Menu

Kindle Oasis: Environmentally Friendly?

0 Comments

More and more people read electronically instead of on paper. But which variant is more ecological?

It’s a pleasant thing. Instead of having to fill half a suitcase with travel literature while on vacation, all you need to do is go to the book portal virtually with kindle oasis vs. paperwhite. A few clicks and hundreds of novels are stored in the memory and always ready for use. The advantages of an e-book reader seem obvious. It is space-saving, handy and easy to use. The price also seems affordable.

But is an e-book reader more ecological than a printed book?

After all, no paper is used to download. So whoever reads digitally also protects the rainforest at the same time?

It is obvious that it is not that easy because an e-book reader does not use any paper. In production, the digital pocket libraries devour all the more energy and raw materials. So one thing should be clear. What is more environmentally friendly depends on how much you read.

When is reader kindle oasis vs. paperwhite worthwhile for the sustainability-conscious reader?

A comparison between the production costs and the resulting environmental impacts of books and e-book readers provides information.

kindle oasis vs. paperwhite

Kilos of Minerals: This is exactly what the New York Times did some time ago. She has broken down the environmental cost of an iPad versus a printed book.

The Apple product requires around 15 kilograms of minerals to make. On the one hand, there are rare earths that are often mined in war zones and under inhumane conditions. However, the main components of this immense mineral requirement are sand and gravel. In addition, the iPad needs almost 300 liters of water to produce, mainly for the battery and circuit boards.

For comparison, extracting the raw materials for a single book requires just 0.3 kilograms of minerals. Again a large part of which is made up of sand and gravel, and nine liters of water.

Production continues. Here the iPad needs 100-kilowatt hours of energy. In the production facilities in Asia, this is usually generated by coal or oil, which corresponds to CO2 emissions of 33 kilograms. To produce a book, two-kilowatt hours of energy are needed to dry the paper, greenhouse gas emissions that are 100 times smaller than those for the iPad.

Books are more ecological in production. So far, the book has clearly been one step ahead. However, if it comes to transport and the entire period of use of the book and its digital version, the iPad can show its advantages. Because you read a book in maybe two to three weeks, an e-book reader you have much longer.