Carbon counter: read ’em and weep

Even a seemingly innocuous hobby such as reading takes its toll on the environment. Printed books are made from pulped trees that would otherwise capture carbon. Electronic devices rely on plastics and require recharging. But which does more damage, reading a book or using an ereader? Totting up the materials used and the energy required for manufacture and distribution points to advantages for the latter.

For ereaders, we assume the use of some form of tablet, such as an iPad. One book has a far lower carbon footprint than one tablet. But how one reads matters. Different nations consume the written word at different paces, though the pandemic boosted demand around the world as people looked for ways to distract themselves. Americans and Britons appear to read about the same number of books annually — between 10 and 12.

Some assumptions are also required to make a comparison between books and ereaders. Larger books have more material and thus consume more carbon to produce. Lex assumes a printed book size of 0.75kg.

The average physical book has 4.9kg of CO2 equivalent, according to a UCLA study. A British reader might therefore count a 50kg carbon footprint per year for their reading habit. If they amass a library that equals the 1,100 books that an average tablet can hold, then the total reaches just over 5,400kg. That is double the carbon footprint of an ereader.

There is a smaller break-even point for larger books. The total carbon footprint of an ereader is equivalent to just 20 textbooks, according to one study using university books. Use a tablet for purposes other than purely reading and the break-even drops again.

As renewable energy takes a larger share, the manufacture and distribution of tablets should reflect a lower carbon footprint. A vast library of physical books may one day become a high-carbon luxury.

Carbon counter is a series of Lex articles that examine ways lifestyle choices can reduce readers’ carbon footprints. The rest are here.