In our current times of self-isolation it seems like digital media has become ever more important. Publishers are now realising the physical dependence of their products and are resorting to digital technologies in order to continue their business and are offering digital alternatives for their customers – to the unfortunate detriment of brick-and-mortar bookshops as the seriousness of the virus and the imposed lockdown is disrupting their usual business practices.

This new resurgence of the digital in opposition to print is making publishers learn how to adapt and diversify their content so as to be able to face future unexpected phenomena that might impede normal business. Some news outlets are speculating on the impact of the pandemic on the future of media consumption and production, predicting a decrease of print media. Some celebrate this as a step to eradicate certain industry practices that are unsustainable and damaging to the environment. However, how sure can we be that reading digital is greener than traditional print reading?

This is a debate that has existed ever since the first eReaders came out into the market. On the one hand, these new devices offered a paperless alternative to the traditional book which was lighter and thus more sustainable to transport and distribute, as it produced less CO2 emissions. On the other hand, print books depended on the use of trees for paper production, used inks and solvents that are toxic, and their weight contributed to CO2 emissions in their distribution. Thus, the myth was created. Digital came to be, and is still considered, as the environmentally friendly lifestyle, with people decluttering their homes of paper and turning everything into paperless systems – including their reading.

However, this myth obscures the environmental cost of producing and maintaining these technologies. Whereas the 80% of a physical book’s carbon footprint is caused during the primary stages of the products life cycle, said book can be then reread, borrowed, shared and resold with little to non environmental impact. This is not the case for digital devices such as an iPad or an eReader which will need a continuous use of energy throughout its lifetime. Moreover, although the production of these devices is more often than not viewed as a byproduct of the tech industry, they require mining of minerals and the use of toxic components which can lead to deforestation and extensive destruction of entire ecosystems. If we consider this, as well as the fact that most eReaders are usually replaced by a new and shinier device in less than two years, regardless of its good condition, then we can start to doubt the previous claims of digital media being the greener option as an excuse or self-deception that supports our consumerism and fetishisation of technology.

Studies that have considered the estimated carbon footprint of both methods of reading have concluded that an individual’s usage is what will determine the sustainability of each practice. It appears that if one is a light or occasional reader, reading less than an average of 33 books a year, then it is more sustainable to stick to the traditional printed method. However, if one is a heavy or fast reader, reading more than the 33 books a year average, then going digital seems to be the greener option. However, the truly sustainable way is to borrow library books, buy secondhand and exchange books with friends and family, as it doesn’t require the production of new books or devices and promotes an alternative circular economy.

This being said, it is important that after the pandemic we continue to work towards making both the production processes of printed books and that of eReading devices as sustainable as possible, with the use of non-toxic and recycled components, as well as promote a correct disposal of said books or devices so as to prevent further damaging of the natural environment that we inhabit.

Sources:

Carbon footprint, which is better? eBooks or traditional books? (Active Sustainability)

Are eReaders Really Green? (The Millions)

Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print? (MediaShift)