Reading on paper vs. screen

Question

I was wondering if there are any numbers comparing the sustainability of reading conventional paper vs. reading on screens.

Standard LCD screens emit light while you are reading. Power consumption can be reduced with e-ink screens, but the production costs of an e-reader are certainly higher than the production costs of newspapers.

Is it at all sustainable to read, say one newspaper a day & one book a week. (On recycled paper & with soy-based ink, if you want.)

Or should one read the same amount on a computer screen instead. (Although, currently there exist nearly no nice screen for reading...)

Answer 1

Disclaimer: I sometimes read up to three heavy books a week.

I don't know how you'd begin to compare. What assumptions do you use regarding the lifecycle of the paper? Is the paper to be read once and then discarded? Is it recycled? Is it read over and over again? So rather than answer the question I want to explain why it is unanswerable by looking at a few issues.

Consider reference books, for example, and to go one step further consider micro-print reference books (like the "Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary") which are intended to be read with a magnifying glass. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is a large two-volume set, but each page is a micro-print reproduction of four pages of the standard edition. if the book gets a significant amount of use, possibly over decades, it would be very hard to imagine a screen doing better. This is one reason I am somewhat concerned about so much academic literature going into electronic form.

Reading could range from there to colorful junk mail, resource-intensive to produce, read once and discarded by a small percentage of recipients....

I just can't imagine that there is a single answer here even if we limit it to books. Nonetheless, here are some back of the hand calculations for reading a 1/2 lb book once and recycling it.

If we start with US government figures and work back we get slightly under 1kWH per lb of paper in the recycling process. Keep in mind printing still has to be taken into account and that isn't cheap either. If we are comparing to a kindle, I couldn't find specific power figures (except that it charges at 5 w), that would mean you'd have to read for about 100 hours to make up for it.

But the catch is as always, how much use does a book get? If you read the Odyssey once every few years, you may quite easily get that 100 hours out of the book. My 10lb (or maybe heavier) Compact Edition of the OED gets way more than 10k hours of usage over its life, let me tell you.

So the argument is likely to be an argument against disposable books rather than against printed books generally.

Answer 2

It's very hard to come up with numbers since books can be reused, borrowed, traded and have a life of decades.

Nevertheless, regarding bestsellers and novels in general, they are mostly sold as new, and a lot of paper needs to be used. In the ebook form, it's just a matter of copying a file and has practically no impact on the environment.

You can consider that building electronic devices is not as sustainable as producing books, because of the use of rare materials and polluting processes. However, e-readers are very simple devices, and their construction process (I saw a video showing the inside of the Kindle) is much simple than, for instance, smartphones. Also, the energy needed to read a book is about 5W * 2 hours / 1000 pages (about how lasts one recharge) = 0.01 Wh/page, which is much less than the power needed for printing it on paper.

So I think that buying an ebook (not a reader, the actual book) is pretty much like buying an used book in terms of impact. The real difference (in my opinion) can be made in the market of new books, without considering the costs (and impact) of distribution.

Answer 3

The Dutch news site De Correspondent is publishing a book on climate issues and makes it available both on paper and as an e-book. The publisher had exactly the same question: The paper industry emits more CO2 than aviation. Is it still justified to publish paper books?

The result is this article. It's in Dutch so you'll have to dump it into Google Translate, but here are the conclusions:

The answer depends on what you zoom in on. If you only look at greenhouse gas emissions as a result of material selection, production, distribution, use and possible recycling, then an e-book is much more climate-friendly than a paper book. One e-book read on an e-reader scores, according to two recent studies from Japan and Sweden, about four to five times as good as reading the same book from paper.

If you take more environmental factors in your consideration, such as the toxicity of used materials for the environment and the depletion of raw materials, then the paper book scores much better. The tipping point then lies with thirty paper books: that is just as stressful for the environment as reading one e-book from one e-reader. If you read more than 30 books on one reader, an e-reader is a more sustainable choice. The answer therefore also depends on the reader.

So it depends very much on the human reader, especially if you also look at how you purchase, renew, recycle the items (the author goes into that as well).
As you can see from the conclusions the production of the e-reader itself weighs heavily in a full LCA. One of the headers of the article is not for nothing The devil is in the e-reader.

Note that the article points to the actual studies it quotes from, it's worth following those.

Answer 4

Books that stay in your library could be viewed as a form of carbon storage. Newspapers and magazines are much more likely to be recycled very quickly.

There is also a huge pre-consumer waste in the print market in as much as most titles print many more copies than will be sold, particularly in magazines. This results not only in recycling the product, but creates a lot of waste in packing, transporting and storing it. How you would account for all this I do not know.

Answer 5

Sorry, if the answer is a bit off-topic but I couldn't help myself …

But are we talking about theoretical things or what could be done but isn't necessarily done (whatever the reasons are)?

If it is on a personal scale, again it'll depends if you want to be theoretical or rational because if we speak about screens (and other devices) for instance, there is sometimes (too much time) some planned obsolescence (material or psychological) or things are made-up with less-ecological components or are made in less ecological ways simply because it's more profitable that way (and buying more expensive doesn't necessarily mean that they were more ecologically cautious, I'd say that then consequences can be worse). So it might not be the good fight, we should see further (Either looking for the root of the problems or not being miss-leaded by not-the-real-and-more-important-problems (in general))

Plus, I don't think we can really compare paper to screen that easily, they don't have quite the same features (both have their pro and cons) so that we aren't exactly comparing things that can be compared. (Not only on the ecological-level, which can then sometimes influences the ecological-level back)

So, it's a tough question in my opinion. So may points to consider …

But I guess it's still a really good question to ask to ourselves.