E-Readers vs. Print Books: Environmental Impact Compared

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Print books are considered by many technology and environmental enthusiasts to be outdated, archaic, and simply not as efficient as modern e-readers like Apple's iPad.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.

Life Cycle Assessment as an Analytical Framework

To find the answer to their central question, Goleman and Norris turned to a life cycle assessment — a method that evaluates and measures the ecological impact of a product across its entire lifespan. Essentially, the authors wanted to find out what was the most environmentally friendly, or in other words the "greenest," way to read.

The authors do a good job of exploring and debating the sometimes unseen or ignored aspects of producing, manufacturing, selling, and delivering a product to the hands of a consumer. These aspects are then compared to the use of actual print books, and the results are surprising, interesting, and enlightening. Enthusiasts and fans of e-readers might assume that the competition between traditional books and modern e-readers would not even be a close race. The authors effectively challenge the notion that modern technology is always more environmentally friendly.

Manufacturing Costs: Minerals, Water, and Fossil Fuels

The authors present a holistic and more complete assessment of the environmental impact that e-readers have relative to traditional paper-printed books. For example, they point out that an e-reader "requires the extraction of approximately 33 pounds of minerals." This is an eye-opening fact because most consumers assume that e-readers arrive on store shelves without any significant environmental impact whatsoever. By contrast, a normal printed book consumes only about 9 ounces of minerals.

The authors also state that an average e-reader like the iPad requires approximately 79 gallons of water to produce its batteries and printed wiring boards. This level of resource consumption is relatively large when compared to the production of a book, which requires only about 2 gallons of water. These figures underscore how resource-intensive the manufacturing of consumer electronics can be.

Goleman and Norris also account for the consumption of fossil fuels, which is another widely debated concern when exploring environmental impact. They point out that an e-reader produces 66 pounds of carbon dioxide during its manufacturing and production process, drawing on 100 kilowatt hours of fossil fuels. This is a considerably large figure when compared to a book, which uses only 2 kilowatt hours. The scale of this difference highlights the hidden carbon footprint embedded in digital devices that consumers rarely consider at the point of purchase.

Conclusion: Challenging Assumptions About Digital Technology

Overall, Goleman and Norris present some valid points and interesting figures about the production and manufacturing of e-readers, effectively challenging the notion that modern technology is always more environmentally friendly. Their use of life cycle assessment provides consumers with a far more complete picture of environmental cost than the familiar "saving paper saves trees" argument allows. While e-readers may offer practical advantages in portability and convenience, their environmental footprint — particularly in terms of mineral extraction, water use, and carbon dioxide emissions — is substantially greater than that of a traditional printed book. The authors succeed in prompting readers to think more critically about the full environmental implications of the technologies they adopt.