Environmental Responsibility: Books vs. Digital Readers

[Smellincoffee]

I read a great deal, mostly nonfiction, and in the last year (as my days of being an impoverished uni student are over, at least 'til grad school), my collection has ballooned enormously to the point that storage is becoming an issue. I don't anticipate my rate of buying new and used books to slow down (about 6 per month), so storage is an issue I need to address. While I could give books away, there are some I wish to re-read, or to lend to friends, to keep on hand as a reference. The problem is that since I'm such a picky reader in the first place, most of the books I purchased are "keepers". So, I'm considering...purchasing an e-reader.

I say considering, because I am not friendly to the prospect. From the moment kindles and nooks appeared, I greeted them with a sneer and wished them death. I saw in them the demise of real books, and I'm increasingly something of a quasi-Luddite. I don't like the way new gadgets demand our attention, and I certainly don't like the idea that they can become a device for corporations to keep tabs on us. My cellphone is an artifact from the stone age, and I keep it turned off most of the time. But my job involves helping people use new computers, cellphones, and other gadgets, so another motivation for purchasing an e-reader is to develop familiarity with the technology, particularly wireless operations.

Although I'm partly willing to just keep buying bookcases and filling them as long as I'm able, my interests in living simply continue to urge me to consider the e-readers. I like the idea of being able to carry part of my library in a single little device. But another consideration is that of the environment: part of the reason I don't like modern gadgets is that they're so quickly obsolete and thrown away, the material resources they constitute utterly lost. As a financially prudent person, this waste is frankly offensive. I strive to waste as little as possible in my life: I don't use disposable utensils, I re-use aluminum foil for as long as it maintains integrity, I bring canvas sacks with me to the grocery store, and so on. I believe firmly in frugality, in the motto "Use it up, make it fit; make it do, or do without". Books also consume resources, although they at least can be recycled.

Which are more economically prudent/environmentally friendly? E-readers or real books?

 

[Kozmos]

I ran out of physical space for my books long ago. Kindle saved me a ton of money and time by reading whatever I needed wherever I needed.

 

[aronnax]

If you fear about the consumption of books as resource wastage of paper and other book-related materials, I think your fear is misplaced.
Yes, the production of books does cut down a lot more trees than an electronic gadget and because of overproduction, there will be many unsold copies of a book.

Firstly by simply working in an office or a government bureaucracy, you will realise that the huge majority of paper wastage comes not in the form of books but in reports, files, forms, presentations, plans and notes, all part and parcel of office work that are used for a short while before being thrown away quickly afterwards. A lot of paperwork in offices could have been done electronically, but due to human preference for paper, we need to print out our plan and read it as oppose to just doing so on our computer screen. Basically, if you want to reduce paper wastage, start at the Office first rather than at books.

But you might say, why not reduce both Office paper usage and book paper usage, well:
Secondly, unlike paperwork, there is a value to a physical hard copy of book. Firstly, they preserve information that cannot be wiped away or lost the same way e-books and Kindles can. You've got to burn down a building to take away those books whereas computer crashes and drive resets are too common for comfort. Secondly, while you might say you that most books are 'keepers', the option of book lending is still an option with hard cover books. E-books are your libraries and that poses a problem.
Thirdly, you can't find all your books on download. I did a simple search on Ebooks for one sitting on my self and they don't have it. This might change with time but for now, not all books are there. Less common, older books also have less of a representation online.
Plus, although this is simple a personal feeling, I'm pretty sure you like the feel of the book in your hand as oppose to a flat slab. An e-book is afterall an immitation of a book, not an actual one.

 

[warpus]

I love books.

I love the feel of one in my hands, I love to turn each page after I've finished reading it, I love the smell, the physical presence of one in my hands, I enjoy taking care of them, taping older books together so they don't fall apart, and I love seeing them on my bookshelf.

I have never used a kindle or any sort of book reader like it, and there are obvious benefits for sure, but it's just not a satisfactory enough experience replacement for me. I could see myself maybe getting one for a trip, where weight and bulkyness need to be minimized, but otherwise it's a replacement of an enjoyable experience with something plastic that doesn't compare... like a realdoll. Functionally they serve the same purpose, but there's just something about holding a real book in your hands that's important to me.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you are acquiring a book through say, a used sale or a library, or you lend it out to somebody, or you reread it several times - why would you want to make it consume the life on a toxic battery each time? I love books, but I've finally weaned myself off of buying them 95% of the time. I use the library. There are so many books out there to read and they are so easy to get. I don't need a shelf full of them except my absolute favorites.

 

[Zelig]

I moved across the country last year, and as a result the majority of my book collection is sitting in boxes in storage. Next time I go back to visit, I plan on a serious reduction of the collection, only keeping the best, and books that I'd want to lend out to people.

I got an ereader ($60 used, came with several thousand books) a month or so ago, and have really been enjoying it.

Library is also quite excellent, for both physical books and e-copies.

 

[CKS]

I got a kindle last year. It is great. It is not a book, but it has many advantages.

I haven't purchased anything to put on it, but I've got free books (Baen has a great free library, Project Gutenberg has stuff, lots of publishers put out samples of some stuff) and fanfiction on it. I have used the web browser, once I finally figured out how to type onto the page to put the guest password in, but I have not registered my kindle and I don't intend to.

My spouse has poor vision; the kindle will read to her. (It struggles with equations in a physics text, but otherwise does well.) When my eyes are dilated at the doctor's office, I can change the font size and still read. When it is starting to get dark, I can change the font size and still read comfortably. It is actually pretty comfortable to hold, and I didn't have as much trouble with the touch screen as I had anticipated.

