Study finds Kindle more eco-friendly than actual books, maybe
By Donald Melanson 
posted August 28th 2009 5:53PM
posted August 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'
@(Unverified)
did you consider that paper companies dont grow the wood, but rather chop down existing trees? even if they did grow the trees, to leave the trees there and let them continually produce oxygen rather than chopping it as soon as it gets mature enough to produce enough oxygen to be significant would be more environmentally friendly. or the fact that chopping those trees, and their conversion process into paper uses up a lot more resources than downloading an e book onto a device. or maybe the fact that if a book is thrown away and not properly recycled, that paper eventually releases carbon upon decomposition.
maybe you'd even get into really large details and get into transportations of trees, papers, books, the resources taken by lumber mills, paper manufacturing plants, publishing houses, and bookstores.
think before you post.
@Rob Conway
that includes the CO2 made in:
the production of the kindle?
the production of the books?
the advertising of the kindle?
the powering of the kindle?
the loss of trees that fix CO2? (fixation means turning it into something organic)
the energy that goes into all the aforementioned processes?
in my opinion, anything electrical will always create a worse impact on the environment that something mechanical that does the same thing.. that doesn't stop me though.. people have to stop doing business using the environment as a plus.. chances are, they are lying or oblivious to the actual reprecussions of their products..
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.
@Vidikron Trees do grow but at a slow rate and with limited land resources available to logging and paper companies, and New EPA regulations they have to plant trees to keep their business sustainable. I worked for several summers in my late teens planting trees for the Potlatch Company in Northern Idaho, Usually several hundred trees per day. Plastics and Electronics components come from non renewable sources. Plastics come as a by product of oil production, and all of the semiconductor and conductor materials are mined, usually by companies with poor ecological track records. If you really care about the environment, ride a bycycle, boycott all electronics and forget about a thing called progress, go hug your tree some other place please...
@(Unverified)
I realize this is an old article, but the quote was on the front page of engadget. What people don't realize is that we NEED CO2 to survive. Without it, it would be too cold here for human existance. Oh any by the way, only 3% of the world's CO2 comes from humans.
The majority of it comes from Valcanoes, and decaying plants.
So, by NOT cutting down trees, and letting them decay, this would actually cause MORE CO2 -- not that it matters anyways. CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. People are so ignorant it's obscene.
@AlaskanHandyman
ride my bicycle? isnt a bike made of Minable metal?
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"...)
:)