Notable Articles and The Future of the Book

Are eReaders Really Green?

By posted at 6:00 am on May 1, 2012 76

In 2009, the Book Industry Environmental Council set a couple of environmental goals for the U.S. book industry. Using a calculation of the industry’s total greenhouse gas emissions from 2006 as its baseline, the BIEC and its members pledged to reduce the industry’s carbon footprint by 20% in 2020 and by 80% in 2050. When the pledge was made, the Kindle had existed for only a year and a half, and the Nook was still eight months away. (Kobo eReaders and iPads didn’t emerge until 2010.) eBooks, still in their infancy, accounted for a measly 5% of books sold in America.

Today, it seems like many publishing houses are on their ways toward achieving the BIEC goals. Thanks to the proliferation of FTP software, most major publishing houses have slashed the amount of printing done in-office. At John Wiley & Sons, my production group had a paperless workflow: Adobe was our editing tool of choice, and to be one of our freelancers, you had to pass an exhaustive MS Word screening test. Later on, at Oxford University Press, a common email signature asked readers to “save paper and print only what’s necessary.” Organizing stacks of paper on your desk was out; navigating sub-folders on a shared drive was in.

Meanwhile eBooks were becoming ever more popular. By the end of 2011, Amazon announced it was selling one million Kindles a week, and Apple said it had sold over 40 million iPads. Consequently, eBooks accounted for 31% of U.S. book sales by 2012. According to a Pew Internet study, as many as one in four American adults now own an eReader or tablet (one in three if they went to college). The trend toward digitization is undeniable, and there are many reasons to be optimistic: big publishers are making more money off of more products than ever before; it’s easier than ever to publish a book; and the number of books available to anyone with an internet connection is unprecedented. Some analysts even predict that soon print books, like CDs a few years ago, will be almost entirely replaced by digital files.

But is all of this really cutting the industry’s carbon footprint? Is total eBook adoption — that is: elimination of the print book — really an ecologically responsible goal?

Put in absolute terms, the number of books — regardless of format — produced and sold across the globe increases each year. This is mostly due to an increasing global population. While America, Australia, India and the UK are the most rapid adopters of digital reading devices — at least for the time being — eBooks presently account for only a small fraction of the world book market. (This is due to factors such as availability of technology, reliable internet connections, and disposable income.)

Necessarily, the increased consumption of print and digital books has led to an ever-increasing demand for the materials required to create, transport, and store them. In the case of eBooks, though, vast amounts of materials are also necessary for the eReaders themselves, and this is something typically overlooked by proponents of digitization: the material costs are either ignored, or, more misleadingly, they’re classified as the byproduct of the tech industry instead of the book industry.

National Geographic correspondent Allen Tellis recently posted a brief note of encouragement to owners of eReaders, and it illustrates exactly the type of oversight I just mentioned. “The steady rise of eBooks,” Tellis wrote, “should benefit the environment by reducing use of paper and ink, and by slashing transportation, warehouse, and shelf-space limits.” He went on to note how certain study groups have determined “that the carbon released from eBooks is offset after people read more than 14 eBooks” on a single eReader. But Tellis ignores the fact that global print book consumption is rising concurrently with eBook consumption. In other words: the carbon footprint of the digital book industry is mostly growing in addition to, not to the detriment of, the growing carbon footprint of the print book industry.

I couldn’t locate the source of Tellis’ information about those 14 eBooks offsetting the ecological cost of their owner’s eReader. Instead, I found this New York Times op-ed which painted a starkly different picture: “the impact of one e-reader … equals roughly 40 to 50 books. When it comes to global warming, though, it’s 100 books.” Still more damning, Ted Genoways’ excellent VQR article about the raw materials needed for the production of eReaders (and other gizmos), found that:

At present, the average e-reader is used less than two years before it is replaced. That means that the nearly ten million e-readers expected to be in use by next year would have to supplant the sales of 250 million new books — not used or rare editions, 250 million new books — each year just to come out footprint-neutral. Considering the fact that the Association of American Publishers estimates that the combined sales of all books in America (adult books, children’s books, textbooks, and religious works) amounted to fewer than 25 million copies last year, we have already increased the environmental impact of reading by tenfold. Moreover, it takes almost exactly fifty times as much fossil fuel production to power an iPad for the hours it takes to read a book as it would take to read the same book on paper by electric light.

