Study finds Kindle more eco-friendly than actual books, maybe
By Donald Melanson 
posted Aug 28th 2009 5:53PM
posted Aug 28th 2009 5:53PM
A mass-produced piece of plastic and electronics more environmentally-friendly than a simple book? Possibly, at least according to a new study released by the Cleantech Group. While the group found that the Kindle's upfront environmental impact was indeed fairly significant, they also found that the numbers can change dramatically over the course of the device's lifecycle -- depending largely on the users' reading habits, of course. More specifically, they say that the Kindle can produce a potential savings of 1,074 kg of CO2 if it replaces three books a month for four years, or a whopping 26,098 kg of CO2 if the Kindle DX is used to its fullest capacity. They also found that the Kindle would still break even if it replaced just 22.5 books over its lifespan, although they're quick to point out that its impact can turn to a negative if folks continue to buy books and print periodicals in addition to e-books and don't recycle them.
then i've already displaced my kindle 2's environmental impact!
Um, NO...
Unless you plan to DONATE your Kindle to the local library where the Kindle will be used hundreds of times by many people as opposed to just thrown in the trash for good when the next iPod ..um Kindle comes out next year..
Nub.
In other obvious news emails saves trees
Yes, Email saves trees does it?
Because before the advent of the intertenning and E-mails were all sending each other written mail informing each other of why DD size tits are fun. and where to go to get your manhood stretched by 12 inches... ALso the duchess was all ways writing me to tell me that I won $1000,000,000,000 britich pounds...
Yes save emails is it?
darn noobs...
Hey, you know what else saves trees?
ShuttingTFU!
Did they consider the power required to power the Kindle, or did they only consider the direct, immediate environmental impact post-production?
"Did they consider the power required to power the Kindle,"
Considering that the Kindle can go a week or more on a single battery charge, I don't think that you need to worry too much about its impact from electricity use.
the problem with intelligent people is they have no common sense.
Books are usually passed on not just read once by one person.... paper is wood > growing wood produces oxygen
plastics heavy metals etc are not good for the environment no matter how you spin it :nonono:
A summary of the negatives of this thread:
"The Kindle can't be environmentally friendly, because it's actually quite nice. That would be decadent and capitalist."
when wild claims are made, is it not right to question them?
Will they stop posting articles about how "eco-freindly" something is? Not only are the statistics provided almost always wrong, but NOBODY FEKKING CARES'
Here's a sad thought I had: "Three books a month! Hah!"
Then I realized (a) I'm an asshole (b) anyone that buys a Kindle is very likely to read three books a month. Very cool findings.
It's okay. I had the same initial reaction. Then I started counting and realized that I easily read that much. It sounds like more then it is.
@James
Wow, bitter any? It's not like reading a book a week is some great feet, which is why I pointed out the simple fact that 3 books a month is not some astronomically unachievable goal. Get over yourself, twerp.
"It's not like reading a book a week is some great feet"
Feet? I didn't know reading involved feet.
I read with my feet...
to hold the book
Guh.
Considerning they promote recycling books, I don't trust their science.
It takes more carbon to recycle a book than to burn it, and that cycle can only happen once, and results in an inferior product.
Want your somehow-ruined book to have no carbon impact? Bury individual pages 4cm under the soil in a moist area. Worms eat it. Worms shit it.
Yes, let's completely ignore the fact that recycling paper means less trees need to be chopped down and processed.
Paper is renewable. As in, you can cut down a tree, and grow more trees! Really, a startling idea, I know. There is more forests now in the US than way back in the 1800's because logging companies know that if they want more wood, they've 'gotta plant more!
@Destian
You're telling me that once you're done with a book, you go out and buy it again? I can understand replacing it if it's worn out, but by that time you've got the carbon footprint of three books on your hands if you recycle it; one for the initial buy, one for the recycled book, and one for the new book... For shame Destian!
Won't someone please think of the children?!
Not to mention the majority of paper is made from trees grown and cut down in tree farms. The reason forest are still being cut is to get strong and hard to grow wood that we use to build houses and furniture. So unless you want to live in a tent I'm sorry but your not saving the rain forest.
