Go-Paperless Mandates Are a Distracting (and Misleading) Sideshow

Summary

The article argues that paper books are often more eco-friendly than digital alternatives, challenging the common assumption that going paperless is always better for the environment.

Abstract

The article "Go-Paperless Mandates Are a Distracting (and Misleading) Sideshow" presents a counterargument to the widespread belief that digital reading is inherently more environmentally friendly than reading paper books. It highlights that the carbon emissions from a single flight dwarf the emissions from producing a paperback book, suggesting that other activities like air travel have a far greater environmental impact. The author debunks the myth of zero-carbon digital reading, pointing out the significant environmental costs associated with producing and recycling digital devices, as well as the energy consumption of data servers. The article cites studies indicating that e-readers are only more environmentally friendly if a user reads a large number of books annually and uses the device for several years. It also emphasizes the carbon-absorbing nature of paper, the benefits of sharing and reusing paper books, and the limited sharing capabilities of e-books due to intellectual property restrictions. The article concludes that for most readers, especially those who borrow from libraries or buy used books, paperbacks are the more sustainable choice.

Opinions

The author criticizes the narrow focus on saving trees while ignoring the broader environmental impact of actions such as air travel.
Owning a Kindle or similar e-reader is not necessarily an environmentally superior choice due to the carbon footprint of manufacturing and recycling these devices.
The environmental impact of digital reading is significant, considering the rare metals mining, often in conflict areas, and the health risks to workers in poor countries where recycling is done.
Massive data servers required for digital reading consume vast amounts of electricity and require cooling, adding to their carbon footprint.
E-readers are only more environmentally friendly than paperbacks if the user reads at least 36 books per year and uses the same device for four years or more.
Paperbacks can be more sustainable as they are made from carbon absorbed from the air and can be shared or borrowed, effectively reducing their carbon footprint per reader.
The article suggests that the greenest reading option is borrowing books from a public library, rather than purchasing new ones or using e-readers.

Paper is often the eco-friendly choice

I’m tired of being told to stop printing off documents by people who then go guzzling fossil fuels and emitting thousands of tons of carbon dioxide flying around the world.

They can’t see the forest for the trees. Literally. They’re so focused on saving a few trees from being de-forested for sustainable harvesting. They don’t see the bigger picture of their actions.

A paperback book creates around 1kg of carbon emissions. A single flight from London to Hong Kong emits 2,300kg of carbon dioxide. That level of emissions would produce over 2,000 paperbacks, equivalent to more books than most people read in a lifetime.

There’s a worse myth around reading too. Many people seem to believe that reading online — or using an ebook reader — has zero carbon footprint.

Actually, owning a Kindle is nothing to be smug about from an environmental perspective. As Naomi Baron, writing for Oxford University Press, explains:

Debate continues over whether going digital is the clear environmental choice. Yes, you can eliminate the resources involved in paper manufacturing and book transport. But producing — and recycling — digital devices, along with running massive servers, come with their own steep costs. The minerals needs for our electronic reading devices include rare metals such as columbite-tantalite, generally mined in African conflict-filled areas, where profits often support warlords. Recycling to extract those precious metals is mostly done in poor countries, where workers (often children) are exposed to enormous health risks from toxins. The serried ranks of servers that bring us data use incredible amounts of electricity, generate vast quantities of heat, and need both backup generators and cooling fans.

In other words, don’t assume that sitting at a screen is a good thing for the environment. It’s not.

One study in 2009 found that e-readers are more environmentally friendly than paperbacks. However, there’s a huge “but” to this result. For e-readers to be the eco-friendly option, you must read at least 36 books per year. On top of that, you must use the same e-reader for at least four years.

Thirty-six books per year would make you an extremely heavy-reader. On average, according to a 2015 study from the Pew Research Center, Americans read just 12 books per year. But that figure is skewed by bookworms. The median number of books read by Americans is just four per year.

It’s clear that for most Americans, reading paperbacks is the more environmentally friendly choice.

It gets even worse for ebooks if you like browsing second-hand bookstores. As the climate-conscious thinktank Isonomia points out, with a paperback book, you can pick up a copy in a used bookstore — or borrow it from your local library — meaning that it effectively has zero carbon footprint. What’s more, when you’ve finished with a paperback, you can then share it with a friend, further reducing the carbon footprint of the book per reader.

“…you’re likely to be limited in terms of who you can swap it with. So, for reasons to do with intellectual property, receiving an e-book may mean you’re the only one who reads it. If paper books are assumed to be reused multiple times, the [carbon footprint] breakeven point for e-books will be rather higher than might otherwise be calculated.”

It’s also worth bearing in mind that paperbacks are made of carbon. This is carbon that was absorbed from the air during the lifetime of the tree from which the book was made. Making this point, the New York Times quotes Geoffrey A. Landis, a scientist at NASA’s John Glenn Research Center, who puts it this way:

“The carbon content of a newspaper represents carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere. The carbon footprint of a newspaper is negative.”

Ultimately, paperback is the eco-friendly choice for most readers. And if you buy used books, or borrow books from a library, then it’s a complete no-brainer.

As Lloyd Alter of the Treehugger blog writes:

“If you care about the environmental impact of your reading medium, remember that it is not a binary question of book vs e-book. The greenest book is the one you get from the Public Library.”