I follow a number of blogs. One is The Writer’s Edge, in a post titled “Watching Books,” Richard Curtis writes”
…the high cost and environmental wastefulness of printing manuscripts motivated editors to try reading books on desktop or laptop computer screens...Recently I have heard many an editor rave about the virtues of the Sony (and to a lesser extent Amazon’s Kindle) as an editorial tool. They also speak of the “green” benefits of paperless transmission of texts. Authors and agents benefit too, thanks to savings on photocopy, printing, and mailing costs.
As you might imagine, as a forester, I have a somewhat different take on this, regarding the “environmental cost.” I think Kindles and other ebook readers like it are fine. They are just swell for storing manuscripts. One can carry lots of books in a small package. Saves one’s back and shoulders from having to lug weighty manuscripts about.
I’m not convinced they are a “green” solution. To equate the lack of paper making and tree harvesting as green, may be too narrow of a view, and is certainly one-sided…considering the petroleum-based plastics, corrosives cleaners, non-renewable metals, energy, etc needed to manufacture such devices.
As Patrick Moore of GreenSpirit points out for paper:
15 percent of the wood harvested is used to manufacture pulp and paper mainly for printing, packaging, and sanitary purposes. Fully half of this wood is derived from the wastes from the sawmills which produce the solid wood products for building. Most of the remaining supply is from tree plantation’s many of which are established on land that was previously cleared for agriculture. So even if we did stop using wood to make pulp and paper it would not have the effect of ‘saving’ many forests.
* * *
There are those who claim that each time we use wood, we cause a little more forest to be lost. This cannot possibly be true when you consider that North Americans consume more wood per capita than anyone else in the world and yet our forests cover about the same area of land as they did 100 years ago. Does this not stand as proof that our forests are being renewed?
In the Journal of Biogeography, a paper titled, The illusion of preservation, argues that more needs to be considered than just one side of the equation. Though they are talking about construction materials, the idea of creation of other products from wood applies:
“Lumber is the least energy intensive construction material and its production releases significantly less carbon dioxide and toxic products than substitutes. In addition, wood is renewable and forest growth may contribute to carbon sequestration, thereby yielding even greater trade-offs.”
By the way, according to the paper, “Pulp constitutes about 30% of US wood consumption.”
Using wood in the form of paper, signals the market to the need for more trees to be harvested and then, planted. If tree aren’t harvested, bought and sold as commodities, they won’t be seen as valuable. Sad but true, we live in a market-driven world and I don’t make the rules.
Strangely, the green alternative for lowering our carbon footprint in the world may be to burn more fossil fuels rather than wood. Two-thirds of all wood used on the globe is for fuel–cooking and heating.