which is better for the environment, paperback or hardback books?

S

Scott

New member
No, I'm not some eco-nut, but as I am trying to cut back on the number of books I buy, since most of them are either in libraries or will sit unread on my shelf, I figure it wouldn't hurt to know which type might be better for the environment. Hardback books use more materials, but they last longer and therefore have a higher resale value, which means fewer of them need to be produced before, years upon years from now, they find their way into landfills. Paperbacks cost less and use less material, but they wear out faster and are more likely to kick the bucket early. Any thoughts, suggestions, verifiable facts? I would greatly appreciate it.
 
I don't think it makes much difference, to be honest. Go to any house and they'll tell you: They make bigger sales in paperbacks than they do in hardcover. Simple fact is that people are more willing to pay for a paperback book than a hardcover book.

But if more people are buying paperback books than hardcover books, that means that they have to print more, and printing more paperback books means using more resources. You wind up spending the same amount of money printing 35,000 hardcover books as you would 75,000 paperbacks.

You also have to remember, most houses, although they don't always advertise it, use recycled paper for printing or partial pulp, which is a blend of recycled paper and "new" paper.

I don't think your book purchases should be dependent on the ecological value of either format. We all know it's a matter of preference anyway (I'm partial to hardcovers, due to the sturdy case covers). Your best ECOLOGICAL choice is to either borrow your books from the library or to do a book swap with friends (which is what my friends and I do; there's nothing like sharing!).
 
Back
Top