Cleantech: Kindle Really Is Better For Environment

A new report from the Cleantech Group (available for purchase or to Cleantech clients) takes on a big question: Are the Kindle and other eReaders really "green"?

 

In Forrester's surveys, we've found that of US online adults who are interested in eReaders, 51% say they're interested because they think that eReaders are "better for the environment." But I've often wondered if consumers just believe that eReaders are green, or if they really are.

 

Here's my take on Cleantech's findings:

 

  • Yes, eReaders are greener than print. The report looks at the carbon footprint of print production and distribution of books, newspapers, and magazines, as well as the negative impact of the Kindle and its brethren on the environment (mining, energy use, water waste, disposal, etc.). Cleantech uses Forrester and other data to estimate the extent to which using an eReader would offset print use. Comparing the relative impact of print waste, eReader reduction of print waste, and eReaders' own waste, Cleantech finds that "When compared to what it would replace, the Kindle consistently comes out ahead," calculating that the Kindle's own carbon footprint would be offset by its benefits after 1 year of use.
  • But they will only have a positive environmental impact if publishers cut back on print. Cleantech makes reasonable assumptions about the extent to which consumers will use Kindles to buy eContent, but it acknowledges that "any reductions in emissions are fully dependent on the publishing industry reducing production of physical books." This is a key point: Publishers actually have to print and ship fewer books in order for eReaders to have a positive environmental impact. Right now, sales of eBooks are small ($113 million in revenue in 2008, accounting for less than 2% of US book sales), and sales of newspapers and magazines on the Kindle are too small to count. We and other analyst firms predict rapid growth of eReaders and content sales, but publisher behavior will ultimately determine the overall "green" impact of eReaders.

Comments

re: Cleantech: Kindle Really Is Better For Environment

Sarah,I was among those who thought Cleantech's report might be the life cycle analysis we were waiting for. I was hoping this report is the final word on the debate on how green the Kindle is. Unfortunately I am afraid it's not.I read the report was happy to find a well-written analysis that integrates many pieces of information that together create a more coherent picture. At the same time I am not that sure about the validity of the findings. The two main issues that bothered me mostly are the calculation of the carbon footprint of a single Kindle and the assumption about the number of e-books the average user is reading (which as you mentioned is also based on Forrester's estimations).In all, eReaders might be greener than print, but I can't say this report prove they are. You're welcome to check out my analysis of the report on our blog - http://ecolibris.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-report-finds-kindle-greener-than.htmlBest,Raz @ Eco-Libris

re: Cleantech: Kindle Really Is Better For Environment

I would suggest using GreenTextbooks.orgSave Money, Save The PlanetGreenTextbooks.org specializes in the recycling of textbooks, DVDs, CDs. Buying used textbooks not only saves you money, but cuts down on greenhouse gases caused by the manufacturing of new textbooks.With GreenTextbooks.org you're not only saving trees, you are saving some green. http://www.GreenTextbooks.org