Are e-readers better than printed books?

E-readers are more environmentally friendly

Question: Are e-readers better than printed books?
Position1 of 2›: E-readers are better
Argument1 of 4›: E-readers are more environmentally friendly

E-readers provide an environmentally friendly alternative that decreases the amount of paper utilized, which improves the Earth’s sustainability by reducing deforestation.

The argument

Reading with electronic devices means that paper is not needed. This saves a lot of trees and is potentially a solution to excessive deforestation.

Premises

[P1]Reading on electronic devices requires no paper, saving the trees that printed books consume. [P2] By reducing paper demand, e-readers offer a potential solution to excessive deforestation. [C] Therefore, because they are more environmentally friendly, e-readers are better than printed books.

Counter-arguments

The production of electronic devices such as tablets and phones are not especially environmentally friendly either. The International E-Waste Management Network (IEMN) was founded in concern for growing amounts of electronic waste around the world, which contain many hazardous chemicals. According to Greenpeace statistics, e-waste is the fastest growing component of municipal solid waste, and the rate of increase is even three times faster than the total waste stream in Europe and the UK.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise counts only the paper saved and omits what a device costs to produce — mining, manufacture, shipping and the electricity to run it — so no comparison has actually been made. [Rejecting P2] Publishing paper comes largely from managed plantations rather than old-growth forest, so the deforestation link is asserted rather than shown; and the counter's point about electronic waste identifies a cost on the other side of a ledger the argument never opens.