argument top image

< Back to question Are e-readers better than printed books? Show more Show less

Books are constantly evolving. In the 21st century, we no longer read from a page, but read from a glass screen that can hold hundreds or thousands of texts. E-readers have revolutionised the way people read, and for many have made it much more accessible. But how does it weigh up to the traditional paperback?

E-readers are better Show more Show less

Technology definitely offers a lot of perks, like cost efficiency and environmental friendliness.
(1 of 2) Next position >

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.
(1 of 4) Next argument >


Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↓


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.

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.


[P1] E-readers do not require the use of paper. [P2] Therefore, they are more environmentally friendly than books.

Rejecting the premises


    This page was last edited on Wednesday, 3 Jun 2020 at 16:31 UTC

    Explore related arguments