E-Readers vs. Print Books: Environmental Impact Compared
This paper reviews Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris's New York Times article "How Green Is My iPad," which uses life cycle assessment to compare the environmental impact of e-readers and traditional print books. The review summarizes the authors' key findings regarding mineral extraction, water consumption, fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions, shipping, and decomposition. It highlights how manufacturing an e-reader requires far more resources than producing a single printed book, challenging the widespread assumption that digital reading is automatically the more environmentally friendly choice. The paper concludes that the authors effectively present a holistic view of environmental cost that goes beyond the simple "saving paper saves trees" argument.
- Introduction: The Question of Green Reading: Framing the e-reader vs. print book debate
- Life Cycle Assessment as an Analytical Framework: Introducing life cycle assessment as evaluative tool
- Manufacturing Costs: Minerals, Water, and Fossil Fuels: Comparing resource consumption in production
- Shipping, Decomposition, and Overall Environmental Balance: End-of-life and logistics environmental costs
- Conclusion: Challenging Assumptions About Digital Technology: Authors challenge green technology assumptions
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper centers on a single, clearly identified source article and systematically unpacks its key arguments, making the review focused and easy to follow.
- It uses specific quantitative data — pounds of minerals, gallons of water, kilowatt hours, and carbon dioxide figures — to ground abstract environmental claims in concrete evidence.
- The paper consistently contrasts e-reader and print book figures side by side, giving readers a direct, easy-to-understand comparison.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates source-driven analytical summary: rather than simply retelling the article, it evaluates the authors' rhetorical strategy — noting where they challenge consumer assumptions, where their evidence is compelling, and how their holistic approach adds value beyond the conventional "paper vs. digital" debate. This technique is especially useful in article review and critical response assignments.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by establishing the cultural context (e-readers seen as modern and efficient), then introduces the central analytical tool (life cycle assessment), and moves through specific environmental categories — minerals, water, fossil fuels, shipping, and decomposition — before offering a brief evaluative conclusion. This category-by-category structure mirrors the source article's own organization and keeps the review tightly aligned with the evidence being discussed.
Introduction: The Question of Green Reading
Print books are considered by many technology and environmental enthusiasts to be outdated, archaic, and simply not as efficient as modern e-readers like Apple's iPad. The question arises, however: what environmental impact, if any, does substituting books for e-readers have? This question is explored by Daniel Goleman and Gregory Norris in their New York Times article titled "How Green Is My iPad?"
If this question is posed to the average person, that person might say without hesitation that the most environmentally friendly way to read is by using an e-reader. That assumption is more complicated than it appears, given the implications involved in the life cycle assessment process. We have all heard the adage that "saving paper saves trees," and therefore we believe we are saving the environment by not using paper. What needs to be understood is that trees are only a small part of the environment; there are other crucial components that must also be taken into account when evaluating and determining which reading format is truly more environmentally friendly.
Works Cited
Goleman, Daniel, and Gregory Norris. "How Green Is My iPad." New York Times, 4 Apr. 2010. Print.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.