| It’s complicated | Paper | E-book |
| Whether it’s better to read books in print or on a device is complicated, because of the complex interplay of the resources involved across the entire lifecycle of a published work: how books and devices are made and shipped, what energy they use to run, if they can be recycled. | Traditional print publishing comes with a high carbon footprint. It’s the world’s third-largest industrial greenhouse gas emitter, and 32 million trees are felled each year in the U.S. to make paper for books. Then there’s the printing and shipping — to say nothing of the many unsold books that are destroyed. | Digital reading seemingly has a considerable eco-advantage over print by saving trees, pulping and shipping. Moreover, companies that make e-readers such as Amazon, which sells the market-leading Kindle e-reader, offer recycling programs for old devices, helping save an estimated 2.3 million metric tons of carbon emissions over a 2-year period. |
Source: Veltman, C. (2024, May 25). What’s better for the climate: A paper book, or an e-reader? NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/05/25/1252930557/book-e-reader-kindle-climate