Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-29T00:14:01.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Entropy, Economics, and Policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

By
Matthias Ruth
Edited by
Bhavik R. Bakshi ,
Timothy G. Gutowski  and
Dušan P. Sekulić
Matthias Ruth
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
Bhavik R. Bakshi
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Timothy G. Gutowski
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dušan P. Sekulić
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

If Thought is capable of being classed with Electricity, or Will with chemical affinity, as a mode of motion, it seems necessary to fall at once under the second law of thermodynamics as one of the energies which most easily degrades itself, and, if not carefully guarded, returns bodily to the cheaper form called Heat. Of all possible theories, this is likely to prove the most fatal to Professors of History.

Henry Brooks Adams (1838–1918), U.S. historian. The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma, p. 195.

Introduction

Modern, mainstream economics is as much a product of social and political history as it is of the scientific method. The decline of centralized power in the late middle ages, held previously by kings, feudal lords, bishops, or priests, increasingly provided opportunities for individuals and their communities to determine their own fate. As the roles and responsibilities of individuals were redefined and as decision making became decentralized, concerns were raised whether a society, driven by individuals and their self-interests, could and would be able to reach some stable outcome [1, 2]. As some of the societies in Western Europe experienced rapid change, new technologies broadened the resource base – domestic and foreign – with opportunities for seemingly unbounded expansion of the human enterprise. Most notably, the technological innovations of the agricultural and industrial revolutions fueled, and were driven by, economic growth and social change.

Type
Chapter
Information
Thermodynamics and the Destruction of Resources , pp. 402 - 428
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Smith, A., The Wealth of Nations (1776; reprinted by Random House, New York, 1937).Google Scholar
Brems, H., Pioneering Economic Theory, 1630–1980: A Mathematical Restatement (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, London, 1986).Google Scholar
Martinez-Alier, J. and Schlupmann, K., Ecological Economics: Energy, Environment and Society (Blackwell, New York, 1991).Google Scholar
Malinvaud, E., Lectures on Microeconomic Theory (North-Holland Amsterdam, and Elsevier, New York, 1972).Google Scholar
Mas-Colell, A., The Theory of General Economic Equilibrium: A Differentiable Approach (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985).Google Scholar
Katz, M. L. and Rosen, H. S., Microeconomics, 3rd Edition (Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1998).Google Scholar
Daly, H. E., Toward a Steady-State Economics (Freeman, San Francisco, 1973).Google Scholar
Daly, H. E., Steady-State Economics (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1991).Google Scholar
Costanza, R. and Wainger, L., Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability (Columbia University Press, New York, 1991).Google Scholar
Freeman, C. and Perez, C., “Structural crisis and adjustments, business cycles and investment behaviour,” in Technical Change and Economic Theory, edited by Dosi, G. and Freeman, C. (Pinter Publishing, London, and New York, 1988).Google Scholar
Sarkar, J., “Technological diffusion: Alternative theories and historical evidence,” J. Econ. Surv. 12, 131–176 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. H., Economics as Religion – From Samuelson to Chicago and Beyond (Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, 2001).Google Scholar
Jevons, W. S., The Theory of Political Economy (London and New York, Macmillan and Co., 1871).Google Scholar
Edgeworth, F. Y., Mathematical Psychics (Kegan, London, 1881).Google Scholar
Mirowski, P., More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, P., “Driving forces, increasing returns and ecological sustainability,” in Ecological Economics: The Sci, & Mngmt. of Sustainability, edited by R. Constanza, Columbia University Press, New York, 75–87 (1991).Google Scholar
Proops, J. L. R., “Thermodynamics and economics: From analogy to physical functioning,” in Energy and Time in Economics and Physical Sciences, edited by Gool, W. and Bruggink, J. (Elsevier, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1985), pp. 155–174.Google Scholar
Davis, H. T., The Theory of Econometrics (Principia, Bloomington, IN, 1941).
Lisman, H. C., “Econometrics and thermodynamics: A remark on Davis' theory of budgets.” Econometrica 12, 59–62 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pikler, A. G., “Optimum allocation in econometrics and physics,” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, No. 66, 97–132 (1951).Google Scholar
Bryant, J., “A thermodynamic approach to economics,” Energy Econ. 4, 36–50 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, D. A. and King, P. G., “The ideological foundations of environmental policy,” Ecol. Econ. 1, 315–334 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulding, K., “The economics of the coming spaceship earth,” in Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, edited by Jarrett, H. (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1966), pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odum, H. T., Environment, Power and Society (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1971).Google Scholar
Ayres, R. U. and Nair, I., “Thermodynamics and economics,” Phys. Today 37, 62–71 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, M., “A biophysical approach to the economy: Entropy, environment and resources,” in Energy and Time in Economics and Physical Sciences, edited by Gool, W. and Bruggink, J. (Elsevier Science, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1985).Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., “Process analysis and the neoclassical theory of production,” Am. J. Agricul. Econ. 54, 279–294 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, T., “Is the entropy law relevant to the economics of natural resource scarcity?” J. Environ. Econ. Mngmt. 21, 169–179 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, H. E., “Is the entropy law relevant to the economics of natural resource scarcity? – Yes, of course it is ” J. Environ. Econ. Mngmt. 23, 91–95 (1992).CrossRef
Townsend, K. N., “Is the entropy law relevant to the economics of natural resource scarcity? Comment,” J. Environ. Econ. Mngmt. 23, 96–100 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Victor, P. A., Pollution: Economy and Environment (Allen and Unwin, London, 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullard, C. W. and Herendeen, R., “Energy impact of consumption decisions,” Proc. IEEE, 63, 484–493 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norgaard, R. B., Development Betrayed: The End of Progress and a Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future (Routledge, New York, 1994).Google Scholar
Cleveland, C. J. and Ruth, M., “When, where and by how much does thermodynamics constrain economic processes? A survey of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen's contribution to ecological economics,” Ecol. Econ. 22, 203–223 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, H. E. and Farley, J. C., Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2004).Google Scholar
Faber, M., Niemes, H., and Stephan, G., Entropy, Environment, and Resources: An Essay in Physio-Economics (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faber, M., Manstetten, R., and Proops, J. L. R., Ecological Economics: Concepts and Methods (Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 1996).Google Scholar
Funtowicz, S., Ravetz, J., and O'Connor, M., “Challenges in the use of science for sustainable development,” Intl. J. Sustainable Develop. 1, 99–107 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruth, M., Integrating Economics, Ecology and Thermodynamics (Kluwer Academic, Dortrecht, The Netherlands, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbroner, R. L. and Thurow, L. C., Economics Explained (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1982).Google Scholar