Usage figures are an important element in the estimation of a book’s environmental impact. According to Apple, an iPad is responsible for 2.5 grams of CO2e per hour of use. A single print book, on the other hand, is responsible for “a net 8.85 pounds” (PDF) of carbon emissions over the course of its life (e.g. production, transportation, and retail). Note that the former figure, however, is open-ended; the latter figure is finite. If you ignore the environmental cost of an eReader, that means you would need to read the iBookstore version of War and Peace for 1,605.39 hours (~67 days) to damage the environment as badly as that paperback copy of Tolstoy’s tome on your bookshelf. That certainly sounds like a point for eBooks, but it’s a totally misleading evaluation.

For a demonstration of just how misleading that comparison is, I used basic arithmetic and some minimal Googling to calculate the carbon footprint of the average American reading an average number of average novels at an average speed both in print and on an iPad. (I picked iPads because Amazon doesn’t release Kindle data. I picked America because we’re the most voracious consumers of digital books.) Here’s what I found:

I. One Year of Reading:
First I calculated the average rate of consumption for the average reader. I found average reading speed, average book length, and average number of books consumed, and then I calculated the carbon emissions caused by one year of reading.

  1. The average adult reads 200-250 words per minute. (Source)
  2. The average novel is 64,500 words. (Source)
  3. That means the average adult spends 4.3 hours reading an average novel.
    [(64,500 words / 250 wpm) / 60 minutes]
  4. The average adult reads 6.5 books per year. (Source; PDF)
  5. The average adult spends 27.95 hours reading each year.
    [6.5 books * 4.3 hours]


Paperback Footprint: 26,087.59 grams of CO2e
[6.5 books * 8.85 pounds of emissions * 453.5 g. per lb.]
eBook Footprint: 69.875 grams of CO2e
[6.5 books * 4.3 hours * 2.5 g. of emissions per hr.]

This is the comparison eBook proponents typically cite. Unfortunately, it’s at best lousy mathematics and at worst a manipulative comparison.

II. One Year of Reading (Device Footprints Included):
Next I found the lifetime carbon emissions from one iPad and one iPad 2, and I plugged those into my one year of reading calculations.


iPad lifetime emissions: 130,000 grams of CO2e (Source; PDF)
iPad 2 lifetime emissions: 105,000 grams of CO2e (Source; PDF)

Paperback Footprint: 26,087.59 grams of CO2e
eBook Footprint (iPad): 130,069.875 grams of CO2e
eBook Footprint (iPad 2): 105,069.875 grams of CO2e

As you can plainly see, factoring in the carbon footprint of an eReader drastically changes the comparison. One year of reading eBooks accounts for a carbon footprint five times greater than a year’s worth of print books.

Fans of eReaders will of course refute this data by claiming that their devices level out with — and could even become “greener” than — print books on a long enough timeline. This claim is indeed theoretically true after five years, and I’ll show you how.

III. Five Years of Reading on One Device (Device Footprints Included):
I extrapolated the data to account for five years of use at the same rate of consumption as above. (And on the same device for all five years — more on that in a minute.)


Paperback Footprint: 130,437.95 grams of CO2e
eBook Footprint (iPad): 130,349.375 grams of CO2e
eBook Footprint (iPad 2): 105,349.375 grams of CO2e

I determined that it takes five years (32.5 books) of steady eBook consumption (on the same device) to match the ecological footprint of reading the same number of print books the old fashioned way. This number is smack in between Tellis’ (14 books) and The New York Times’ (50 books) calculations. However it, too, is misleading because it doesn’t correctly account for device replacement.

As Ted Genoways was saying, most eReaders are used for only two years before being discarded, replaced, lost or broken. More than 20% of all Kindles sit unused after Christmas. So, that in mind, let’s look at the numbers when we factor in average eReader use — and account for device replacement every two years.

