run than buying a non-biodegradable device filled with heavy metals and carcinogenic toxins.
Quite informative, as the laws of physics teaches all matter has its opposing force. For this reason I have to go with printed books. Right now its easier on my eyes. I save the electronics for movie or TV watching… unless it’s a concert. Those I like to see live;-) Nice work.