Despite being an amazing parody, the irony is that the bookbook is made out of paper — if it was actually digital instead, that'd be a whole lot of trees not getting destroyed...
Is there evidence that ebooks are better for the environment? The cost of manufacturing and delivering the reader, which may be replaced quite frequently, and the costs of cloud-based delivery make it non-obvious to me.
Maybe ebooks save paper, but have a higher carbon cost?
"Perfected by Tsai Lung for the Chinese emperor between 62 and 117 A.D., the technique of making paper with hemp was discovered in the Western world after the Battle of Samarkand (751 A.D). In 1456 Gutenberg printed a Bible on hemp paper, the United States’ Declaration of Independence was also written on hemp paper in 1776."
Hemp may have a greater sustainable yield per acre (or some other constraint) than other fiber sources for paper [1], but forests are quite obviously also renewable.
[1] I'm not saying it does, just granting that this is possible as I haven't looked into it.
Hemp yields more pulp per acre than forests, needs less acid & chlorine (environmental impact).
Saying that books destroy trees is like saying that hamburgers destroy cows.
We farm them specifically for the purpose of using them. If there were no books, we'd have less trees, not more.