One of the most polluting industries in the world is the production of books. Producing a book and shipping it causes a production of about 7,5 kg of CO2, according to the findings of the washingtonpost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … technology). In addiction of that, the need of paper causes the cutting of many trees; that's a problem, because trees are very good for the environment: they "clear" the air absorbing carbon gases. The production of books needs as well an average of 28 litres of water. It's clear that the impact of people reading books on the world is huge: 44 million tons of CO2 per year only in the USA.
What can we do to solve this problem?
Some people say, that reading eBooks instead of physical paper made books is greater for the planet: eBooks don't need paper and water to be produced, they also don't need chymical and toxical products books are treated with, they don't have to be shipped, and the carbon emission caused by their use is really light. For these reasons, it's rated to read el ectronics books instead of "normal" books (http://i.imgur.com/da8v6.png). So if you have an iPad the most ecological choice would be to read books on it.
But there's a problem in this kind of reading too: the electronic devices you read eBooks on (eBook readers, IPads) are polluting too, especially in their production, and when you throw them away. In fact, buying electronic devices to read on them doesn't seem to be healthier for the planet than buying traditional books (http://www.themillions.com/2012/05/are- … green.html).

Finally, the better choice would be to hire books at a public library, and to bring there those you bought. In these libraries there's always large choice of books, and by my experience I can say that they often have the books you're looking for. By going to public libraries you'll also save money, you'll just have to pay a little more attention to not damage the books.

I understand what you're saying and i agree with every point you have made, but i would like to add another point to the subject. Most libraries accept donations of books, which could also be environmentally helpful.

Wow! I did not realize that ordinary paperback books could be so harmful to our environment! I will begin to start reading online books, and whenever I can, donate my old paperback books.

I think books are better then eBooks because eBooks can mess up your eyes.

Hi Aurora, what you say is right: thanks for completing my post with this clever information.
Andrea, that's a good purpose to reduce your carbon footprint, I'm sure that will help the planet.
x andreibodron: In my post I was only talking about what' better for the environment, not for human's eyes. And I don't agree with what you said: perhaps reading on computers and ipads could be bad for eyes after long time, but that was never proved by scientific researches. And reading on eBook readers is certainly not worse than reading on books: these electronics devices don't make light, so there's no way they could damage our eyes.

I think eBooks are better because it's really easier to get a book via e Books than buy it.. And I think also that with e Books we can save a loto of paper

Hi Jaquesa! I think you make a lot of really great points, I didn’t know that the production and shipping of books causes about 7.5 kg of CO2. I also think that people should take advantage of their local library because it saves money and there are so many books to choose from! I found this article that compares both print and e-readers, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omega-ins … 60403.html . This article discusses the environmental impact of both and which is better for a certain type of reader. For a person who reads the news for only 10 minutes a day or reads 100 books on the e-reader before upgrading, then using the e-reader has equal to less of an environmental impact. If you upgrade your e-reader often, before reaching 100 books, or reads the news longer, print is the more environmentally friendly option. In addition to what Aurora commented, print is better for your eyes and allows better reading comprehension.

Both are bad for the environment. Ebooks like the kindle fire emit a lot of CO2 during production and high CO2 emissions are a cause to climate change but paperback books are also a huge reason for deforestation because they need paper to make the books. If you look at it as a whole ebooks are better because if we do not have trees in the environment then we have even more CO2 left in the atmosphere because trees take the CO2 and put oxygen in the air for us to breathe.

If we were to seriously evaluate the c02 emissions of both Ebooks or books, I think we would come to a conclusion that both have their negative impacts and that we should hope for either a physical book that uses no wood/paper or a Ebook that uses less energy. This is an interesting topic and I think it's very important to dive deeper into possible solutions or workarounds.

I agree that maybe a switch from hardcopy books to ebooks might help reduce the carbon emissions on Earth. However this study done by CBS news shows that more students retained the information they read when the book was on paperhttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/kindle-nook … y-to-read/. I think this is a really big deal on whether or not we make the switch to ebooks or not.

I agree that ebooks might decrease the carbon emissions into the atmosphere, but in a way if you read more ebooks than you would have to charge what ever device that you were using, which would also release emissions. The question is: which would release the least?

When debating this, I think it also counts to bring up the sentimental value of hard copies of books. Although damaging to the environment, many people prefer hard copies simply because they look nicer, and they enjoy being able to actually touch the book. If we were to make efforts to switch from hard copies to e-books, I think that it would be a good idea to taper off production of hard copies, so that the people who want them could buy them before they sell out.

Also, if there is concern about the emissions released by getting rid of devices, the funds that are saved from manufacturing hard copies could go into refining the technology, so that devices last longer and release less CO2.