Paper Books, eBooks, and the Environment II

Longtime reader and commentator, Phil, did some research and sent over some links about whether eBooks and eReaders are greener than paper books. Please feel free to post corroborating and opposing stats and links in the comment section below. It appears there's still a lot of debate on this issue. The one interesting theme I found when reading through these pages is that the greenest options seems to be having  a paper book read by as many people as possible. To be honest, I don't care which one is more environmentally friendly. Like it or not eBooks and eReaders are the way of the future. It seems pointless to get worked up over which one is greener since there's not much anyone can do to stop the digital tide.

Here's some of the links that Phil sent over:

Are e-books more environmentally friendly?

Almost two-thirds of the publishing industry’s carbon emissions are from deforestation of natural forests, according to US stats. But it’s not that simple, says Raz Godelnik, CEO of Eco-Libris (a company committed to sustainable reading). The materials (such as plastic, copper and lead) from which e-readers and other reading devices (like tablets) are made are not necessarily a greener alternative – and energy consumption in manufacturing is still significant.

Toxic waste is ‘notorious in consumer electronics’, says Godelnik, and there are few recycling options (or a lack of awareness where these do exist). However, several reports suggest an LCD e-reader can offset around 40 books: if you replace five books a year, it’s going to take around eight years before you’ve offset your carbon footprint.

Source: The Fairlady Test House.

***

Are e-books greener than paper books?

Environmentally concerned customers may continue reading paper books. A report by the Centre for Sustainable Communications shows that there are no good reasons to claim that e-books have a better eco performance. Only if you read more than 33 e-books during the lifetime of an electronic reading device it becomes beneficial from a climate point of view.

There is a common assumption that e-books are limiting the burden on the environment. But our results indicate that there is no substantial difference between an e-book read on a reading device and a paper book. The reading device has to be used quite frequently. With the assumptions made in our study you have to read more than 33 e-books containing 360 pages on a newly purchased reading device for it to become superior from a climate perspective” says Åsa Moberg.

Source: The Centre for Sustainable Communications

***

Paper Vs. Electronic - The Green Reading Debate

After comparing energy and resource expenses along with transportation costs, neither seems to have the advantage. The deciding factor, then, often lies on the consumer end: personal usage. Popular opinion says that if you read a substantial amount, go ahead and buy an e-reader. The idea is that an e-reader becomes the greener choice when an owner will read a large amount of books on it – anywhere from 23 to 40, depending on the source. After a certain number of book downloads , e-readers add up to a larger ratio of books-to-environmental-footprint, and new books lose out because of their consistent production requirements. This advantage only stands to improve as e-readers become multifunctional, allowing owners to read newspapers, books, magazines, and other documents, providing positive environmental impacts across several uses.

While the e-reader provides a narrow margin of ecological benefit over new books, all participants in this argument agree on one thing: the greenest choice is a reused book. Borrowing books from a library or friends helps offset past emissions and avoids future resource use.

Source: JustMeans

***

Will Ebooks Jeopardize the Carbon Reduction Goals of the Book Industry?

In April 2009 the Book Industry Environmental Council(disclosure: Eco-Libris is a member of BIEC) announced a goal of reducing the U.S. book industry’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 (from a 2006 baseline), with the intent of achieving an 80% reduction by 2050. When the announcement was made, ebooks had less than 5% market share and weren’t considered to have a significant impact on the industry’s carbon footprint. In 2020 the picture will loom very different – some predict that ebooks will represent then as much as 50% of the market (some estimates go even higher), which means that every second book sold in 2020 will be an electronic one.

This forecast represents not just a dramatic change in the book industry, but also in its carbon footprint. The carbon footprint of the industry that BIEC’s announcement referred to was 12.4 million metric tons (carbon equivalent), or 4.01 kg CO2 per book (source: Book Industry Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts Report). The largest contributor to this footprint, according to this report, is the logging and manufacturing of paper, which constitute 87.3% of total carbon emissions.

If you eliminate the paper, one must assume, the book industry should have no trouble meeting its 2020 goal. Well, not so fast. E-reading is indeed paperless, but it doesn’t mean it is has no carbon footprint. For example, Apple’s iPad, according to the company, has a carbon footprint of 130 kg (carbon equivalent), which is equal to the footprint of 32.4 paper books.

Trying to determine how e-reading will influence the total footprint of the book industry is not an easy task. First, most device sellers like Amazon and Barnes & Noble do not provide any information on the footprint of their devices. Second, in the case of tablet computers like the iPad, we’re talking about multifunctional devices where reading books is just one of their functions and often not even the most popular one.

