Schwarzenegger's ebook plans are not a greener option

California's plans to drop traditional textbooks in favour of online material will no doubt spare a few trees - but Arnie should be choosing the greenest option by rolling out dedicated e-reader devices at the same time, says Duncan Graham-Rowe

Duncan Graham-Rowe
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 June 2009 15.28 BST

During his lengthy announcement about replacing text books in California's public schools with online ebooks Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger only made one brief reference to the environmental benefits this would bring. Until just recently such a seemingly obvious opportunity to seize a piece of the environmental high ground would not have been missed. But instead Schwarzenegger focused on the financial benefits, and merely briefly mumbled something about saving a few trees in the process.
The big man's eco-shyness may be more than an oversight but part of the growing awareness among policymakers of e-missions – the greenhouse gases incurred by the internet. When you take into account the additional energy used to make the computers used to read the ebooks, the data servers supporting the services and the internet infrastructure, the truth is that it's far from clear whether there is any environmental benefit at all.
True, millions of trees may well be spared the axe, not to mention the environmental damage caused by the pulping industry – it is the third largest consumer of fossil fuels and uses 10 litres of water to make just one piece of A4 paper. Yet even in the face of such waste this still doesn't necessarily make ebooks a greener option.
Take the newspaper industry for example. Given that in the US alone Sunday newspapers are responsible for more than half a million trees being felled each week, you might think that by reading the Guardian online you are reducing your environmental impact. But it turns out it may in fact depend on precisely what you're reading this on. An optimist may choose to cling to research which suggests that reading your newspaper via a wireless palmtop computer produces up to 140 times less CO2 and 67 times less water than a paper version.
But before you start congratulating yourself consider another more recent, and arguably more thorough, study which took account of the energy that goes into manufacturing devices and the e-missions entailed through regular downloading. According to this Swedish study, reading a newspaper online for 30 minutes a day produces more emissions than reading a paper version. The reverse is true if you read them for just 10 minutes.
Quite apart from suggesting that it's greener to read faster, it's a reflection of the e-missions entailed by having a computer plugged in and downloading. In other words, when reading a paper online, it's the electricity used by the computer that is the biggest carbon contributor. In light of this the study (funded by the Swedish newspaper industry) goes on to show that by far the greenest option is to switch to dedicated e-reader devices like the Amazon's Kindle DX, and Schwarzenegger would do well to do the same.
That's because devices like this not only allow content to be downloaded wirelessly without needing to go through a PC as well, but also because their novel electronic-paper displays use so little energy. Once an image is displayed on the screen it requires almost no power to keep it there, thus their operational energy requirements miniscule compared to other devices.
So California, by all means roll out the ebooks. But if you want to save the environment as well as money then you may want to roll out e-readers in the process.