E-Reader Versus Book: The Eco-Math

With e-readers like Apple’s new iPad and Amazon’s Kindle touting their vast libraries of digital titles, some bookworms are bound to wonder if tomes-on-paper will one day become quaint relics. But the question also arises, which is more environmentally friendly: an e-reader or an old-fashioned book?

To find the answer, we turned to life-cycle assessment, which evaluates the ecological impact of any product, at every stage of its existence, from the first tree cut down for paper to the day that hardcover decomposes in the dump. With this method, we can determine the greenest way to read.

(A note about e-readers: some technical details — for instance, how those special screens are manufactured — are not publicly available and these products vary in their exact composition. We’ve based our estimates on a composite derived from available information. It’s also important to keep in mind that we’re focusing on the e-reader aspect of these devices, not any other functions they may offer.)

Step 1: Materials

One e-reader requires the extraction of 33 pounds of minerals. That includes trace amounts of exotic metals like columbite-tantalite, often mined in war-torn regions of Africa. But it’s mostly sand and gravel to build landfills; they hold all the waste from manufacturing wafer boards for the integrated circuits. An e-reader also requires 79 gallons of water to produce its batteries and printed wiring boards, and in refining metals like the gold used in trace quantities in the circuits.

A book made with recycled paper consumes about two-thirds of a pound of minerals. (Here again, the greatest mineral use is actually gravel, mainly for the roads used to transport materials throughout the supply chain.) And it requires just 2 gallons of water to make the pulp slurry that is then pressed and heat-dried to make paper.

Step 2: Manufacture

Fossil Fuels: The e-reader’s manufacture, along a vast supply chain of consumer electronics, is relatively energy-hungry, using 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels and resulting in 66 pounds of carbon dioxide. For a single book, which, recycled or not, requires energy to form and dry the sheets, it’s just two kilowatt hours, and 100 times fewer greenhouse gases.

Health: The unit for comparison here is a “disability adjusted life-year,” the length of time someone loses to disability because of exposure to, say, toxic material released into the air, water and soil, anywhere along the line.

For both the book and the e-reader, the main health impacts come from particulate emissions like nitrogen and sulfur oxides, which travel deep into our lungs, worsening asthma and chronic coughing and increasing the risk of premature death. The adverse health impacts from making one e-reader are estimated to be 70 times greater than those from making a single book.

Step 3: Transportation

If you order a book online and have it shipped 500 miles by air, that creates roughly the same pollution and waste as making the book in the first place. Driving five miles to the bookstore and back causes about 10 times the pollution and resource depletion as producing it. You’d need to drive to a store 300 miles away to create the equivalent in toxic impacts on health of making one e-reader — but you might do that and more if you drive to the mall every time you buy a new book.

Step 4: Reading

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.

Step 5: Disposal

If your e-reader ends up being “recycled” illegally so that workers, including children, in developing countries dismantle it by hand, they will be exposed to a range of toxic substances. If it goes through state-of-the-art procedures — for example, high-temperature incineration with the best emissions controls and metals recovery — the “disability adjusted life-year” count will be far less for workers.

If your book ends up in a landfill, its decomposition generates double the global warming emissions and toxic impacts on local water systems as its manufacture.

Some of this math is improving. More and more books are being printed with soy-based inks, rather than petroleum-based ones, on paper that is recycled or sourced from well-managed forests and that was produced at pulp mills that don’t use poisons like chlorine to whiten it. The electronics industry, too, is trying to reduce the use of toxic chemicals, and to improve working conditions and worker safety throughout its far-flung supply chains.

So, how many volumes do you need to read on your e-reader to break even?

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.

All in all, the most ecologically virtuous way to read a book starts by walking to your local library.

By Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris, originally published as an OpEd in The New York Times, April 4, 2010.

For an indepth discussion of the ecological impacts of industry, and how transparency can create a perpetual improvement, listen to Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris in conversation at MoreThanSound.net

6 thoughts on “E-Reader Versus Book: The Eco-Math

  1. I wished you had addressed newspapers in this
    article, which was published in newspapers.
    In two weeks I fill up a large trash bin
    with my LA Times. Also, only a fraction of
    a newspaper uses recycled paper, so the
    other part is using new trees, and that should be
    included. Similarly with magazines.
    Since I don’t like to sit at a terminal
    and read science articles, I also print a
    large number out. So I am hoping the new
    readers will hold most of this without
    ever involving paper. Fortunately UC Irvine
    converted to a relatively paperless campus, so all of their documents are stored and neatly filed on websites, saving many trees and
    landfills as well.

  2. I of course meant the trash bin I fill up is
    the recycling bin. 73% of newspapers are recycled, some of which goes into boxes. New newspapers, however, only contain 30% of recycled paper.

  3. Many people print out information from their computers to their printers because they find it easier to read. However, with the new technology, the print and size of the new e-reader screens are much more erganomic and provide the same view to read as what paper does.

    I’m still going to my local library because I hate clutter and am not the type to check out technology first.

    I’m blown away by the comparison though. I always thought the e-readers were 100% (you can tell I’m not a statistian) better than books when considering resources and global warming.

  4. All in all, i feel moving towards e-reader is the positive path. It gives room to many applications which leads to reduction in paper and ink consumption – use it for – magazines, story books, school text books, newspaper to begin with. e-books and short documents which normally i used to print to read them offline is also avoided. (i am user of sony ebook reader – which is based on e-paper based technology, since last couple of years now – and it has helped a lot and they can be read in day light as well and they dont need any backlight!)

    Library cant be applied for school books which are one of the highest in consumption for paper.

    Transportation is also reduced if e-reader is manufactured locally – since books can be downloaded from anywhere.

    In terms of maths author made a good attempt – but i am not sure if it is complete – one point that i would like to see in relation to human health – is also childrens who are loaded with books and have to carry a big stack daily to schools and colleges for nearly 10-15 years of their life.

    Most importantly the space occupied by managed forest can be reclaimed into a proper bio-diverse forest to enable carbon sequestration, soil enhancement and water balance.

  5. I agree that it’s best society move toward reading serials on the internet, however, the slow death of printed books is a great loss. Many people have forgotten the artistry that is necessary to create a book: the typeface, the illustrations, the cover art. Long ago the art of letter writing was pushed aside in favor of a quick digital line, and with it its cousin, the art of conversation. Saving paper isn’t always a saving grace.

  6. Another question i have about e reader.
    Like every other electronic device it produces an electromagnetic field.
    Isn’t it harmfull for you to be
    exposed to the field of an e reader for such a long time at such a small distance?

Leave a Reply to Kalpesh Popat Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *