Part 1 | Part 2

So, how can digital libraries promote sustainability?

No matter how this question is answered, the bottom line  is that any attempt to promote sustainability has to be comprehensive; it can’t be limited to resolving a single issue like CO2 emissions or deforestation. We are playing a zero-sum game and human impacts have to be offset or eliminated, because – as the argument goes – there isn’t a fifth quarter. Moreover, because the relationships between human behavior and the environment are complex I would like to caution that no approach can solve everything. Instead digital libraries simply provide a number of benefits which should be considered when trying to build a sustainable future. Some benefits are more substantial than others but all are worth entertaining.

They are: 1) A decrease in physical transportation. 2) A reduction in printing and manufacturing. 3) The centralization of energy consumption. 4) Reduced waste. [and] 5) Shifts in patron behaviors. All five of these, to be sure, are single factors as well but they  represent a great step toward what is needed to comprehensively promote prolonged environmental stewardship. Let’s review em’ and figure out just how useful they are.

Decreased Transportation - Transportation produces around a fourth of American CO2 emissions so it should come as no surprise that libraries play a part in releasing them. For example, Inter-Library loans require books, CD’s, and other items to be shipped back and forth from site to site. Purchasing orders from vendors are the same. A review of how much stuff libraries ship shows that:

• An OCLC library shares material once every four seconds.
• These loans occur between 71,000 libraries in 112 countries.

This adds up. Specifically, it adds up to 7,884,000 items loaned per year. Even assuming that half of these are digital and weren’t really “shipped” the number still is significant.Throw in purchasing among other things and the carbon footprint left by libraries is shown to be larger than it appears.

Printing and Manufacturing – The publishing industry is also heavily supported by libraries, and a switch to digital items can minimize it’s impact too. Presently, libraries spend over $14 billion a year on goods and services. Back in 2006 U.S. book producers produced 5.15 billion books and sold another 3.09 billion! This is an imprecise measure, but recognizing that libraries play a role in purchasing and collecting these items should forge the link in one’s mind between publisher behavior and library demand. A carbon footprint assessment found that the entire book industry, through all steps of production, retail, and publishing activities, emits a net 8.85 pounds per book or 12.4 million metric tons of carbon each year. Certainly, as a $14 billion dollar industry, if libraries used digital material their purchasing clout would shift the production of publications from a physical to the digital centered realm. Digital materials don’t rely on an industrial production and a long distance shipping process.

Centralized Energy - Another benefit, although minor, is that when managing a digital library the bulk of it’s environmental footprint comes in terms of energy consumed. While most power plants aren’t sustainable relying on the energy industry can be a good thing. Think about it this way. When a book is printed energy has to be used: for the chansaw used to cut down trees, for a sawmill to process wood, for a pulper to create paper, and for a printer to print a book. But, digital item creation is more simple. Physical items require an input of energy on multiple occasions, and often in different forms but digital ones spend energy from a more transparent resource – the energy grid. This brings me to my point. Power plant have the potential to be overseen, managed, and improved more reliably than across the material publishing process. Managing a hundred uses of energy is difficult, but managing a single large one can be much, much easier.

Reduced Waste – Returning to the issue of waste, digital libraries can cut down on their ecological footprints as well of the publishing industry’s. To be fair, “there is a significant shift toward the use of post-consumer recycled fiber for books” which is a great thing but, “most of the world’s paper supply, about 71 percent, is not made from timber harvested at tree farms but from forest-harvested timber, from regions with ecologically valuable, biologically diverse habitat.”

To make matters worse AIG, which offers insurance to publishing companies, takes note that, “researchers estimate that the printing industry releases more than 41 million pounds of toxic compounds into the environment each year. Under current environmental laws and regulations, all industrial waste generated by a printer is that printer’s responsibility “cradle to grave,” even if the printer follows all applicable regulations. Hazardous waste that is improperly disposed or was once legally disposed that eventually causes environmental contamination can result in Superfund liability for the printer.” Though probably not unique to printers alone, suddenly, it seems plausible that it’s worth being mindful of  relying on print.

