Browse
Engage
Research
The iPad may be a game-changing device in a number of ways, but perhaps in no game will it have a bigger impact than in book publishing.
Though a debate rages about the ease and enjoyment of reading on an LCD screen versus the e-Ink used by Amazon's Kindle and other e-readers, the multi-purpose nature and glamourous design of the iPad -- as well as the ability to read books on it -- make it a potentially deadly weapon for the book-publishing and -selling industries.
So it's perhaps not a surprise that Raz Godelnik, the president and co-founder of Eco-Libris, has come out with an anti-e-book op-ed in the monthly journal of the Independent Book Publishers Association.
Godelnik's argument is that there is a whole world of information missing about the environmental impacts of e-books compared to printed books:
Materials. Consumer electronics are notorious for containing a variety of toxic materials. Some companies are more transparent than others and make it relatively clear that their e-reader devices are free of toxic materials like PVC (Sony and Apple) and BFRs and mercury (Apple). But as Casey Harrell, an international campaign coordinator for Greenpeace, which monitors the environmental impact of consumer electronics, told the New York Times, e-readers remain something of an unknown variable. [...]
Recycling. Electronic waste is becoming a growing environmental problem, and even though companies like Apple and Amazon have recycling programs in place, there's a good chance e-readers will contribute to the electronic waste stream.
According to the EPA, Americans generated about 3 million tons of electronic waste in 2007. Out of all that waste, only 13.6 percent was recycled. The rest ended up in landfills or incinerators, even though, as the Electronic TakeBack Coalition explains, the hazardous chemicals in them can leach out of landfills into groundwater and streams. [...]
When it comes to physical books we have all the information we need, but the situation with e-readers is getting more complicated, as most of the required information is not available. If you try to find out about the environmental impacts of Amazon's Kindle or B&N's Nook, good luck with that. Except for Apple, none of the companies that sell e-readers makes environmental data available.
When Joe Hutsko of the New York Times tried to learn more about the Kindle, he reported, "Phone calls and e-mail messages to Amazon inquiring about the materials in the popular Kindle device have thus far gone unanswered."
Second, even as e-readers are becoming more energy-efficient (for example, Amazon's Kindle and B&N's Nook use E Ink technology, which is significantly more power-efficient than an LCD screen), this is not the full story. E-readers are also part of a wave of mobile devices that increasingly depend on the Internet and data centers to deliver hosted services and digital content, and hence will contribute to a rapid growth in energy consumption and carbon emissions associated with so-called cloud computing over the coming years.
Although I've highlighted a couple of cases of iPads being used for environmental goods -- in investment banking and at a Georgia TV station -- Godelnik's arguments resonate with what we've been saying about the iPad since its launch: Even though it's a green device, the iPad isn't a planet-saver.
The CEO of electronics recycling firm ERI made my case for me in May, when he cheered the iPad's promise for growing his business, and the story remains true: People are replacing -- whether recycling or just disposing -- not-so-old gadgets with the multipurpose iPad, and the sheer amount of toxic waste and unsustainably sourced materials puts the gadget deep in the brown part of the green products spectrum.
Although Godelnik expresses some optimism that e-book readers will get greener in the future, he rightly points to this op-chart from the New York Times highlighting the lifecycle impacts of books vs. e-books.
Which of course is not to say that the book publishing has no eco-footprint -- far from it. The op-chart cited above includes these details:
If you order a book online and have it shipped 500 miles by air, that creates roughly the same pollution and waste as making the book in the first place. Driving five miles to the bookstore and back causes about 10 times the pollution and resource depletion as producing it. You'd need to drive to a store 300 miles away to create the equivalent in toxic impacts on health of making one e-reader -- but you might do that and more if you drive to the mall every time you buy a new book.
And Godelnik himself admits as much when he writes, "We also have to remember that physical books can improve their ecological footprint, and they are slowly doing that. We see increasing use of recycled and FSC-certified paper, as well as greater adoption of sustainable practices in the industry. Although there’s still much to be done, progress in the last couple of years has been impressive."
