This paper examines whether the iPad is a more environmentally sustainable alternative to printed books. It analyzes the carbon footprints of both mediums across their full lifecycles, from forest harvesting and manufacturing to consumer use and disposal. Key factors explored include print overproduction and landfill waste, iPad component toxins, e-waste concerns, and the environmental impact of successive iPad upgrades. The paper also evaluates consumer usage patterns, educational applications, and practical considerations such as theft and breakage. It concludes that the iPad's viability as a greener option depends heavily on the volume of e-books read, how consumer usage is measured, and whether manufacturers reduce harmful materials in production.
There is much debate on whether the iPad is a greener option than printed books. Where some believe that the iPad is the greener option, others still believe printed books are the better choice — especially when borrowed from a public library that spreads the carbon footprint over an entire community. Print books produce 8.85 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per book, but only during production. The iPad uses much less carbon dioxide at the point of production, but its emissions are spread over the entire lifecycle of the product and are not as easy to calculate, due to how consumers use the device, electronic power sources, and the toxins involved in the materials used to produce it.
Print book waste stems from large overproduction in manufacturing, editorial error, and how consumers dispose of unwanted books. Manufacturers print large quantities of books that may not all be sold and, in turn, are either incinerated — releasing more carbon dioxide — or recycled. Editorial errors can double the environmental impact by requiring material to be reprinted. When consumers place unwanted books in landfills, the environment is further impacted because the paper is not recycled and reused.
Where e-waste is a growing environmental problem, the iPad contributes to that problem through components that cannot be recycled and toxins in component parts that cause social and environmental harm. Plastics do not decompose back into the earth and are frequently not recycled. Toxins such as columbite and tantalite, used in the production of e-readers, are causing health problems as well as social problems in underdeveloped countries. There is also the question of exhausting valuable resources that do not renew themselves, such as lithium used in the battery.
Technological changes add to these environmental impacts, as upgrades cause devices to become obsolete within a few years. More devices are discarded, sometimes inappropriately. The introduction of new designs and functions increases carbon dioxide emissions with each upgrade to new versions.
Other factors that influence the determination of which medium is most eco-friendly include consumer usage patterns. Studies show it is difficult to calculate how consumers actually use iPads for reading e-books, given the temptations of searching the internet, checking email, visiting other websites, or having more than one book open at a time — all of which can increase distraction. Calculating how much time is actually spent reading an e-book, or determining the number of dedicated reading sessions, is not easily accomplished given these variables.
Still other influential factors include the weight of the iPad, the temptation of theft, and accidental breakage. The iPad is heavier and bulkier, which can affect ease of use. Theft temptation can be high due to the device's consumer cost and the ease of reselling it. Accidental breakage may require repairs or disposal and replacement, potentially adding to the environmental impact depending on the method of disposal.
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the iPad is a greener, more viable option than printed books. Section two discusses the print book carbon footprint. Section three discusses the carbon footprint of the iPad. Section four compares the two as mediums for users. Section five discusses the problems with iPads. Section six presents the conclusion that the viability of the iPad as a replacement depends on the toxicity of component parts and consumer usage — specifically, how many e-books are read on the device and the nature of those reading sessions.
According to Eco Libris (2011), people buy 57 books per second, or nearly five million books per day. Each paper book generates 8.85 pounds of carbon dioxide according to 3D Issue (2012), which equals approximately 4.425 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide each day. Godelnik (2008) explains that the biggest environmental impact comes from forests and forest harvesting, which accounts for 62.7% of the total carbon footprint, with production accounting for 22.4%. The main issue is the carbon released when trees are cut down, particularly trees taken from endangered forests, where the most significant impacts are social — including severe damage to biodiversity, fundamental changes and losses in natural systems, and severe impact on various species. This does not include water resources or fossil fuel usage.
A large part of printed waste stems from overproduction and editorial errors. Although recycled paper is gaining in popularity, the biggest hurdle to greater adoption is cost, driven by increasing demand and a lack of corresponding infrastructure development. Other issues in printed waste relate to consumer behavior — whether books are shared with others, bought used or new, and how many end up in landfills.
The iPad is made from plastics (derived from oil), metal, glass, other mineral resources, and a lithium battery, according to the Green Press Initiative (2011). Over its lifecycle, it produces 287 pounds of carbon dioxide, not counting fossil fuels, water, and other mineral consumption. E-readers also require resources such as columbite and tantalite that create negative social impacts. The iPad increases health-related impacts by as much as 70% compared to a printed book. Vijayaraghavan (2012) notes that figures at this point are estimates rather than definitive results.
With e-waste representing an increasing major environmental problem, the iPad contributes to it because not all components can be recycled. Research suggests that, on average, the carbon dioxide emitted from the device over its lifecycle is offset after the first year of use and 22.5 e-books downloaded (Hutsko, 2009). However, Moran (2012) found that an e-reader accounts for an initial carbon footprint of 200–250% greater than a household library, and this figure increases with each replacement device. Additional considerations include households owning more than one device — which multiplies the environmental impact — as well as the fact that prolonged use and higher sales place greater demands on resources, and that outdated devices are not always discarded appropriately. These figures also did not account for all resources consumed.
Upgrades to the iPad have demonstrated increasing environmental impacts with each new generation. Godelnik (2012) compared the carbon footprint of the iPad 2 to the new iPad and found a significant 40% increase. In production, the original iPad used 75.4 kg CO2e, the iPad 2 used 85.8 kg CO2e, and the new iPad used 120.6 kg CO2e. Material changes from the iPad to the iPad 2 included a 7% decrease in display impact, a 47.4% decrease in plastics, a 7.7% increase in other metals, no change in circuit boards, a 2.6% decrease in glass, a 56.5% increase in battery impact, and a 3.6% decrease in aluminum. Depending on the power mode of the new iPad (100V, 115V, or 230V respectively), sleep mode showed increases of 41%, 59%, and 56%; idle-display mode increased by 70%, 71%, and 73%; and the power adapter showed no change. With customer use accounting for approximately 25% of CO2e, this represents a significant increase in energy usage across successive upgrades. The new iPad weighed 662 grams compared to the iPad 2 at 613 grams, and required 2.4% more retail packaging and 1.1% more shipping and retail packaging combined.
"Comparing usability, education, and eco-impact"
"Obsolescence, weight, theft, and e-waste"
The iPad is a greener option depending on consumer usage in reading e-books — which is difficult to calculate — and on manufacturers' sustainable practices in reducing toxins. At this point, sustainability in materials and CO2e emissions has proven to be increasing with each upgrade, particularly given the frequency of technological changes, which raises both emissions and materials consumption. In order for the iPad to be a greener option, manufacturers would need to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions and eliminate toxic materials. Consumer usage would need to include a high volume of e-book reading — more than ten e-books per year — which is difficult to verify given the many variables involved. How e-books are acquired — whether new, used, rented, or shared — will also influence the viability of the iPad as a greener alternative to printed books.
You’re 73% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.