Comments on: Bug-Eyed stat: ‘College students could save a tree per year using e-textbooks’

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 17:33:04 +0000

Stephen: Thanks for the classy reply—in character. I myself would still find the paper-industry estimates to be more persuasive; yes, there are vast differences here. That said, I know you acted in good faith and look forward to other gems from you. Back to this one. I couldn’t agree with you more about the inefficiencies of the p-book industry! And even by the estimates of the paper industry, we’re still talking about major consumption, so your main point still holds. Thanks. David (who just pulled your comment out of moderation—which you shouldn’t encounter when you post here again)

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:51:29 +0000

Hi, Rob. Agree with your energy argument. But remember–the figure of 362 pounds for a spruce tree is the actual pulp one, minus “a few percentage of this for conversion to paper.” So, whether or not there’s waste at the tree level, we’re probably talking about a yield higher than Stephen’s figs imply. But let’s see what he says in return. He’s a good guy, and I’ve invited him to respond to the points we’re raising here. Thanks. David

By: Stephen Fraser

Stephen Fraser — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 14:56:46 +0000

You are correct in that various interested parties disagree quite a bit on the number of sheets of paper that can be derived from a single tree. Obviously calculating the true number would require exact knowledge of many variables, including the weight and cut of the paper as well as waste in the manufacturing processes involved. The number used by CafePress.com to calculate the total trees used to make textbooks each year — 8,333 (coated) pages from a 40-foot tree — came from what struck me as a comparatively balanced analysis by the folks behind the web site Conservatree.com. Their numbers have also been repeated at least once by CNN if I’m not mistaken. Recognizing that intelligent people could easily disagree on the assumptions at the root of the calculation, we posted all the sources of the numbers used in the CaféScribe analysis. Regardless of the specifics, I think we can all agree that the publishing industry as it exists now — textbooks, books, magazines and the lot — is rife with waste. The industry itself is keenly aware of this and it is one of the reasons its margins have been so quick to suffer with the advance of new technology. I am reminded of a terrific WSJ story from a couple of years ago written by the (very good) technology reporter Jeffrey Trachtenburg. The story touches on the true extent of the inefficiencies in the current system for publishing and distributing books. It’s quite shocking. Here’s a link to the summary: Quest for Best Seller Creates a Pileup Of Returned Books (full-text unfortunately available only to subscribers).Anyway, I hope the clarification is helpful. The point of a study like this is really to get people thinking, not to pin down a number scientifically. Take as another example the recent story about a study that identified 237 distinct reasons people engage in sex. It made for great copy, but no one really believes that there are in fact 237 reasons people have sex. Why I thought of 143 more reasons just yesterday….

By: Rob Preece

Rob Preece — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:27:12 +0000

The tree statistic did seem suspicious. You might want to keep in mind, though, that paper doesn’t eat the whole tree. There is a lot of waste here.

In terms of e-vs-p on the ecology front, I can’t see that there’s any comparison. Sure my eBookWise requires a charge every week or so, but pBooks not only require paper mills, and trucks and trains, they require huge air-conditioned bookstores, huge air-conditioned libraries, huge chunks of book-lovers homes, land fill (when disposed of), and inks containing (in many cases) heavy metals.

No electrons were destroyed during the creation of this comment.

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 06:52:06 +0000

Jon: I’m all in favor of truth-seeking here. Let’s see what Stephen has to say in reply, especially about the source of the following information from him: “8,333.3 - number of sheets of paper derived from a single tree.” I did track down source material from the paper industry (PDF alert) that would in effect might raise questions about his calculations.

In addition, here’s some federally distributed information–including the fact that “we get 362 pounds of pulp from the spruce tree. Subtract a few percentage of this for conversion to paper and divide by the weight of the newspaper to find out how many issues could be produced from that single tree.” Same concept presumably would apply to books. Is the student buying 362 pounds of textbooks a year? Hardly! And 362 pounds would be a lot more than 8,333.3 sheets of paper! A 5,000-sheet case of paper from Staples weighs perhaps 20 pounds or just a fraction of the 362 pounds.

So, yes, while not reaching final conclusions until all facts are in and all the analysis is done, I do wonder now about the tree-per-year fig, even allowing for variations among species of trees.

That said, we’re still talking about sizable consumption. I’d suspect, moreover, that with all the energy expenditures considered, E would be greener than P.

Meanwhile big thanks for your own research. We’ll get at the root of the tree/paper issue! - David

By: Tarun Juyal

Tarun Juyal — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 04:19:03 +0000

I am a regular reader of your article. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon effects and causes of Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

By: Jon Jermey

Jon Jermey — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:59:24 +0000

These numbers just don’t add up. Ask yourself what would you rather have fall on you: 18 textbooks or a tree?

In fact, according to Infoplease..

Since trees are different sizes, it would be difficult to say how much paper comes from one tree. According to one paper manufacturer, however, a cord of wood measuring 4 feet by 4 feet by 8 feet—or 128 cubic feet—produces nearly 90,000 sheets of bond-quality paper or 2,700 copies of a 35-page newspaper.

Most mature pine trees would be at least twice that.

By: David Rothman

David Rothman — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:56:50 +0000

Thanks, Joseph. The item was on E vs. P rather than the PDF / DRM issues, but, yes, I’d agree with you that both can be real pains. The torture of a nonreflowable format like PDF has been a frequent topic in this blog. I myself hope that schools and publishers alike will consider different biz models and improved technology–the reflowable IDPF standard is a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, as usual, I appreciate the additional depth you’ve offered. I pointed Stephen Fraser to the item, and hopefully he can reply the questions you’ve raised. To sum up, I love E in general but do hope that people will move beyond PDF. - David

By: Joseph Gray

Joseph Gray — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:47:09 +0000

On the face of it, this sounds good. The article mentions the use of PDF documents, which is to be expected with textbooks. However, the web site says to download “MyScribe Reader”. So, are students locked into this proprietary software, or can they simply download the PDF textbook and use it with other software, like Acrobat Reader or PDF Annotator?

Even if you can use the PDFs with other software, I assume that they will have DRM on them? If so, then they may not be useable in other software, or perhaps useable at all if the so-called “rights” are restricted so you can’t print, copy, annotate, etc.

I have been down this road before. I bought an ebook in PDF format because I wanted to use PDF Annotator on it (for a class). After I wasted my money, I found out that everything but reading was disallowed. I had to purchase a second copy of the same ebook in LIT format (thankfully this particular ebook was available as a LIT). At least MS Reader let me annotate it. So, because of DRM I had to buy that ebook twice. I can’t even sell the useless PDF copy to someone else, because DRM has “licensed” that copy to only me. I can sell an old pbook that I don’t want, but not that useless ebook (gripe mode off now).