4 Comments on "Are dead tree books better for the environment than ebook readers?"
Attorney said on Jan 4th, 2010 at 5:52 PM:
Well that is a hard question to answer because you are really comparing apples to oranges.
“Dead tree books” or printed and bound books are very effective and should good for the environment IF they are read/used over and over again. There is no batteries or electricity to use (except lights) to read a book.
However, for a single reading “ebooks” are probably more environmentally effective.
John W said on Jan 4th, 2010 at 6:55 PM:
They’re better for the preservation of our culture. Electronic media often become unreadable as the technologies become obsolete. Devices from the Smithsonian had to be brought out and refurbished in order to play early master tapes in order to transfer them to CD. With each advancement in technology, some portion of our culture won’t be converted to the new format. You only need eyes to read a paper book (provided that it doesn’t use bleached paper which disintegrates in 50 years).
Tim said on Jan 5th, 2010 at 12:15 AM:
Very hard to say, but if you consider than for every 1 Kindle you can put thousands of books on it, yet for paper: 1 book = 1 book. I can see how going paperless is a way better option. We just need to keep finding better ways of recycling our old technology into new stuff. After that it will be a nobrainer.
I bought my Kindle, this is a decent review from someone that has one.
Elfwreck said on Jan 7th, 2010 at 6:59 PM:
While ebook readers contain hard-to-recycle parts, there’s also a lot less of those parts per book.
A single person’s ebook reading on a reader like the Sony PRS-505 or Kindle or EBookwise creates half a pound (a bit more for the EBW) of electronic waste, which is hard to recycle. However, that person’s reading can include hundreds of books, each of which creates no waste whatsoever.
Hard to sort out which is worse: half a pound of troublesome electronic waste, or half a ton of easily-recycled paper waste. They’re not the same kind of problem.
But for sheer scale–the ebook readers are easier to deal with. The paper waste of books is only easily recycled if someone bothers to dispose of them properly, which is often not the case. Half a pound of e-waste vs. a quarter-ton of paper waste thrown into landfill & a quarter-ton recycled is a much easier comparison: the ebook reader causes a lot less problems in that situation.
Well that is a hard question to answer because you are really comparing apples to oranges.
“Dead tree books” or printed and bound books are very effective and should good for the environment IF they are read/used over and over again. There is no batteries or electricity to use (except lights) to read a book.
However, for a single reading “ebooks” are probably more environmentally effective.
They’re better for the preservation of our culture. Electronic media often become unreadable as the technologies become obsolete. Devices from the Smithsonian had to be brought out and refurbished in order to play early master tapes in order to transfer them to CD. With each advancement in technology, some portion of our culture won’t be converted to the new format. You only need eyes to read a paper book (provided that it doesn’t use bleached paper which disintegrates in 50 years).
Very hard to say, but if you consider than for every 1 Kindle you can put thousands of books on it, yet for paper: 1 book = 1 book. I can see how going paperless is a way better option. We just need to keep finding better ways of recycling our old technology into new stuff. After that it will be a nobrainer.
I bought my Kindle, this is a decent review from someone that has one.
While ebook readers contain hard-to-recycle parts, there’s also a lot less of those parts per book.
A single person’s ebook reading on a reader like the Sony PRS-505 or Kindle or EBookwise creates half a pound (a bit more for the EBW) of electronic waste, which is hard to recycle. However, that person’s reading can include hundreds of books, each of which creates no waste whatsoever.
Hard to sort out which is worse: half a pound of troublesome electronic waste, or half a ton of easily-recycled paper waste. They’re not the same kind of problem.
But for sheer scale–the ebook readers are easier to deal with. The paper waste of books is only easily recycled if someone bothers to dispose of them properly, which is often not the case. Half a pound of e-waste vs. a quarter-ton of paper waste thrown into landfill & a quarter-ton recycled is a much easier comparison: the ebook reader causes a lot less problems in that situation.