IV. Five Years of Reading (Device Replacement Included):
Assuming a device is replaced every two years (years 0, 2, and 4), this is the most accurate depiction of how an eReader compares to a pile of print books.


That eReader, then, accounts for an initial carbon footprint 200-250% greater than your typical household library, and it increases every time you get a new eReader for Christmas, or every time the latest Apple Keynote lights a fire in your wallet.

Also, these figures simply calculate the impact one person’s consumption has on the environment. If you live in a household with multiple eReaders — say, one for your husband and one for your daughter, too — your family’s carbon emissions are more than 600-750% higher per year than they would be if you invested in a bunch of bookshelves or, better yet, a library card.

Things are trickier than they seem, too. The truth is that the dedicated eReader died almost as soon as it arrived, and it’s since been replaced by items even worse for the environment than its ancestors. What we presently refer to as eReaders are more like all-purpose tablets equipped with email clients, web browsers, games, movie players, and more. (Even one of the earliest generations of Kindles offered a prototype web browser — buried in subfolders within the device’s navigation system, though clearly a hint of what was coming.) As these devices become more sophisticated, they invite more prolonged usage, so those 2.5 g of emissions per hour of use continue to add up. Likewise, as these devices become more sophisticated, their manufacture demands more precious materials — often from Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America.

Still more problematic is the fact that outdated devices are too often discarded inappropriately. You don’t need to investigate very hard to find evidence of the toll this mineral mining and e-waste dumping takes on fragile ecosystems.

The emissions and e-waste numbers could be stretched even further if I went down the resource rabbit hole to factor in: electricity needed at the Amazon and Apple data centers; communication infrastructure needed to transmit digital files across vast distances; the incessant need to recharge or replace the batteries of eReaders; the resources needed to recycle a digital device (compared to how easy it is to pulp or recycle a book); the packaging and physical mailing of digital devices; the need to replace a device when it breaks (instead of replacing a book when it’s lost); the fact that every reader of eBooks requires his or her own eReading device (whereas print books can be loaned out as needed from a library); the fact that most digital devices are manufactured abroad (and therefore transported across oceans); and etc…

This is the ultimate result of our culture’s fetishization of technology — a problem which will assuredly worsen before it improves. It wasn’t long ago that sophisticated electronics were few and far between. I grew up in a house with one desktop computer, and it was located in the kitchen. That was eleven years ago, and when I remember all the times I argued with my brother over who got to play StarCraft, my memory seems as quaint and outdated as a scene from Mad Men. Today, my thirteen-year-old sister has her own laptop, smartphone, and television to supplement the two desktop computers, additional television set, and Kindle Fire located in my mother’s home.

There’s an Apple store in Grand Central Station that I pass each day on my way to work; every morning I watch hundreds of commuters browse iPads as though they were magazines or candy. In the end, this conspicuous (and often unnecessary) tech consumption — eReaders included — contributes to an inflating carbon footprint far beyond anything ever caused by traditional book production.

Of course, it’s slippery ethics to rationalize the book industry’s carbon footprint by focusing, instead, on the larger problem of the tech industry’s carbon footprint. Both are problems that need to be addressed. But for right now, if we’re forced to choose, the traditional paper route is the better one. If you worry for the future of our rainforests, and if you worry for the future of our planet, the responsible decision is to purchase or borrow books printed on recycled paper and from ecologically conscious vendors. (You can find a handy list of such places and printers here.)

While this tactic alone will not solve the problem, it will certainly make a difference if enough people choose library cards instead of Kindle Singles. And while it’s true that, now that digital has arrived, digital is here to stay, the book reading community needs to ask itself which is more important: developing a greener way to produce print books while we halt the growth of eBooks’ market share, committing fully to the creation of “greener” eReading devices — or some combination of both. Doing neither is not an option.

Raz Godelnik, CEO of Eco-Libris, estimates that 80% of a paperback book’s carbon footprint is caused by the earliest stages in its production process: paper harvesting, forest clearing, and material shipping. The BIEC recognized this, and one of its chief aims was to work on a more eco-friendly means of producing books. As consumers, though, we also have the power to fix this by demanding an even more responsible method of production from the largest publishing houses and their contractors. (This means we’d have to pay more for the end product, of course.) We must also demand better accountability from the technology companies that create eReaders, and that begins with demanding Amazon release better information about the Kindle.

