P-books as global-warmers: Another argument for E
Hello, Seattle area? You’re gaining influence in the book world—and that could be good, in the sense of spreading around the tree-hugging values of local environmentalists. Now, how about a big push for E at the consumer level, as a way for the book industry to help fight pollution and global warming?
“In all, it is estimated that the industry produced a carbon dioxide equivalent net emission of about 12.4 million tons in 2006 and a net emission of 8.85 pounds per book sold to consumers,” Publishers Weekly says in Toward a Greener Future, part of its Green Issue. Carbon dioxide is no small contributor to global warming.
Yes, I know: computer gizmos themselves are hardly without sin: it takes energy and some release of evil gasses to make even a green OLPC XO. Still, I’d love to see the book business go far beyond just recycling paper or using e-galleys or relying on e-manuscripts or using wind-created electricity in bookstores. How about more efforts to go E? Bafflingly, in an item called Steps to Reduce Publishing’s Environmental Impact, PW fails to mention e-books, which cut back on solid waste, not merely air pollution, especially if you read off XO-style machines, which are so thrifty with electricity. A concept such as TeleRead could promote not just e-reading but also use of appropriate hardware.
Tree cutting the biggest villain
So what’s the biggest contributor to the books industry’s’ carbon footprint?
“Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry,” as paraphrased by PW, says that “the cutting of trees accounts for nearly 63 percent of the industry’s carbon footprint, while paper production and printing accounts for 26.6 percent. The major impact of harvesting forests is largely due to the loss of carbon dioxide storage that comes when trees are cut.” The counter-argument is that the study doesn’t sufficiently consider the benefits of replacement trees.
Distribution and retail shares smaller than expected
Interestingly, according to the study, distribution and retail activities add up to just 12.7 percent of emissions. Hmm. I wonder if that fully considers customers’ driving.
The e-book standards angle: Seattle-headquartered Amazon is just one company, but it could help accelerate the move toward E by fretting less over short-term profits and more about the long term for both itself and the industry. The Kindle’s eBabel is a step backwards, given all the compatibility issues consumers have, especially when they want to read the same books on their PDAs and cellphones as on their K machines. Stay tuned for the next item.
Related: P-Books: Earth-menacing polluters—compared to e-books? and Bug-Eyed stat: ‘College students could save a tree per year using e-textbooks.’ While controversies rage over the details—a whole tree?—I think it’s safe to say that E is friendlier toward the environment.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Also previously mentioned here:
http://www.teleread.org/blog/2008/02/17/read-an-e-book-week-march-9-15/