Will they stop posting comments about their "carbon footprint"? Not only have you obviously not taken an organic chemistry class, but NOBODY FEKKING CARES
My paper books don't need a battery and won't get a new model in 6 months.
Your paper books take up an ass-load of space.
I laughed.
What else will I put in my space? I like being able to browse book spines.
I'm reminded of the time science insisted that Bee's simply cannot fly, it took them more than 10 years to work out that 'you know actually they can fly..'
Lucky you. In some fields, there are new revisions of books at least every year ;-)
Yeah, my field. Lucky me, I can reference things by opening up 3 of them all at once.
Did they say who funded the study?
Probably the trees.
probably Al Gore
I have a Sony 505 and I read four or more books per week. It is already having an impact on the way I read and purchase books. I don't plan on replacing it every six months, or even in the next couple of years (don't need WiFi or touchscreen or internet).
...and I bought *mine* used, so there's that, too.
REUSE!
(I
I assume the huge environmental impact of manufacturing, transporting and handling the device is offset by a rather "quiet" lifespan spent in the hands of someone who lives/works/goes to school in a much smaller radius (plus its day-to-day operation has little impact on the environment).
A bit on the green-washing rhetorical side, like everything that's marketed as "green" nowadays, but interesting nonetheless.
This whole study is silly because going to a library where tons of people can share one copy of a book automatically trumps all the alternatives.
"This whole study is silly because going to a library where tons of people can share one copy of a book automatically trumps all the alternatives."
You sure about that? Afterall, people have to get to the library first rather than simply having a digital book delivered electronically. Then copies if everyone actually started using libraries instead of bookstores or e-readers the libraries would need quite a few copies of new popular books or the entire system would break down.
Strike that first "copies" in my third sentence.
True, but it's not because something is digital that it has no impact on the environment; huge hosting centers that consume tons of electricity (the production of which has a huge environmental cost in itself), hardware manufactured overseas that require highly-polluting transportation, etc.
Similar to how you don't chop down a hundred trees to make one book, one cargo doesn't transport a single hard drive or CPU, so the impact is split, but it's still very much there and shouldn't be left out of the equation.
I have a Kindle ... and love it!
However, based on my understanding, I never understood why people think that getting rid of books will somehow help the tree population. Paper companies use "tree farms" ... in other words, paper production does not come from trees from your favorite park.
Paper companies also plant *more* trees each year then they cut down. The last I read, about 87% of the trees planted were used for paper.
So, naturally, if we all decided never to use paper again, the decrease in demand would cause *fewer* trees to be planted. The demand for paper over all these years actually sparked the growth in the number of trees in this country.
Again, I love the Kindle and prefer it to paper books...but if one really cares about increasing the number of trees planted each year, you're better off buying a paper book and keep demand strong for paper products.
That's some pretty questionable logic. You do realize trees grow on their own? They main reason they need to be planted is to offset others being cut down in the first place.
Studies say anything manufacturers want them to. Psych meds cause suicide, but drug companies sell the assdw out of them, because 'studies' say they work...
The masses are stupid because they cannot see beyond these studies.
I don't read. Paper or the kindle. Who's the smart one now huh?
Okay, maybe not me, but talk about raking up that carbon credit karma.
But what if you get lost on a camping trip and need emergency toilet paper?
Read the end of the article again: "They also found that the Kindle would still break even if it replaced just 22.5 books..."
The Kindle breaks after just reading 22.5 books! Must be made in China...
(I think I read that with an inserted comma in there - "They also found that the Kindle would still break, even if it replaced just 22.5 books"...)
:)
For some reason the title made me think of Nazis burning piles upon piles of Kindles during their reign. I imagine that wouldn't be very eco-friendly.
Until they need to be replaced ... then its landfill time
Or recycle time...
Maybe a retailer has a recycling program, or your town does electronic recycling or will presort recyclables. Or a techie or geek can use the parts in a contraption or something.
Why not just read eBooks on a laptop, so you don't have to plug in to yet another device that needs power, made out of resources, and doesn't do half as much as what a real laptop can? It's not eInk, but you could like turn the back light off or something to make reading text on laptops more bearable.