More work needs to be done to compare the footprints left by digital and print, especially in regard to electronics, but superficially there is reason to believe that cutting down on print is  good.

Changing Patron Behaviors – Lastly, when given an option patrons increasingly prefer digital material. To be certain, preference varies but as time goes on  electronic material is gaining widespread acceptance as a medium of choice. The development of various e-readers such as Amazon’s Kindle are already providing an outlet for the publishing industry and that said, any switch to digital material is predicated on patrons using it. It ties everything together. Without people being willing to use digital material there’s no way it can or will be adopted so changing patron behaviors offer the potential to tie all four of my previous points together.

…

Ok, confession time.

I’m no economist, I’m not that familiar with the environmental impact of printers and publishers, and I don’t know how much pollution electronic manufacturers create. Still, I’d like to think I’ve got the ball rolling in this post. I mean, if it turns out that the economics are plausible and print based publications leave a bigger impact than electronic ones then my arguments before stand. If not then the answer is in question. Still, I suppose that’s something for another time.

Part 1 | Part 2

- The Story of Stuff

I’ve always been surrounded by people who are mindful of human impacts on the environment. So, when I packed up and went to college I payed close attention to an up-and-coming form of environmentalism; sustainability. I can’t say exactly how it caught my attention, but the differences between sustainability and previous environmental approaches are notable.

Traditional environmentalism advocates conservation and preservation. Think of Jane Goodall fighting to save gorilla habitat or the government creating a national park. The other. Well, the other – if it’s not carefully heeded – means that humans need to drastically change the way they live. Proponents of sustainable living practices note that we only have a finite number of resources on Earth and that it’s our duty to change present consumption habits from linear to sustainable ones.

Unfortunately, this is not only a tall order but it’s complex to boot. Complex enough in fact that it requires every portion of the materials economy (including you) to do it’s share! Previous identification of environmental issues weren’t quite like this. Take, for example, halting global climate change… perhaps the largest issue identified by environmentalists to date. Scientists point out that they think Earth’s recent warming trend is being caused by Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and that it comes from tangible sources. Human sources! The United States yearly transportation accounts for 529 million metric tons of CO2 released a year while Industrial, Commercial, and Residential sources produce 447, 340, and 296 million tons respectively.

So, without taking too much time to go into Global Warming, an important point needs to be made: previous environmental protection measures have identified specific problems and sought to reduce or resolve their severity to protect the environment. In cutting CO2 emissions humans can take drastic measures that change their lifestyle, but that’s where the impact stops – the problem being fixed. Sustainability, instead focuses on making  an entire  society sustainable. It follows that human influences are treated differently. Sustainability is an orientation toward the world around us… not an attempt to resolve or avoid singular problems that constitute the whole. And, because it doesn’t limit itself it requires help to make feasible. A lot of help. Humans can try and act as stewards and protect the environment on a case-by-case basis, but unless we try to do so in a sustainable manner (across the breadth of the materials economy) a long-term risk is run; we can run out of a given resource. We can damage local ecosystems and the planet beyond repair too.

This is where I intrude.

I think that, properly used, digital libraries can help librarians do their part to “go green.”

Certainly, the concept of sustainability is controversial to some, and Cornucopians argue that humans can always find ways around or through our problems. Transforming the global economy to a sustainable footing may also turn out to come at a very high social, humanitarian, or economic cost!

Not being willing to ignore these objections I personally believe that it never hurts to prepare for the future. That in mind, I am willing to argue that digital libraries can offset a number of environmental and ecological problems. Plus, since libraries are moving toward a dependence on digital material anyway it seems harmless to entertain the benefits of such a model. If it helps the environment then great! If it can be run on a realistic sustainable model even better still.