Atlantic Business Channel

« A Problem Looming For Mobile Applications | Main | Government Subsidies Have Wall Street Throwing Money Into Wind »

Aug 31 2009, 4:15 pm by Derek Thompson

Are Regular Books Greener Than the Amazon Kindle?

Of course not. But the New York Times publishes the self-evident findings of a redundant survey on the question: Are E-Readers Greener Than Books? That's not a real question. One is basically a downloadable file living on a small computer.  The other is made of dead trees and barrels of ink and printing presses, and it travels on fossil fuel-burning planes and trucks. Next week's question: Is it greener to watch Casablanca or fly to Casablanca?

The study in question points out that the carbon emitted by an e-Reader like the Kindle is "offset after the first year of use." Interesting trivia from the article:

"In 2008, the U.S. book and newspaper industries combined resulted in the harvesting of 125 million trees, not to mention wastewater that was produced or its massive carbon footprint."
And statistical proof of the Kindle's eco-dominance over regular books:

The Cleantech study concluded that purchasing three e-books per month for four years produces roughly 168 kilograms of CO2 throughout the Kindle's lifecycle, compared to the estimated 1,074 kilograms of CO2 produced by the same number of printed books.

:: Comments (2) :: Share This

Comments (2)

jbertman

Wow - not a trace of skepticism here, eh? The study is swallowed, the conclusions endorsed without a moment's hesitation. Did you actually read the story this is drawn from, or the study it cites?

Holes, holes, holes. What about the CO2 created by *manufacturing* these millions of flimsy pieces of poisonous plastic, and the innards that contain mysterious components that the maker will not disclose? (That much was mentioned in the original story, at least.)

What about the inevitable upgrades, and the soon-to-be obsolete early versions of the Kindle that never biodegrade, soon to be vroomed into pyramids by giant Wall-Es?

The glib reference to 125 million trees sounds like napkin math - this much paper must equal this many trees. Newspapers (and many books) are printed on recycled paper, so they're not killing trees, but don't let me stop you.

Ignore used books, while you're at it - the ultimate renewable resource. My library includes books published in the 1930s and earlier. Amazingly, the technology still works perfectly. I can read every word. Check back with me in 80 years - let me know if that Kindle you bought in 2009 is still performing at a high level.

Joshua Lyle (Replying to: jbertman)

Also, all of those books are sequestered carbon, and the bulk of the timber came from managed forests and tree farms -- trees planted and replanted for just this purpose.

Green-ness analyses always seem to be plagued by a vagary of evaluative criteria.