A study was released this week proclaiming that ebooks were the magic bullet solution to greener reading. The Cleantech Group (who commissioned the study) claimed that the carbon emitted in the life cycle of the ereader was fully offset after a year of use, or 22.5 books.
The report, authored by Emma Ritch, states: "Any additional years of use result in net carbon savings, equivalent to an average of 168 kg of CO2 per year (the emissions produced in the manufacture and distribution of 22.5 books)."
In the United States, Amazon currently holds a 45 percent market share of e-reader devices, with one main competitor Sony trailing at 30 percent.
The Cleantech Group forecasts that e-readers purchased from 2009 to 2012 could prevent 5.3 billion kg of carbon dioxide in 2012, or 9.9 billion kg during the four-year time period.
The Daily Finance, however, published a rebuttle yesterday suggesting that these figures may be a bit of an exageration. They suggested that many "average" readers would read less than the suggested 22-23 books a year, and that if you compare ereaders to digital music players most consumers upgrade or replace their device well before the four year lifecycle that the study suggests.
I think the takeaway is that of course an ebook is going to reduce the amount of paper waste, but you also have to take the impact of whatever electronics you use to read it into account as well. And if ebooks are not for you then there are always used books!
Interesting study! Thank you for sharing. There are ebooks available that do not require special reading devices ie can be read on a PC thus cutting out the emissions required to make the dedicated ereader in the first place!
Posted by: Jeanette McLeod | August 26, 2009 at 08:10 AM
Spent some time talking to readers rather than sellers recently. The concensus is that while some may adopt ebooks, they will still resort to hard copy at times, they won't take ebooks into the bath or curl up in front of the fire with a glass of wine and an ebook.
Others just say "ebooks, why" or "what's an ebook".
I don't see me putting up my shutters for many a year yet.
As for the green issue, waste paper is probably less environmentally damaging than waste plastic.
Posted by: John Holden | September 02, 2009 at 05:51 PM
I wrote the study, and I'd like to address your comment. A person doesn't have to read 23 books a year on the Kindle to prevent the carbon emissions created by a single Kindle. A person has to only replace the purchase of 23 physical books with e-books over the entire lifespan of the Kindle device to break even.
The Daily Finance article took information from my report out of context. Yes, I presented the numbers cited above for the potential savings if all the Kindles sold are used to their fullest capacity, provided that they also prevent the production of that number of physical books. However, I am presenting that as the outer limit for savings in carbon emissions, and I also provide far more conservative estimates. I think it's necessary to look at multiple scenarios to see what factors impact the emissions resulting from and prevented by the devices.
In terms of the number of books bought, the average Kindle user right now is downloading about 3 books a month, but the report notes that will surely decline as less avid readers adopt the technology.
Posted by: Emma Ritch | March 10, 2010 at 02:55 PM
Spent some time talking to readers rather than sellers recently. The concensus is that while some may adopt ebooks, they will still resort to hard copy at times, they won't take ebooks into the bath or curl up in front of the fire with a glass of wine and an ebook.
Others just say "ebooks, why" or "what's an ebook".
I don't see me putting up my shutters for many a year yet.
As for the green issue, waste paper is probably less environmentally damaging than waste plastic.
Posted by: Jerseys | July 19, 2010 at 05:17 PM