eREADERS DEBATE

My family will probably never buy and eReader  or read books on an iPad. We look up things in our encyclopedic first before the internet. I opt for books on tape instead of large print. The piece below was sent by the South Carolina State Library.

Are eReaders Environmentally Friendly?
By David Turnbull on Wed, 06/29/2011 - 10:21am


The eBook and eReader revolution has made its mark upon the global market and offers the masses ways of getting new content at affordable prices, especially with the so-called “death of traditional print.” One of the great advantages that eReaders have over books is the ability to hold several books in one place without taking up much room. eReaders also allow the user to multitask between reading, browsing the Internet, playing games, and even making phone calls. eReaders certainly provide more diverse functions to the reader than books, but are they an ecologically sound choice?


Several factors can determine whether the environmental footprint of the typical eReader outweighs that of traditional reading materials. Most pressing is the amount of books that an individual reads on an annual basis. According to a report in the British newspaper the Guardian, 1 in every 4 Americans did not read any books in the year 2007. While this number may have possibly increased, these figures do show that eReaders are clearly not a green investment for the majority of the public.


But how green are eReaders for those who read at least more than one book a year? One poll suggests that those that read more often tend to more likely be female, pensioners, college-educated, and/or over 50 years in age. That poll, by Associated Press-Ipsos, was published in August of 2007 and demonstrates that for every five books that men read, women would have read nine that year for example. So clearly, there are some demographics with which the carbon footprint of purchasing an eReader will be significantly lower than sticking with traditional books.


Another factor affecting the environmental impact of eReaders is the “green-washing effect.” The “green-washing effect”, in brief, occurs when a consumer abandons an old product for a newer one, supposedly better for the environment, and on mass-scale large amounts of ewaste are thus created. For one, the average lifespan of eReaders and other electronic products used for viewing electronic information has been reduced to a few years as better devices are constantly being produced. So, can they be recycled just as books can be used again after they are turned into pulp? Does the harm caused by electronic waste produced by eReaders, containing toxic substances, even outweigh the environmental damage caused by books, magazines, and newspapers once they are disposed?


I should mention that one of the great redeeming factors for eReaders is that they can be used for a greater array of tasks than reading, acting as a paperweight, or holding up wobbly furniture. Many of the currently available models can do much more, such as browse Internet sites, connect to nearby Wi-Fi networks, create word processor documents, play games, or even make international phone calls. The large 9.7 inch color display on the Apple iPad, for instance, does what traditional print cannot: allow the user to read in the dark.


But to some, the benefits of reading in the dark come with a steep environmental price. A study conducted in 2009 by Cleantech concluded that the purchase of three eBooks per month for a steady four years produced an estimated 168 kilograms of carbon dioxide during the course of one eReader’s lifecycle, the Kindle. It was also measured that about 1,074 kilograms of carbon dioxide would be produced if the same amount of physical books were created.


Yet this study has raised many questions among the literary community and has taken several assumptions into play. For one, purchased books may be shared, lowering the net carbon footprint. Whereas books purchased on eReaders cannot be shared in the same manner, if the manufacturer even allows that to happen. It also makes a difference whether an encyclopedia was purchased or a short 214 word novel like Snoopy’s It was a Dark and Stormy Night.


Perhaps the only strong conclusion that can be gathered is that traditional print is the greenest option available today. The established consumer base, sustainable forested supply of paper, and paper recycling programs allow book purchases to be the greener option. However, in the near future, eReaders will in fact become more sustainable through the course of their lifecycle, eBooks will be much cheaper to purchase, and their lifecycle will be much longer. Perhaps we will have to wait until the distant future to find out the verdict once eReaders have achieved hegemony over old-fashioned print.

Read more: http://greenanswers.com/blog/244280/are-ereaders-environmentally-friendly#ixzz1R0Nc8ouO