E-readers, and the iPad, are certainly not going away, but asking these types of questions about the true impacts of electronics can only help speed the industry down the path of greater energy efficiency, less-toxic manufacturing, greater recyclability, and more reponsible sourcing.
iPad photo CC-licensed by blakespot.
Totally misleading title
Firstly, a single op-ed piece in an industry journal does not indicate the views of the industry itself, so the title of this article is completely misleading on at least one count.
Secondly, the op-ed article in question (Is E-Reading Really Greener?) wisely uses the term e-reader in its title and avoids silly term like hate. So that's three counts against the title of this article.
Thirdly, that op-ed article is based on another op-ed article from the NY Times - How Green Is My iPad? Oddly that article does use the term iPad in its title but only once in the body of the article itself. By all rights, the article should have been titled "How green is my e-reader?" because that is what the comparison is actually based on. Interestingly, the conclusion of both articles is that if you use an e-reader to read around 100 books then it may actually be more "green" than buying those 100 or so books in paper format. I suspect the average e-reader purchaser would easily hit this figure as they tend to be high consumers of books to start off with. The cost of physical books v e-books over time will only increase this trend in the same way that the cost of 35mm film/processing drove consumers to digital photography. We've seen evidence of this trend with e-books outselling hardcover books on Amazon. iPad purchasers are a different story, but then they use their iPads for more than just reading books. iPads may or may more replace purchases of other devices such as netbooks or portable media players, but they will use less power than a range of devices such as TVs, PCs etc. Any environmental impact assessment needs to take this into account.
Is this really the problem?
Sounds to me like little Raz is worried about the book industry going away. Awwwww. Hilariously, his Facebook profile says:
"Raz Godelnik likes:
* The iPad"
This article is ridiculous...
1) The emissions argument is ludicrous on both sides of the board. There are a certain number of vehicles transporting a certain weight of goods every day. There are a certain number of machines processing chemicals and minerals for the production of electronics... every day. None of this will significantly change due to the growth or decline of ereaders, especially considering that multipurpose devices are already wiping single-purpose devices out of their own niche market. Tablets are multi-puporse enough to take hold in the market with or without ereader capability, so ereader capability has no bearing on their eco footprint. The footprint is the same with or without that capability.
2) To claim that the iPad is responsible for an increase in electronic waste is even more ludicrous. Yes, people will throw away their ereaders and laptops and even PCs in favor of tablets. Apple is not responsible for that waste. The responsibility falls with the manufacturers of those cheap, single-purpose, non-environment-friendly devices. In fact, the introduction of the iPad has prevented several manufacturers from continuing to churn out those terrible products. If anything, the stifling of single-purpose ereader growth should be factored in as an environmental gain in the iPad's corner. More than half a dozen ereader manufacturers have gone extinct since April, due to the iPad's release.
3) The eco footprint of the traditional print industry amounts to a lot more than 100 books per person per year. Most people don't realize how many books retailers are required to throw in the trash per the return policies of publishers. There is no way around this. Most books don't sell through, but if they weren't printed mass-market, none would sell at all. It would be more expensive (and less environmentally sound) to ship the leftovers back, but leftovers can't be given away for free because that would devalue the market. So, retailers tear the covers off to render the leftovers unsalable.
Publishers have no choice but to print many more books than they'll ever be able to sell. If they don't blanket the market, they don't sell anything. As a result, thousands of books are discarded for every one that is sold. A single ereader device can last for several years, potentially representing the physical print equivalent of several thousand books.
Ereaders as dedicated devices will cease to exist within this decade. Their footprint will fade to 0. Tablets will have a footprint, but that will exist regardless of ereader capability. It is therefore ridiculous to imagine that an endangered species of electronic devices will leave a larger footprint on the earth than the insane lumberjack that is traditional print. Print will die as slowly as it was born, over the next century. With any luck, we may have a few trees left after all is said and done.