Consumer outcry works: a few months ago, because everyone flipped out about the mistreatment of Foxconn workers, Apple instituted major changes to the pay structure for their subcontractors. If we can do this with labor, we can do this with resources.

We must also resist the urge to purchase the next hot technology when it comes out. If you have an eReader, use your eReader until it no longer works, and then recycle it responsibly. Do not purchase a new one before the old one has stopped working. If you own an eReader that you do not use, sell it to someone who will actually use it so that they don’t have to buy a fresh one. In simple terms: you wouldn’t buy a new edition of a book if nothing was wrong with the edition you already owned, so why would you do it with something ecologically equal to fifty of those books put together?

Image via Wikimedia Commons

Share this article

More from the Millions

76 Responses to “Are eReaders Really Green?”

  1. LIS 568 Week 12–Ten Reasons Not to Institute a 1:1 iPad Program in Your School | Melissa's UB LIS Blog
    at 10:56 pm on November 18, 2012

    […] Well, not quite: it takes “fifty times as much fossil fuel production to power an iPad for the hours it takes to read a book as…” […]

  2. Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Writers | TechCrunch
    at 9:02 am on December 15, 2012

    […] average American reads only 17 books a year. (Others say it’s a mere 6.5, but let’s be optimistic.) Call it 1,200 books per lifetime. If every author on the planet […]

  3. Matthew Harrison
    at 6:32 pm on February 12, 2013

    Whenever someone brings up the fact that iPads are general purpose computers and are as such also used for other things, so you can’t really blame all the power usage on books, you say “yes, but, the most popular eReaders are much more like iPads than their previous models.” Well if that’s true, and I agree, then these are all also multipurpose computers and as such are still not good model for reading use alone.

    Therefore, your data using the iPad are still flawed. You would have to work out a percentage of tablet use that can be attributed to reading eBooks then factor that in. Or use data from a dedicated eReader producer that does publish its figures, and only talk about dedicated eReader usage. Or both.

    But as a previous commenter noted, the “I already have/am going to get a tablet” argument applies and you can’t attribute 100% of the production emissions of a tablet used as an eReader to the use of it as an eReader.

    All that said, I would like to take your point in your original article that it is unfair to transfer a book industry problem to a tech industry problem and extend it even further. I would put forward that it is an energy industry problem. Get off our reliance on fossil fuels, seriously invest in renewable sources of energy, and we can eliminate the running costs of electrical devices altogether.

  4. aletheia33
    at 1:52 pm on February 13, 2013

    at what rate books do go sooner or later into waste disposal because they don’t sell or are worn out? what’s the cost to the environment of disposing of these?

  5. The Millions: Are e-Readers Really Green? | think tank
    at 3:22 pm on February 13, 2013

    […] Here’s an interesting article I found about e-books and how “green” they are (or aren’t). […]

  6. Ebooks Update: My Chin is on the Floor | Digitality
    at 6:41 pm on February 13, 2013

    […] Or maybe…not? […]

  7. Why we choose blogs « Everyday Curiosity
    at 9:53 pm on February 15, 2013

    […] people from all walks of life. I’m personally a huge fan of printed material. According to, prints contribute less carbon emissions than the creation of e-readers and tablets and that […]

  8. n8han
    at 3:24 pm on February 17, 2013

    “While there was a brief time when the most popular eReaders consumed minimal energy, that time has begun to pass, and the future of these devices skews more on the end of the tablet spectrum than the eInk one”

    This assertion is in my view a fundamental misreading of the e-ink and tablet markets that goes a long way to explaining the weakness of the information presented here.

    Amazon and B&N are happy to market LCD tablets alongside their e-ink readers because the tablets sell for more money and enable them to market movies and TV shows to you after purchase. It’s in their interest, and Apple’s, to conflate these devices. It is not in our interest as environmentally conscious readers to embrace the conflation and I would appreciate it if you Nick would stop doing that.