You'll use a lot more power reading on a power-sucking laptop than on a Kindle where the small battery can power it for over a week.
Also, then environmental benefit of not using paper books is not just in saving tree but in the toxic processes that are needed to convert those trees and recycled paper in to new paper.
A laptop can do a lot more, and usually has a larger screen, but:
1 - If you turn the backlight completely off (which many don't let you do anymore), you can't read the screen either, since they don't have a reflective backing anymore. You might be able to read on some models, if you have a bright light; problem is, the glass on the front tends to reflect better than whatever is behind the screen. That's part of the reason why the Kindle is B&W - monochrome LCDs pass light better than color, hence better readability without a backlight. It's also why color LCDs didn't catch on until good backlights were created. But many people insist that backlit screens cause eyestrain, and if nothing else, it causes the experience to be different than with a paper book.
2 - People don't want the large size - they want paperback book size.
3 - They want a book-like interface, which means page-turning buttons at the edges of the screen.
Now, some tablets offer these features, but very few laptops.
But I get your point. I'd rather use a netbook with a reversible screen (tablet-style, but maybe missing the touchscreen for sake of cost) than an e-book reader. But I'm not most people, and I expect you aren't either. (I'd really rather use a 15" tablet with a 1920x1200 touchscreen, but they're expensive.)
The kindle isn't using an LCD, it uses e-ink. E-ink has a higher contrast and doesn't refresh constantly, so it results in less eyestrain. The reason it's black and white is because E-ink currently only supports black and white displays.
A laptop/netbook/iphone/whatever cannot physically the kind of pleasing display a Kindle can simply because of this technology difference (you really have to see one in person).
@Morgemil
The Pixel Qi is an lcd screen that hopes to compete with e-ink.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/03/video-pixel-qis-e-ink-lcd-hybrid-screen-demoed-at-computex/
http://www.pixelqi.com/
@SiXiam: Organic LEDs also hope to compete with all sorts of stuff, but they have lousy life expectancy right now.
Update: Looked at your links. It's not "an LCD screen that hopes to compete with e-ink" - it's an LCD combined WITH e-ink to give the benefits of each. In e-ink mode, it's B&W like regular (current) e-ink, though it seems to use a combined mode for color together with increased readability. They don't give much detail, but it may save power by using e-ink for black and LCD for color - if your screen is mostly black, it doesn't use much power. Yes, it seems like a good idea, but we'll have to see if manufacturers pick it up. Also, the emphasis was on power saving and visibility in bright light; we don't know if it has GOOD color, high resolutions, good backlighting for indoor use, etc, so there may still be some tweaking needed.
@Morgemil: I guess I'd have to see/use one to understand.
My watch has good contrast and I don't get eyestrain looking at it, but I also don't stare at it for hours at a time. But it has a good reflective backing making it easily readable in almost any light, since it doesn't need a good backlight where the reflector goes; watch backlights are pretty poor since they need a good reflector more, and only one or the other can be directly behind the display at a time.
I understood the main (not only, but main) benefit to e-ink was energy savings since it (optimally, anyway) only uses power to change the display, hence not only reduced refresh but eliminated refresh.
Bit, as I said, I haven't seen one. I'll take your word for it that it's that impressive on the eyes.
I love my Kindle 2 as well.
But I wish it were more durable.
The current e-ink screen is much more fragile than say a netbook screen.
Flat $135 out of warranty replacement.
They should have magazines on Kindle. if you think books get thrown out, think of all the millions of paper tabloids that get thrown out every week!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_M9SizIzpQg
Like eWeek, CIO, TechNet Magazine, a couple of software development mags, and whatever other freebie trade magazines I get.
Some publishers offer electronic versions, but you have to download and install a proprietary reader for them. I frequently go to the websites, since the articles are fresher, but I see stuff in the paper versions I don't see on the website due to the different layouts.
i like reading in electronic although i know books will do me better for my eye.
now this is a good news for me
environmentally-friendly means have no need to worry too much while reading
but if i sitting in a cafe i would like to choose a book which is more nostrogic
"nostrogic"?
http://dictionary.reference.com:
No results found for nostrogic:
Did you mean nostologic (in dictionary) or Nostalgic (in reference)?
