Are E-Readers Greener Than Books? Essay Example

The technological progress over the last few decades has been astounding and one only needs to look at the changes taking place in our academic institutions. For many centuries, books have been associated with schools but now for the first time they face a threat to be substituted by technology. Some lament the potential loss of printed books from school culture but it is not uncommon for change to create a sense of nostalgia. The potential replacement of printed books with technology such as e-readers should be a welcome change because the potential benefits will far outweigh the costs.

Global warming has emerged as one of the major global issues and the major contributing factors towards it is an increase in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of human activities. The U.S. book and newspaper industries harvested 125 million trees in the year 2008 alone (Husko, 2009). E-readers are also superior to books because of their lower contribution towards global warming. A research study found that e-readers may help the publishing sector significantly improve their environmental sustainability record. Not only has a study found that three e-books per month over four years would only produce 168 kg of CO2 over Amazon Kindle’ lifecycle while the same number of printed books would result in 1,074 kg of CO2, but also the growth of e-readers at the expense of printed books will significantly reduce the need for harvesting trees for paper products like books.

Some critics may say e-readers make use of electricity but e-readers like Kindle are extremely energy-efficient. Electronic ink requires no backlighting and no electricity to display text. The power is only required to turn page and e-readers can go for days without recharging (Mims). A study estimated it would take just 22.5 books per year to neutralize emissions resulting from the e-reader (LaMonica, 2009). A book has a carbon footprint of 7.46 kg of CO2 over its life which may double if the buyer takes a return trip to the store to buy it verses having it shipped by mail. But a Kindle user can simply download book he wants. If Kindle user uses the full capacity of the reader, it saves CO2 emission of nearly 11,185 kg (Fehrenbacher, 2009).

The supporters of printed books claim e-readers are more harmful to the eyes than printed books since it is similar to glaring on a TV screen or computer screen. But the problem doesn’t lie in e-readers themselves but in users’ habit who may view the screen from the wrong angle or read in low light. Even books read in low light cause harm to the eyes over the long term. In fact, some types of paper are actually more harmful to the eyes than e-readers according to the experts. Certain types of paper such as inexpensive newsprint and soft cover books cause more strain on the eyes than electronic devices like e-readers. In addition, technology continues to improve and display technologies continue to become less tiring for the eyes (Bilton, 2010). Similarly, e-readers have become so lightweight that they weigh far less than a single college or high school textbook. The growing popularity of e-readers as well as their embrace by schools would mean children do not have to carry heavy backpacks on their shoulders which could result in poor postures and backaches (The Nemours Foundation)

E-readers are also better than books because they are convenient for users. Unlike print books, e-reader doesn’t have to go to the store to get a book but instead can download the desired title in seconds if not few minutes. And unlike bookshops with limited hours, e-book online stores are accessible 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year.

E-readers may encourage reading habit among children and adults because of their convenience and portability. An e-reader can accommodate thousands of books if not more, thus, there would always be something to suit the interest of a reader whenever he is in the mood for reading.

Books have supported our reading habits for centuries and for the first time have been seriously challenged by a reliable and portable alternative in the form of e-readers and to some extent, tablet devices. The timing for e-readers is also ideal due to rising concerns about global warming as e-readers emit significantly less carbon emissions over their lifetime as compared to printed books and the expected savings further increase in case of avid readers. Some are concern e-readers may pose the same threat to eyes as TV and computer monitors but the harm if often the result of poor user habits than e-readers, just as is the case with printed books. E-readers are also convenient and may even encourage reading habit due to wide number of selections available to the reader. It is clear that e-readers are superior to printed books because their benefits more than outweigh the costs.

References

Bilton, N. (2010 ??? 12-February). Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain? Retrieved 2014 ??? 19-April from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/do-e-readers-cause-eye-strain/

Fehrenbacher, K. (2009, August 19). Why the Kindle Is Good for the Planet. Retrieved APril 25, 2014, from http://gigaom.com/2009/08/19/why-the-kindle-is-good-for-the-planet/

Husko, J. (2009 ??? 31-August). Are E-Readers Greener Than Books? Retrieved 2014 ??? 19-April from http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/are-e-readers-greener-than-books/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

LaMonica, M. (2009 ??? 28-August). Study paints Kindle e-reader a dark shade of green. Retrieved 2014 ??? 19-April from http://www.cnet.com/news/study-paints-kindle-e-reader-a-dark-shade-of-green/

Mims, C. (n.d.). Are e-books an environmental choice? Retrieved April 25, 2014, from http://www.greenlivingonline.com/article/are-e-books-environmental-choice

The Nemours Foundation. (n.d.). Backpack Safety. Retrieved 2014 ??? 19-April from http://kidshealth.org/parent/firstaid_safe/outdoor/backpack.html