    If the market for tablets like the Fire is growing faster than that of regular Kindle e-ink readers, that simply tells us that more people like watching video than they like reading, which we should have known already. (Compare TV sales to… anything else.) It does not tell us that e-ink readers are being supplanted.Just ask a friend who uses e-ink to read books if they are planning on switching to a tablet to read books. This will give you better insight into the devices you are writing about.

    Finally, I have avoided the word “eReader” to avoid the confusion you’ve sown, but when your headline is about “eReaders” no one is thinking about iPads. Those of us who do use e-ink readers have read the whole piece looking for some relevant information and found none, only to be told to go demand it from Amazon ourselves. That would be kind of your job if you want to be the person to write about, “Are eReaders Really Green”.

    Also you should remove or annotate the embarrassingly mistaken or misleading “iPad is 50x power consumption of electric light” thing. Also I read this blog post and wrote this comment on my power-hog laptop, and look forward to your next post on “Are Blog Posts About eReaders (By Which I Mean iPads) Really Green?”

  9. Books: Digital or Print? « write drunk and edit sober
    at 5:18 pm on February 20, 2013

    […] to a 2011 analysis by The Millions, however, it would take “five years (32.5 books) of steady eBook consumption (on the same […]

  10. 10 choses que je ne savais pas la semaine dernière #131 | Notre Lien Quotidien
    at 2:39 am on February 25, 2013

    […] 2. Les liseuses électroniques n’ont rien d’écologique. […]

  11. Green Challenge #4 – Become a library member | Sierra Club Chinook
    at 11:41 pm on March 15, 2013

    […] Wondering if e-books are the more eco-friendly alternative to printed books? Here is an interesting article from May 2012 that asks “Are eReaders Really Green?“ […]

  12. Sudhamshu
    at 12:46 pm on May 30, 2013

    2 points.
    1. Books are printed in a big for an edition. If all books aren’t sold, there is a percentage of books that gather dust. (The worse the book, the higher the percentage) A higher number of books lie unsold in a second-hand market where owners dispose old books they no longer read. I can appreciate why this cannot be taken into account into the impact of a printed book. For e-books, this is not an issue at all.

    2. The main impact of e-readers is the assumption that they are all recharged with electricity which is generated by fossil fuels. What if devices were charged with solar power? What if manufacturers added batteries in devices that charge with clean energy?

  13. Será o livro da minha bisavó melhor que o teu? · Carrossel Magazine · As voltas que a vida dá.
    at 11:06 pm on June 10, 2013

    […] ou o iPad, parecem estar a ganhar. O custo ecológico de fabrico destas máquinas é muito elevado. Os cálculos sobre as vantagens para o ambiente do digital ou do papel são fascinantes, complexos e não produzem uma resposta clara – sobretudo porque muitos ereaders não servem […]

  14. Gli e-reader sono amici dell'ambiente? - Finzioni
    at 1:00 pm on March 26, 2014

    […] sciorinarvi altri studi e approfondimenti sull'argomento, che sicuramente non sono ancora definitivi vista la velocità con cui il […]

  15. Electronic Readers and Their Inefficiency at Greening the Publishing Industry | pghenvironmental
    at 6:16 pm on April 20, 2014

    […] a considerably large carbon footprint. In 2009 United States publishing companies faced a number of goals by the Book Industry Environmental Council to create a greener, more environmentally friendly […]

  16. Katt
    at 11:56 pm on April 24, 2014

    I just have to say that since I have a smartphone, I use my home computer less and less.

    I don’t have an additional device for reading, I read on my phone. I also don’t need to turn lights on to read at night. I do need my phone; no matter if I choose print or e-books, I would still need to buy a phone.

    I read a lot faster on screen than on paper, and I read more books since I have a smartphone because I don’t need to worry about storage, gathering dust or extremely high prices of print books in my country. Besides, I can read faster because I can carry all of my books everywhere I go. I guess you are just taking the US into account, but like somebody else said, I always sell my smartphones; in my country, we cannot afford to discard expensive stuff so quickly.

    at 12:00 am on April 26, 2014

    […] Moran, N. (2012, May) Are eReaders Really Green? MM The Millions Magazine. Retrieved April 24, 2014, from […]

  18. Hamish
    at 11:00 am on June 24, 2014

    I’ve been a big fan of e-readers for some time now. My original Kindle 2.0, which I had shipped from the USA to the UK before the UK Kindle store opened, lasted me two and a half years.