Still, the data available is enough to conduct a preliminary analysis, and thus we created various scenarios, taking into consideration different carbon footprints of e-readers and related variables such as the number of e-books read during the life time of a device.  The results we got were a bit surprising – even if the carbon footprint of all printed books sold by 2020 will be reduced by 20%, the chances the book industry will meet its goal are not very high.

Source: Triple Pundit

***

Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print?

If your goal is to save trees or do something good for the environment, the choice to go paperless may not be as green or simple as some would like you to think.

Digital media doesn't grow on trees, but increased use of digital media is having a profoundly negative impact on our forests and the health of our rivers. Computers, cellular networks and data centers are connected to the destruction of over 600 square miles of forest in the U.S. One of the more significant direct causes of deforestation in the United States is mountaintop-removal coal mining in the states of West Virginia, Kentucky and North Carolina.

America's adoption of networked broadband digital media and "cloud-based" alternatives to print are driving record levels of energy consumption. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the electricity consumed by data centers in the United States doubled from 2000 to 2006, reaching more than 60 billion kilowatt hours per year, roughly equal to the amount of electricity used by 559,608 homes in one year. According to the EPA that number could double again by 2011.

Chances are that the electricity flowing through your digital media devices and their servers is linked to mountaintop-removal coal from the Appalachian Mountains. The Southern Appalachian forest region of the U.S. is responsible for 23% of all coal production in the United States and 57% of the electricity generated in the U.S. comes from coal -- including the rapidly growing power consumed by many U.S. data centers, networks and consumer electronic devices.

Source: PBS

Paper Books, eBooks, and the Environment

Indie author Melissa Douthit has decided not to offer print versions of her next book, The Legend of the Rai Chaelia, in order to reduce her carbon footprint.

For anyone who has read the first book and is looking forward to continuing on to the second, it is fairly obvious that there is a strong environmental theme running through the story, given the race of people called the Terravail, which in the story is an ancient word for “respect for the land.”  The Terravail are the people who have a special connection to the land and feel whatever the land feels so they have a vested interest in keeping it preserved.  I think anyone who has read the book will see where this is going in the story.

So the question remains, should I offer the books in print when it seems from the very nature of the story itself, that that would be something very wrong to do?  I know I have told several people, and also posted on my website, that the print version of The Raie’Chaelia will available in September but now I think I’ve changed my mind.  I’m sorry to anyone who was looking forward to the print version.  I know that this decision will more than likely hurt me as an author, as there are so many readers out there who prefer print books, but after having done some research, I don’t really care if it hurts me.

The nice thing about being an indie author is that you have the flexibility to offer books in any format you want—even if it kills one’s writing career. No doubt Douthit’s intention to reduce our dependency on paper products is an admirable one but like so many environmental decisions they're designed to make the person doing the act feel good about themselves but do little, if anything, to actually help the environment.

When it comes to the environmental issues decisions we’re taught to think that there’s a “solution” for every environmental issue. In reality there are no solutions to any problem–environmental or otherwise—only trade-offs.

For example, every spring one of the trendy environmental things to do is to celebrate Earth Hour. To celebrate you turn off your lights of an hour to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (For the record, I turn on all the lights during this time.) Yet while that hour makes people feel like they’re doing something for the planet—good feelings is about the only thing this green publicity stunt accomplishes. Instead of sitting in the dark, many Earth Hour participants light candles which, as Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg points out, cancels any environmental impact these people were hoping to achieve.

When we switch off the electricity, many of us turn to candlelight. This seems natural and environmentally friendly, but unfortunately candles are almost 100 times less efficient than incandescent light bulbs, and more than 300 times less efficient than fluorescent lights. Using one candle for each extinguished bulb cancels the CO2 reduction; two candles emit more CO2.

And he’s not even taking into account all the particulate pollution that candles emit.

Douthit's is trying to save trees and paper, but what trade off might she be making not only in terms of the environment and her career.

Ebooks obviously use less paper than paper book. However, using an eReader (Kindle, Nook, etc.) has its own impact on the environment via mining, manufacturing, refining, shipping, distribution, and electricity used over its lifetime. Maybe an eReader has a smaller impact on the environment than say buying 100 paperbacks, but what happens if someone upgrades their eReader every year or two owns multiple eReaders? Douthit has not control over other people's purchasing decisions. Those who read her eBooks but upgrade their eReader every year might mitigate any positive environmental impact she hoped to make.

Besides, when it comes to their impact on the environment indie authors can utilize tools that the big six and other smaller presses don’t use much: print on demand (POD) technology. Most (big) publishers print thousands or millions copies of a title and ship them off to stores. If the books don’t sell, they’re returned and destroyed. But with POD a book is printed and shipped as soon as someone orders one. There aren’t hundreds or thousands of copies sitting around collecting dust or heading to landfills because no one wants them. Resource wise it’s about as efficient as you can get when it comes to printing books. I took advantage of this technology for the paperback edition of my Dating a Widower book. However, I made that decision not because of it lessens my impact on the environment but because it was less expensive than paying for thousand of copies of printed books. Plus, I don’t have to deal with the problem of storing or distributing them. It’s odd that Douthit doesn’t take advantage of that especially when you consider that trees are one of the most renewable resources on the planet and are in no danger of disappearing anytime soon—especially if our forests continue to be managed properly.

