Throughout this project, I've been comparing physical books and digital formats, but which one is better for the environment? On the surface, e-books seem like the obvious winner — no paper, no ink, no trees being cut down. But as I dug deeper, I realized that the answer wasn't so simple.
​
One major argument in favour of e-books is deforestation. According to GreenMatters, in the United States alone, 32 million trees are cut down each year just for book paper, contributing to habitat destruction and carbon emissions. The process of turning those chopped trees into books is also incredibly energy-intensive — in 2017, pulping wood for paper accounted for 6% of global industrial energy consumption (Lipiäinen et al. 2021).
​
Then there’s the environmental impact of book production. Despite advancements in sustainable publishing, Penguin Random House, one of the largest and most well-known book publishers in the world, is committed to ensuring that 100% of their paper and core materials are ethically and sustainably sourced. They are actively pursuing sustainability through initiatives such as their goal to achieve climate neutrality by 2030.
​
According to BookNet Canada, Canadian publishers are taking steps to reduce waste and emissions:
​
-
74% are replacing travel with video conference
-
62% are sourcing paper from certified sustainable forests
-
53% are using print-on-demand technologies to prevent overproduction
-
53% are sourcing paper for books and manuscripts from certified eco-friendly suppliers
However, even with these efforts, the 2.2 billion books sold globally each year generate approximately 726,000 tons of CO2 emissions, assuming each book produces 0.33 kilos of CO2 equivalent, according to Penguin Random House —an amount comparable to powering 141,261 homes for a year or the emissions from 161,500 cars (DW, 2024).
​
When you look at these numbers, digital books seem like the better, more green option.
​
But let’s discuss how e-books are made. Like any electronic device, e-books are energy-intensive predominantly at the manufacturing stage. The University of Washington said “the environmental impact of creating an e-reader vastly outweighs a single paperback,” due to each device requiring lithium, copper, cobalt, and other rare minerals that are mined through water and energy-intensive processes that contribute to climate change (DW, 2024).
​
Unlike a physical book, which requires no electricity, an e-reader must be charged regularly throughout its lifespan, adding to its overall carbon footprint. According to that same report from the University of Washington, fully charging a tablet generates an average of 26 pounds of CO2 emissions per year. Additionally, while a well-preserved physical book can last a lifetime, an e-reader typically has a lifespan of just three to five years before needing a replacement, further contributing to electronic waste.
​
So, which is more sustainable?
​
The answer depends on how much you read. Environmental impact varies based on usage. The University of Washington said, a single e-reader has the same carbon footprint as approximately 36 paperback books. This means that over an e-book’s three-year lifespan, you’d need to read at least 13 books per year for it to be the more sustainable option. And if you read less than 13 books, sticking with print is the greener choice.