    I only upgraded to my current entry level Kindle as a result of a Christmas gift – otherwise I would still be using my old Kindle 2.0. My next upgrade will be a Paperwhite on my birthday – which means that the entry level Kindle has survived for two and a half years.

    E-reader owners don’t tend to upgrade as often as tablet users or smartphone owners. The fact that they (e-readers) use much less energy than tablets is important in the decision as to whether or not they are better for the environment.

    Personally, I read at least one book a week. Even if I adopt the higher end figures of 50 books or so to be break even, I think I am better of with an e-reader.

    I guess that the break even point must be much higher if you read on a tablet computer – but I do not find the back-lit screen to be pleasant to read on anyway, so, although I also have a tablet, I won’t be doing that.

    Over the piece, I think that e-readers are definitely green – at least for those who read a reasonable number of books and who won’t be upgrading their reader every time a new one comes out.

    If you don’t read a lot of books, then an e-reader is not a smart choice – but if you don’t read a lot of books then you’re not devouring too many trees to feed your “need to read” anyway.

  19. Book Marketing | PR | Book Promotion | Social Media | Authoramp help authors and publishers with book marketing
    at 6:04 am on July 18, 2014

    […] to start picking up the eReader instead of paperback books – it seriously helps minimise the carbon footprint of the publishing industry. It is also a very inexpensive way to read and has countless other benefits. However, we still […]

  20. Eleanor Rigby
    at 10:59 am on September 2, 2014

    Doesn’t take into account the returns system of publishing in the US, UK and no doubt some other countries:
    Or ferrying books about to be pulped, when they have become unsaleable second hand.
    People who move often and have have thousands of books aren’t factored in – a pretty small population – but the nuisance of repeated packing and unpacking, and the extra it was no doubt costing to move those boxes, has been the bggest reason driving me to use the ereader much more, a basic eInk device.

    Getting people to replace ereaders less often, preferably use them until they stop working, would be a good goal. I get the impression some people grow out of the early adopter, flash new gadget every year, thing – I and some friends have as we’ve got older – but there are still lots of people who see it as cool and environmentalism doesn’t seem to do much to address that.

  21. The book of love | Sustainable from Scratch
    at 8:04 am on March 23, 2015

    […] today I read this incredibly diligent and detailed analysis of the sustainability of electronic reading devices versus traditional paper books. Essentially it […]

  22. Kindled | Be Less Amazing
    at 10:19 am on March 25, 2015

    […] But, but, but, the environment! Nope. […]

  23. E-Readers Vs. Print Books - Book Publishing Consultants
    at 1:21 am on March 26, 2015

    […] Most new consumer electronics are produced abroad, which means your new e-reader probably had to be shipped across oceans and land to make its way […]

  24. E-Books vs Print – Which is Greener? | Clark College - Garbology Staging
    at 3:01 pm on April 3, 2015

    […] at first glance, that question can be difficult to answer. On the one hand, buying an e-book has a much smaller carbon footprint than a physical copy, which […]

  25. Earth Day: Books vs. eReaders | Without a Map
    at 8:04 pm on April 3, 2015

    […] even environmentally. Another article estimates that the iPad only breaks even with books after five years of average use. A publication by the Green Press Initiative puts the beneficial number for eBooks somewhere […]

  26. Juan Carlos Coto
    at 6:51 pm on December 6, 2015

    What’s most frightening of this all is that the REAL cost for the environment is not on the consumer side, but on the industrial side. We are shifting away responsibility to corporations (by using their products and buying their services) form ourselves, and they do a massively poor job of it. In fact, the choices they make represent us, and we are not even aware of them!

Post a Response

Comments with unrelated links will be deleted. If you'd like to reach our readers, consider buying an advertisement instead.

Anonymous and pseudonymous comments that do not add to the conversation will be deleted at our discretion.