Despite the rapid growth of eBooks and eReaders, millions of people still enjoy and purchase paper books. Limiting one’s potential audience to those with eReaders limits one’s exposure. And since Douthit’s books offer an environmental message (one that she is very passionate about) it seems the best way to spread her word is to get her books into the hands of as many people as possible. Authors who limit themselves book to eBooks are only reducing the number of potential readers and, quite possibly, their careers*. Personally I don’t care if eBooks and eReaders are better for the environment or not. I prefer reading eBooks on my Kindle because they’re cheaper than print books, more convenient to buy, and don’t fill up my already overflowing bookshelves. If that happens to be better for the environment, so be it.

Douthit seems happy with her decision—and that’s fine. Like all writers she’s untimely in charge of her writing career and needs to make a publishing decision she can live with. However, considering Douthit dreams of being a fulltime writer, her choice to go eBook only seems to make that possibility a lot more difficult.

*For writers looking to sell short stories or novellas, the eBook only approach makes more sense. Going eBook only for full length fiction or non-fiction is also an inexpensive way to get a book into the market if you don’t have the time or money to spend on typesetting. However, if you ebooks take off, I suggest taking some of the profits and investing them into a POD paperback option. Considering where the book market is in complete flux and no one really knows where it's going to end up, adding more ways for people to read your book is the best way to grow your audience.

(Hat Tip: The Passive Voice)

Life Imitates The Third VI

Reuters, World Bank to Suggest CO2 Levy on Jet, Shipping Fuel, June 5, 2011

The World Bank will suggest a global levy on jet and shipping fuel in recommendations to G20 governments later this year on raising climate finance, a senior official said on Sunday.

The Sydney Morning Herald, The Dangers of Bone-Headed Beliefs, Richard Glover, June 6, 2011

Looked at through this lens, our generation has it easy. Already wealthy and armed with new technology, we need to front up to the challenge of building a low-carbon economy.

The tool we'll use is a carbon tax that seeks to subtly redirect some of our choices. Cut your power bill by more than the compensation offered and you get to keep the change.

From The Third, Chapter 2

Dempsey honked the truck’s horn, and Ransom watched as a lady reading the news board jumped in the air. He could remember car-filled streets, but the memories were few and hazy. The clearest was of him sitting in the backseat of his family’s minivan, looking out the window as his mom pulled into a parking lot filled with cars. Perhaps he remembered it so well because the summer sun had reflected off their windshields and reminded him of a sky filled with stars.

"I was five, maybe six, when the carbon taxes went into effect," Ransom said. "I remember my dad coming home from work and telling my mom that they couldn’t afford to drive anymore. Sometime after that, I think the car was sold or given to a recycling center."

Life Imitates The Third V

Once again, life imitates my soon-to-be released novel, The Third. From today’s The Telegraph (U.K.):

The European Commission on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.

"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."

From The Third, Chapter 2:

“You aren’t that young, are you?” Dempsey asked as he took a left on 12th Street, heading west. “I thought you were old enough to remember when just about everyone owned a car.”

Dempsey honked the truck’s horn, and Ransom watched as a lady reading the news board jumped in the air. He could remem­ber car-filled streets, but the memories were few and hazy. The clearest was of him sitting in the backseat of his family’s minivan, looking out the window as his mom pulled into a parking lot filled with cars. Perhaps he remembered it so well because the summer sun had reflected off their windshields and reminded him of a sky filled with stars.

“I was five, maybe six, when the carbon taxes went into effect,” Ransom said. “I remember my dad coming home from work and telling my mom that they couldn’t afford to drive any­more. Sometime after that, I think the car was sold or given to a recycling center.”

The only difference? In my book cars are banned around 2040.

Scary, ain’t it.

The Best Way to Celebrate Earth Hour

Update (3/27): I've receved a lot of emails asking if it's too late to  pre-order personalized copies of The Third. It's not. Like Room for Two, I always have some copies on hand to sell.  Just visit the store to order one. Or two. Or three. :-)

First, thanks to those who who pre-ordered copies of The Third. Your book is one of these photographed.

I'll be signing pre-ordered copies tonight during Earth Hour and mailing them out on Monday. And, yes, every light in my house will be on during this time. I'd hate to let all the good electricity go to waste!

Look for lots of well lighted photos tomorrow. :-)