.jpg)
.jpg)
I’ve written quite extensively on the subject of consumption, and more specifically, the concept of conspicuous (wasteful) consumption. I’m not going to delve into consumption here, as it is quite a complex phenomenon, particularly when we look at consumption not only in terms of its effects on the environment, but also as an attempt to create or renew a concept of self. I will however write more on the topic soon.
So, without going into consumption, lets just begin from the premise that the less we consume and produce, the lighter our footprint is on the natural environment. Agreed? My own personal goal is to always consume less and within my means, and what I do need to consume (clothes, food etc), I do so with a social and environmental conscience (recycled goods, fair trade, local food etc).
Now, one thing that I’m very excited about is the potential for the digital revolution to transform (or even eradicate) energy and resource-heavy production and distribution processes. A perfect example is digital music; studies have shown that online delivery of music is clearly superior from an energy and CO2 perspective than purchasing a CD from a store.
Digital downloads don’t need manufacturing, packaging or transport. Studies have concluded that even in a situation in which the music is downloaded, burned onto a CD and put in a jewel case, the carbon difference is 40% in favour of the download. If the music is not burned to a CD, it’s 80% better than purchasing a CD.
Recently, we’ve taken it a step further into what is likely going to be a more tricky medium to convert to digital: print. We are seeing a marked increase in the purchase of e-books, and with the popularity of Amazon’s Kindle and now with the introduction of Apple’s new iPad, we are going to see the popularity of this new digital medium explode.
But here’s my question: is the iPad just another toy amongst a plethora of unnecessary gadgets now available on the market? Is it just another act of conspicuous consumption, and its consumers obedient androids enamored by another elaborate and brilliant marketing campaign for one more of Apple’s “must-haves.”
Or, are we seeing the beginning of what will inevitably mark the end of the paperback and all of its seemingly energy and resource-heavy production and distribution processes? Will one act of iPad consumption reduce the need to make other multiple acts of consumption (books) and reduce our overall ecological footprint?
After a little research, it seems that these questions are yet to be answered. The verdict is still out on whether e-books are greener than paper books, and so much of it depends on personal habits. There is an organization that is following the evolution of this debate, and you can find all the related articles here. There are some great articles that provide some interesting reading and lay out what seems to be an endless list of pros, cons and possibilities.
In the most recent one from the NY Times, the authors conducted a life-cycle assessment to determine the greenest way to read. Their conclusion was that with respect to fossil fuels, water use and mineral consumption, the impact of one e-reader equals roughly 40 to 50 books. When it comes to global warming, though, it’s 100 books; with human health consequences, it’s somewhere in between.
Personally, I assumed it was clear cut, and that purchasing e-books and reading them on one device would be far greener than purchasing all those books from a store. But, its more complex than that. I was also attracted to the convenience of having all my books in one accessible place rather than a massive bookshelf, plus e-books are cheaper!
I currently have around 140 books on my shelf, so an iPad might be worthwhile in terms of green impact. However, it took me around 10 years to accumulate those, and I’d have to re-purchase them all as e-books. For it to be worthwhile, I’d have to purchase 50-100 new e-books in the span of the iPad’s theoretical life-cycle, which would be somewhere between 2-4 years. For me, its likely not worth it, but for others, it could prove very worthwhile.
I have no doubt that our direction towards the digital world is inevitable, and I’m convinced that this is something to be optimistic about. What is also clear is that this new medium still has a long way to go in terms of cleaning up its production and distribution processes before it can claim to liberate us from the footprint of the book. As we navigate the road toward a digital future, lets hope the path is greener and more sustainable than the road we’ve traveled before.
In the meantime, as the NY Times article claims, the most ecologically virtuous way to read a book starts by walking to your local library.