I read a lot of fanfiction, off and on, and the kindle is certainly more environmentally friendly than reading on the computer or printing out stories.

 

[TheLastOne36]

I'm with Warpus, I love books in their physical presence and I don't think I would ever use an electronic substitute.

Beyond that preference, I've been reluctant to even consider a kindle or other e-reader because it seems a little less technologically advanced than other electronic devices. I think that a brand new superior device will come out over the next decade. I might reconsider then even if only for the the benefits of traveling.

 

[innonimatu]

Beyond that preference, I've been reluctant to even consider a kindle or other e-reader because it seems a little less technologically advanced than other electronic devices.

No, it's a well-thought device for reading. Much better for that use that the tablet crap, which in any case is being pushed for media.

But I'm not buying into Amazon's remote-controlled swindle, that's for certain.

 

[Arwon]

Electronics can be recycled, and in fact should be due to the heavy metals they contain. Most places just don't have specialist electronics recycling collection.

I'd argue that the embedded energy and resources in an electronic device is pretty trivial, and that the energy used to run them is also fairly small. I'd be hestitant to guess the results of a full analysis of all the inputs to books vs an electronic reader.

Personally I do all my e-reading on my phone which means it's material resources I was using anyway.

 

[Zelig]

Beyond that preference, I've been reluctant to even consider a kindle or other e-reader because it seems a little less technologically advanced than other electronic devices.

I don't really get that reasoning; they're super cheap, and they're really good at the one thing worth using them for.

Electronics can be recycled, and in fact should be due to the heavy metals they contain. Most places just don't have specialist electronics recycling collection.

Pretty much everywhere in Canada has electronics recycling.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have a reading list that I prefer to have hardback books that require the erection of huge shelves. Other than that, I try to do most of my reading electronically and run my office as paperless as is practical. I am hoping that someone will put out a dedicated ereader with the screen size of an ipad (or larger). A lot of my reading (court cases, law review articles, continuing legal education material) works best in pdf format and that requires a bigger screen than the ereaders out there.

 

[innonimatu]

Personally I do all my e-reading on my phone which means it's material resources I was using anyway.

But are you factoring the cost of glasses in the future?

 

[Glassfan]

As an older man, I grew up with books. My technique was to buy and read a paperback, and if I liked it, to then purchase a hardback for my library. I also have a modest collection of old history texts from various antique stores my wife drags me to. I do get ebooks now, mostly from Gutenberg as CKS mentioned, as well as abstracts from RAND or OAS for my laptop. I purchsed a Kindle, but mostly for music and videos.

 

[Arwon]

But are you factoring the cost of glasses in the future?

I have worn glasses since I was eight.

 

[Glassfan]

Electronics can be recycled, and in fact should be due to the heavy metals they contain. Most places just don't have specialist electronics recycling collection.

I'd argue that the embedded energy and resources in an electronic device is pretty trivial, and that the energy used to run them is also fairly small. I'd be hestitant to guess the results of a full analysis of all the inputs to books vs an electronic reader.

Recently there was a news story to the effect that most of the world's rare earths (for chips) comes from Commie China. It exists in other countries but it's extraction is damaging to the environment and so only the Chinese will mine it.

 

[JohannaK]

I love books.

I love the feel of one in my hands, I love to turn each page after I've finished reading it, I love the smell, the physical presence of one in my hands, I enjoy taking care of them, taping older books together so they don't fall apart, and I love seeing them on my bookshelf.

I have never used a kindle or any sort of book reader like it, and there are obvious benefits for sure, but it's just not a satisfactory enough experience replacement for me. I could see myself maybe getting one for a trip, where weight and bulkyness need to be minimized, but otherwise it's a replacement of an enjoyable experience with something plastic that doesn't compare... like a realdoll. Functionally they serve the same purpose, but there's just something about holding a real book in your hands that's important to me.

I echo this opinion. But my dad gifted one to me last year with a crapload of books, and it truly saves me a lot of space. I have like 50 books in it, and I'm currently reading 2010... but it isn't the same as a book...

 

[Arwon]

Recently there was a news story to the effect that most of the world's rare earths (for chips) comes from Commie China. It exists in other countries but it's extraction is damaging to the environment and so only the Chinese will mine it.

Nah it is an economics thing not a supply thing keeping them market dominant.

 

[Glassfan]

Nah it is an economics thing not a supply thing keeping them market dominant.

I agree, it probably has to do with economics, since cutting production will raise prices and profits for China - like OPEC does.

In attempting to locate the original article, my search engine turned up dozens of stories, apparently the WTO is getting involded since China is in violation of numerous statutes.

The real point I was interested in was the environmental impact - the tailings are extremely toxic and radioactive. Locals complain of cancers and leukaemia, and peasant farming is outlawed nearby. EPA restrictions have eliminated rare earth excavation in the US.

So to address the OP, electronic devices have a much more serious environmental impact than do physical books. But that impact is hidden from most of us behind the bamboo curtain.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah. Dealing with the tailings properly would be more expensive. That, plus labour costs, plus probably the exchange rate, mean that at current rare earth prices, nobody can compete with Chinese rare earths. It also forms a bit of a ceiling about how high they can push prices, though.

(This is my understanding, at least. I could be wrong)

Also in terms of environmental harm, remember that most mining is pretty potentially nasty. Gold, copper, bauxite, all have toxic tailings and cause huge problems if not properly managed. It isn't a uniquely rare-earths thing, and the bigger factor might be Chinese environmental enforcement.

Of course you could also have the argument about whether local toxicity in one place is preferable to global warming exacerbated by deforestation, but those aren't very useful arguments to have.