If you're in a cafe, you're probably using paper (or petrochemical foam) cups, plastic lids, paper sleeves, paper napkins, plastic stirrers, and maybe paper packets of sweetener/lightener...
Check out my post below. This isn't about YOU, the consumer. This is about the industry and how much it wastes.
The cafe doesn't throw out unused cups, napkins, sleeves, etc. -- They keep them and use them. The publishing industry will toss books into a landfill if they don't sell within a few weeks.
This is totally NOT about individual consumption. This is about large-scale waste in the publishing industry.
I think what people aren't getting is that this study refers more to the publishing industry's practices than anything else.
Here's a news flash for you... When book stores take overstocked paperbacks off their shelf, they don't ship them to another store, or send them back to the publisher; They tear the front cover off, and then DISCARD the rest of the book. They are tossed in the garbage. The covers (and ONLY the covers) are sent back to the publisher for credit on unsold merchandise.
The books end up in a landfill.
This isn't unusual. This is EVERY MAJOR BOOK RETAILER in the United States. Borders, Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Walmart, K*Mart, etc. They all do this, and no, they're not allowed to give the coverless books away to charities, or to individuals. Some people end up with them (dumpster diving, etc.) but the rules say that they must be destroyed (trashed).
Some compact them. Some just pitch them. They ALL discard them, though, because that's how the industry works. Why? Because it's cheaper for the publishers & distributors to take the loss than it would be for them to pay shipping and storage fees on all those books.
We're talking tons and tons of paper that will NEVER be recycled.
So yeah, from that standpoint the Kindle (and other e-book readers) are much more environmentally friendly. There's no stocking, no trashing the overstock, and no torn covers. And that's just considering the books themselves. The environmental impact from NOT using the fuel (and creating exhaust) to ship those books from publisher to distributor to store to customer isn't even being considered.
This study was probably very conservative in scope. If you only saw the kind of waste that goes on in the book industry, you'd be phoning Al Gore and screaming bloody murder.
I know. I used to spend my days stripping books and handling the inventory and accounting for a major chain location AND a smaller retail shop, and I saw tens of thousands of books discarded in my time in the business. And that was just two stores. One of my associates managed a major chain store in Manhattan, and he said that the store discarded hundreds of thousands of books in a given year. Some strip-cover days, you could go through an entire section to shelve new stuff and take down a few hundred books to be destroyed.
So yeah. I love my Kindle 2.
Um, that's only true for some books. While it is true some paperbacks get stripped some do get sent back. I work in a book store and when we check our stock we have to be careful when figuring out overstock because of that. Not all books get stripped some simply do get sent back.
nonsense calculation. They calculate it so that you destroy trees when buying the book. But when they destroy the tree, they put grow new one and so on.
Also i do not know much people who read 3.5 books a month. It would be fine replacement for school books. That's the only place where i can see the advantage
Why am I not surprised that you don't know "much" people who read regularly...
Trees are a harvest crop on a FARM. For every tree "saved" on a tree farm, there is one tree that was never planted. We don't talk about saving corn and tomato plants, so we shouldn't talk about saving tree plants either.
I like how you uneducated people actually believe CO2 is the real cause of global warming, when last I checked 95% of the greenhouse gas is water vapor. Please study chemistry before you spew shit about CO2 and carbon footprints. Also if you check the climate charts (Please don't consult Gore's hockey stick) you can see that the world cools and warms periodically. Furthermore, there is no study to really support CO2 warming the Earth (look it up.) All this carbon footprint crap is further nonsense and not science. Please Engadget...post useful things and not crap intended to entice me to buy a product using fake science.
So they added up all the carbon pumped out generating electricity to power all the servers and computers that run your mobile phone network and Amazons site, WOW !
What utter balls ! If everyone buried their old books we'd be sequestering loads of carbon.
Recycling paper is also a complete waste of time, buy and eBook and bury all your paper.