ebooks v print books

Since I can read ebooks on my laptop or PDA phone, does anyone have any opinion on which are environmentally friendlier, ebooks or print books? Which should I have as my "default setting"? Should I only buy ebooks if I can't get the print book or vice versa?

I think both of them are ok.which one is better depends. for example,I never could sit in front of my PC to read ebooks. I was always distracted by my emails. so I prefer to paper books.

I happen to have Stephen King's book On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft in both hardcover and eBook (the 1150 device) format. Except for certain pages where he was showing examples of editing notations and such, I found the eBooks format to be the preferred venue. I think most of that was because of the locations I found myself in where I had the opportunity to read. Most of the time, I prefer to hold the physical book though.

Thanks for your opinion, both of you, but what I really want to know is which has a greater impact on the environment: the use of electricity to power the laptop/reader/whatever, or the manufacturing of the print book and transporting it from publisher to bookshop.

Hi Robert,

I think it's difficult to tell. If you get all your books at second hand shops or the library, it may be better for the environment. E-books may be better if you tend to purchase books. Of course, energy expenditures are getting more efficient all the time. Cars are more energy efficient. Perhaps recycled paper is better for the environment. On the other hand, you are correct -- I am using more electricity at home than before in order to charge my laptop, my e-book reader etc.

Eventually I think e-book will win the environment argument.

k4k

>5 krazy4katz: "E-books may be better if you tend to purchase books."

On the other hand, a single book can have many readers, whereas an ebook is usually limited to a specific device and can't be leant or shared. So if it was only available as an ebook, everyone would have to buy their own Kindle, etc, to read it. Printed books also have functional stability--some 2000 years of it-- where as electronic devices tend to become obsolete very quickly, and purposely so. Thus you are constantly required to upgrade your reading device.

I prefer to read printed books because I like to read them while resting in my bed. Plus I just don't enjoy reading much printed material on the computer screen because it gives me a headache after a while.

As for which is more environmentally friendly, I don't know. Of course, electricity is being used when you read books on the computer and paper has to be used to print books. But printed books CAN be used over and over again and passed on for others to read.

I have trouble reading stuff online.

Quality paper books are long-term carbon storage devices. Do your part against global warming and keep more books. ;-)

There is as everyone has said no easy answer.

Plus of course the question is not precise. What do you mean by environmentally friendly?

Just CO2 emissions? (or CO2 equivalent?)

Or do you include the 3rd world workers who recycle you spent electronic components?

resource depletion? every milligram of Indium used in your electronics can't be used in other technology.

Animal welfare? - trash forests don't support much in the way of biodiversity, many electronics' metals are widely toxic

If you power your electronics through a green energy provider - wind or home solar, then there is a fair chance that producing a book, and transporting it to you produces more CO2 net than an ebook. But maybe not an ebook and reader. An ebook and full desktop PC? Both of which have to be shipped to you. Don't forget the server farms that hold the copies of the ebook.

In truth we don't know the CO2 emited over the full lifetime for any object. How far back do you go? The mining process for the ore that was used to make the factory that made the fertiliser that helped the tree grow? Further still? Do you include a contribution for all the computers in existance that make up the internet that transmitted the ebook to you? Or just those of the servers it passed through?

How do compare between one and the other?

Being "green" isn't easy, you have to think about what matters to you.

OK, I will endeavour to be more precise. Given that I already have a laptop and PDA which I use for other purposes, would the electricity from the ordinary municipal grid which I would consume using them to read an ebook have a greater or lesser impact on the environment than the transportation of the same work as a print book to my local bookshop?

Assuming that you would be purchasing a new book, I would guess that the e-book would be more energy efficient, since you have to drive to the store to pick up the book that had to be manufactured and driven there itself. k4k

#11. hmm ok, much easier question to answer.

Using top google hits just for approximate numbers.

Laptop in idle consumes 15W.
I read an average book in maybe 6 hours.
total energy used to read ebook = 90W

I don't even need to calculate the transport of a book it's way way way more than 90W which is a trivial amount.

However:
These are not a fair comparison. You then own the book. It as stated above contains some Carbon locked away forever. You shouldn't ignore the production costs, nor can you ignore the end of life costs.

I don't like hardcovers so I buy used paperbacks. But I like the fact that I can carry 1000 books with me on a 1g USB when I go out of town. It gives me a good selection so I don't have to figure out which books I want to read before I leave. But to be honest I like the fact that I don't have those 1000 books taking up valuable space in my 800sq ft. house. I already have 8 bookcases full of books and no more room.

Yes, I agree. For me the e-books are a convenience. I enjoy reading them on my kindle. i am reading a lot more now than I have in the last few years. Of course not having to drive to a library or bookstore is helpful too. k4k