What's Your Point Exactly?

This post is supposed to be about how Amazon sold a whole sh*tload of Kindles over the holidays, but questions how green the devices are.

Here's the thing. I'm an ebook author, who also supports indie bookstores and sells print editions of my books, even if the stores won't carry them, because of their weird policies I'm self-published. If you read the article, you'll see the following (and I quote):

One of those things that still bring a twinge of sadness is the slow death of independent book-stores. As an avid reader and one that loves to browse around second-hand bookshops, on the lookout for a bargain or a rare read, I will miss the romance of it all as the world is rapidly shifting toward e-books. E-books, of course, have functionality and convenience but not the fresh-paper smell or other associations that we have with real books.

I'm also a big fan of independent bookstores. In fact, I've blogged about how I'd like to throw them my support. This has led to a series of posts on that blog about indie bookstores, that I hope have been helpful and fun.

You'll notice I suggested that indie bookstores start blogs, because you can sell anything online. Not just ebooks, of course.

As for second-hand used bookstores, that's all well and good when you're looking for collectibles and out-of-print books. But surely you want to read more than that, right?

Besides, authors don't see dime one from the sale of used books. So, we don't sustain a living from those sales at all.

And, furthermore, a story is just as real in ebook format as in print. No one says that audiobooks aren't real, do they? Why do they say that about ebooks? What's the deal? Seriously?


One of the biggest selling e-readers, Amazon’s Kindle has had a whopper year. The company recently announced that 2011 was the best holiday ever for the Kindle family as customers purchased millions of Kindle Fires and millions of Kindle e-readers. The company also notes that sales of e-books were up 175 percent over last year, between Black Friday and Christmas Day.

Just so you know, Kindle isn't the only widely-used ereader in existence, okay? There's Nook, there's Kobo, there's iPad, Sony and all sorts of other devices. You'd think Amazon sold practically the only device on the planet from reading this. And that's not good.




The reigning debate that still remains is: which one is greener? The Cleantech Group reckons that the Kindle is the greener way to read.  A study by the Cleantech Group found that the Kindle is able to fully offset its carbon emissions in the first year of use, as long as the owner downloads more than 22 books in a year, and additional years of use result in net carbon savings equivalent to an average of 168 kilograms of carbon dioxide.

Good lord! I suspect most Kindle owners download that many books in a month or less, easily. The amazingly low price of ebooks and the ease of purchase are factors that explain this.

Throughout the month of December, according to Amazon, well over 1 million Kindle devices were purchased per week. All this will eventually add up to a huge amounts of e-waste, which is an environmental problem. Amazon’s refusal to be transparent about its production as well as carbon emissions are also causes for concern. Consumer pressure or a large scale campaign can change this but so far, the figures that are available are only guesstimates.

Yeah, well. God knows what Amazon isn't telling us. And if you're really concerned about indie bookstores, I suggest you read this post, post-haste.

My fellow blogger at Triple Pundit, Raz Godelnik, CEO of Eco-Libris, a company working towards a sustainable book industry reckons that an e-book can be a greener option if you are a voracious reader and do not upgrade too soon. A New York Times analysis seems to support Raz’s conclusion and it says that an e-reader can offset around 40 books. Therefore, if you replace five books a year, it will take around eight years before you’ve offset your carbon footprint.

As I said before, no problemo!

Considering that, in a few years down the line, paper books may well be obsolete, it is essential for e-reader manufacturers to become more transparent about their sustainability. Amazon, as the market leader, should lead the way. I did really want to buy a Kindle but I think I will put it off until Amazon comes up with some verified numbers. In the meantime, I’ll continue to mosey around secondhand bookshops and libraries.

I love libraries, of course. I'm a librarian. It would be sacrilege to say otherwise. Besides, did you know that libraries carry ebooks now? Well, they do and have been for some time.

And speaking of sustainability, did you forget to mention the indie bookstores?

Because if you're going to mosey around used bookstores, the indies are not going to last very long. And neither will authors.

Let's Focus on the Positive, Shall We?

A blog post with a headline like Sustainability: Why Bother? would lead one to suspect that the sustainability movement may be suffering a bit from inertia.

Which is why you should read the post. Because it tells about how being sustainable can actually help companies cut costs, reduce risks and increase revenue, with numbers to support those contentions.

And while it cites only a few specifics, that's way better than none, isn't it?



PS: Here's another really cool idea. A zero-emissions delivery vehicle. I'm having a hard time picturing this thing surviving a day on negotiating the streets of DC. But, hey, who knows, right?

Photograph by: Lyle Stafford, timescolonist.com

Plastic Bags: Does it Have to Be So Hard?

Okay, so I'm innocently scanning environmental news headlines and run across this dilly! In Defense of the Plastic Bag.

Well, that'll get your attention, won't it?

So ... I took a quick look. Here's some of what it said:

Pity the much-maligned plastic bag.

Plastic bags are being banned or taxed in cities and counties across America–just this week in Seattle, before that in San Francisco, Portland and Washington, D.C. Beginning in January, Montgomery County, MD, where I live, will impose a five-cent charge for carryout bags at all retail stores. Like most of my neighbors (median household income in the county tops $92,000) I can afford the extra nickel.

But I’m not persuaded that plastic bag bans or taxes makes sense. Here’s why.

They’re not based on science. Independent studies show that plastic bags are environmentally preferable to paper. Other suggest that, when they are reused, they are preferable to the reusable plastic or cloth sacks that many of us tote around.

Some of the arguments put forth for the bans don’t hold up. That plastic waste waste in the oceans you’ve probably read about? No, it’s not the size of Texas. Nor is it made of plastic bags.

Getting rid carryout bags won’t lead to a long-term solution to the problem of plastic waste. Maybe instead of banning or taxing bags, we should be recycling them. That’s the argument being put forth by a company called Hilex Poly, which will recycle tens of millions of pounds of plastic bags, sacks and wraps this year, and would like to do more.

You may disagree but after digging into this subject for a while, I’m certain about only one thing: It’s complicated.

Oh, goodie. Complicated, huh? Just what I needed. More complications in my life.

So ... if you want to read the whole blow-by-blow explanation, just click the link. It even alludes to the old "sh*t crap in the bag" argument against using reusable bags. Dear God!

But wait ... there's more. A rebuttal. In Defense of Plastic Bag Bans. Really!