-
- Neowin Hands-on: Windows Phone 7 review
- Did Google steal the Android logo from an Atar...
- Microsoft start advertising Internet Explorer ...
- New image of Windows Live Phone service appears
- Duke Nukem Forever...coming soon?
- Ping! iTunes goes social, Neowin goes mouse on
- Firefox 4 Beta 5 Lands
- Android now accounts for 25% of North American...
Is the Kindle more Eco-friendly than actual books?
If you are one of those people who reads more than 5 books per year then a Kindle is definitely for you. According to a report by the Cleantech Group, the Kindle is more environmentally friendly than paper books.
The publishing industry is one of the most polluting sectors in the world. In 2008, The U.S. Book and newspaper industries combined resulted in the harvesting of 125 million trees.
The report by the Cleantech Group, titled "The Environmental Impact of Amazon's Kindle" looks at the emissions that devices could produce and prevent. According to the report, a single Kindle displaces the purchase of 22.5 books each year which results in an estimated carbon savings of 168 kg of CO2. It also says that if the full storage of the Kindle is used then the device prevents almost 11,185 kg of CO2 from being released. That is a significant amount and could help the environment drastically especially with sales of the Kindle expecting to touch 14.4 million in 2012.

The Cleantech Group also forecasts that e-readers purchased from 2009 to 2012 could prevent an estimated 5.3 billion kg of carbon dioxide in 2012 or 9.9 billion kg during the four year time period.
According to the study done by Emma Rich, the Amazon Kindle still has a significant edge when taking into account the manufacture and mining required to produce an electronic device.
This is what Emma Rich had to say in her conclusion; "The roughly 168 kg of CO2 produced throughout the Kindle's lifecycle is a clear winner against the potential savings: 1,074 kg of CO2 if replacing three books a month for four years; and up to 26,098 kg of CO2 when used to the fullest capacity of the Kindle DX. Less-frequent readers attracted by decreasing prices still can break even at 22.5 books over the life of the device,"
They also noted that the production of a Kindle produces 168 kg of C02 compared to 7.46 kg of CO2 for a book. They say this citing sources that electronic readers need electricity to run.
They argue that the electronic reader industry can only make a significant impact once people start mass movements from paper media. "A user that purchasers fewer than 22.5 books per year would take longer to neutralize the emissions resulting from the e-reader, and even longer to help reduce emissions attributed to the publishing industry," according to the study.
It comes down to whether people continue to buy books or print papers along with an e-book. The question then is; Are you going to buy an e-book? If so, will you purchase more than 22.5 books per year?
Via CNET

Comments (60)
Chewbob - 30 August 2009 - 14:35
When I'm buying a book or a new gadget the last thing on my mind is eco-friendliness.
Justin- - 30 August 2009 - 16:42
Same. I'm looking for the cheaper book... and if my local library has it, I sometimes just pick it up from there. I've read three books on my iPod Touch Kindle app, and would get more if they were cheaper than paperback. I'm more likely than not going to get a paper book than digital book if they are the same price.
ThaCrip - 31 August 2009 - 05:00
exactly! ... this 'eco' (i.e. GREEN) crap is just a bunch of BS. they just trying to brainwash the public into thinking there's a problem with it's minimal at best.
but either way... at the end of the day for the average joe... it's all about PRICE/convenience more than anything else.
PsykX - 31 August 2009 - 23:55
Whew. I see. It's because of people like you that we're still steps and steps away from being eco-friendly.
...
Wait did I say steps? I meant light-years.
Sad, but true...
um put a solar charger on the back of the thing and bye bye co2 emissions (from a power point of view only)
_dandy_ - 30 August 2009 - 23:00
I thought I read somewhere that it takes more energy to manufacture a solar cell than you could possibly ever recuperate over that cell's lifetime...
Jebadiah - 31 August 2009 - 03:48
10-20 years ago _dandy_.
Titoist - 30 August 2009 - 15:04
While I promote the switch to more eco-friendly alternatives, books for me are sort of hard to get rid of and start using e-readers. I prefer to have a physical copy and when im done add it to my shelf. The amount of books I have lying around on book shelves shows off my collection and the amount I have read, and allows others to easily pick out a book and read it themselves. It also doesn't help financially because e-books are almost if not the same price as paperback versions of those books.
bob21 - 30 August 2009 - 15:10
C02 emissions form electricity are only a problem if you don't support Nuclear Power . As countries like france have shown Nuclear is the way forward to a world free of energy conservation.
Dashel - 30 August 2009 - 15:52
Problem is, we don't have enough fuel for nuclear to be a true solution to energy demands.
Neoauld - 30 August 2009 - 16:16
there is no one replacement for what we use today
as we phase out fossil fuels, well be using different solutions around the world
+TCLN Ryster - 30 August 2009 - 16:20
Well they should hurry up and develop more efficient hydrogen production instead then... once they get to a point where the energy output of burning hydrogen is greater than the energy needed to produce it, our world will be transformed overnight. Energy will become more or less free of charge once the infrastructure is in place. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
Lets just hope greed fossil fuel energy corporations don't hold back development or even sabotage experimentation, ala. Chain Reaction
Titoist - 30 August 2009 - 17:18
Nuclear energy is not the answer. Sure it is more environmentally friendly during use, but after the uranium rods are spent, it is an environmental disaster to try and contain the spent fuel rods. Burrying them inside a mountain is not the answer since radiation can go through rocks.
Solid Knight - 30 August 2009 - 19:54
So what about all the waste produced by e-readers themselves? They aren't something that will last for a hundred years (like a book will) and at some point they will end up in a landfill. You still have to ship these e-readers around.
rheostat - 30 August 2009 - 23:01
If you actually believe that the multi-billion dollar petroleum industry is going to allow energy to be free of charge, you're in for a big disappointment.
peacemf - 30 August 2009 - 15:36
i prefer books, i dislike staring at screen in which i cant highlight or something!
Most ebook readers have highlight as an option anymore.... along with note taking
mikiem - 30 August 2009 - 15:41
We still don't know... What we do know is someone at Cleantech likes the Kindle, but beyond that, their analysis is too weak to do more than earn the thanks [& possibly revenues] of Amazon. To really do a serious analysis Cleantech would have had to account for every step of the Kindle's life cycle, including it's demise & burial in a landfill. If they want to focus solely on CO2 emissions, then at least account for the mining, the chemical plants, manufacturing, transportation of both materials & finished products, & to be thorough, effects on on both people & markets -- for example Amazon's servers for e-books are hardly environmentally neutral, especially when compared to bookshelf. ;-)
emmaritch - 01 September 2009 - 00:59
Actually, I wrote the report. I don't particularly have feelings one way or the other about the Kindle. The full report DOES address every step of the Kindle lifecycle from mining, to manufacturing, distribution, energy use, and disposal. But of course, this site cannot republish the entire report, as it is copyrighted.
Dashel - 30 August 2009 - 15:53
I hate that line about saving the trees. Trees are a renewable resource so if you like trees, buy more paper books!