Baumol, W. J., Oates, W. E., Bawa, V. S, and Bradford, D., The Theory of Environmental Policy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., Energy and Economic Myths (Pergamon, New York, 1976).Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., “The steady-state and ecological salvation,” Bioscience 27, 266–270 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., “The entropy law and the economic process in retrospect,” East. Econ. J. 12, 3–23 (1986).Google Scholar
Ayres, R. and Kneese, A., “Production, consumption, and externalities,” Am. Econ. Rev. 59, 282–297 (1969).Google Scholar
Converse, A. O., “On the extension of input–output analysis to account for enviromental externalities,” Am. Econ. Rev. 61, 197–198 (1971).Google Scholar
d'Arge, R. C. and Kogiku, K. C., “Economic growth and the environment,” Rev. Econ. Stud. 59, 61–77 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannon, B., “The structure of ecosystems,” J. Theor. Biol. 41, 535–546 (1973).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannon, B., “Energy conservation and the consumer,” Science 89, 95–100 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perrings, C., Economy and Environment: A Theoretical Essay on the Interdependence of Economic and Environmental Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ausubel, J. H. and Sladovich, H. E., editors, Technology and Environment (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989).Google Scholar
Graedel, T. E. and Allenby, B. R., Industrial Ecology (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995).Google Scholar
Chertow, M. R., “Industrial symbiosis: Literature and taxonomy,” Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25, 313–337 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, A. P., “The economics of technological change,” Sci. Am. 214, 25–31 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malenbaum, W., World Demand for Raw Materials in 1985 and 2000 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978).Google Scholar
Larson, E. D., Ross, M. H., and Williams, R. H., “Beyond the era of materials,” Sci. Am. 254, 34–41, (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jänicke, M., Monch, H., Ranneberg, T., and Simonis, U. E., “Structural change and environmental impact. Empirical evidence on thirty-one countries in east and west,” Environ. Monitor. Assess. 12, 99–114 (1989).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hinterberger, F. and Seifert, E., “Reducing material throughput: A contribution to the measurement of dematerialisation and sustainable human development,” in Environment, Technology and Economic Growth: The Challenge to Sustainable Development, edited by J. v. d. Straaten and A. Tylecote (Edward Elgar, Cheltennam, UK, 1997), pp. 75–91.
Nappi, C., “The food and beverage container industries: Change and diversity,” in World Metal Demand, Trends and Prospects, edited by Tilton, J. E (Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 1990), pp. 217–254.Google Scholar
Key, P. L. and Schlabach, T. D., “Metals demand in telecommunications,” Mater. Soc. 10, 433–451 (1986).Google Scholar
Devine, P. R., “The effects of economic growth, technology change, consumption pattern change and foreign trade on domestic demand for primary metals, 1963–82,” PB89–204002 (Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1988).
Bernardini, O. and Galli, R., “Dematerialization: Long-term trends in the intensity of use of materials and energy,” Futures 25, 431–448 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakicenovic, N., “Freeing energy from carbon,” Daedalus 125, 434–440 (1996).Google Scholar
Ayres, R. U., “Industrial metabolism,” in Technology and Environment, edited by Ausubel, J. H. and Sladovich, H. E. (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989), pp. 23–49.Google Scholar
Grübler, A., “Industrialization as a historical phenomenon,” in Industrial Ecology and Global Change, edited by Socolow, R. H., Andrews, C.,Berkhout, F.,and Thomas, V. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,Factor 10 Club, Statement to Government and Business Leaders. Factor 10 Institute, Carnoules, 1997.
Auty, R.. “Materials intensity of GDP: Research issues on the measurement and explanation of change,” Resources Policy 11, 275–283 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herman, R., Arkekani, S. A., and Ausubel, J. H., “Dematerialization,” in Technology and Environment, edited by Ausubel, J. H. and Sladovich, H. E. (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989), pp. 50–69.Google Scholar
Cleveland, C. J. and Ruth, M., “Indicators of dematerialization and the materials intensity of use,” J. Ind. Ecol. 2, 15–50 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruth, M., “Energy use and CO2 emissions in a dematerializing economy: Examples from five US metals sectors,” Resources Policy 24, 1–18 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G. M. and Krueger, A. B., “Economic growth and the environment,” Q. J. Econ. 110, 353–377 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G. M., “Pollution and growth: What do we know?,” in The Economics of Sustainable Development, edited by Goldin, I. and Winters, L. A. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1995), pp. 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panayotou, T., “Empirical tests and policy analysis of environmental degradation at different stages of economic development,” World Employment Programme Research, Working Paper 238 (International Labor Office, Geneva, 1993).
Komen, M., Gerking, S., and Folmer, H.. “Income and Environmental R&D: Empirical Evidence from OECD Countries,” Environ. Develop. Econ. 2, 505–515 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suri, V. and Chapman, D., “Economic growth, trade and energy: Implications for the environmental Kuznets curve,” Ecol. Econ. 25, 195–208 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreoni, J. and Levinson, A., “The simple analytics of the environmental kuznets curve,” J. Public Econ. 80, pp. 269–286 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, D. I., “Progress on the environmental kuznets curve?,” Environ. Develop. Econ. 3, 173–196 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J. A. and Gallet, C. A., “The environmental Kuznets curve: Does one size fit all,” Ecol. Econ. 31, 409–423 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unruh, G. C. and Moomaw, W. R., “An alternative analysis of apparent EKC-type transitions,” Ecol. Econ. 25, 221–229 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harbaugh, W. T., Levinson, A., and Wilson, D. M., “Reexamining the empirical evidence for an environmental kuznets curve,” Rev. Econ. Stat. 84, 541–551 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghesi, S., The Environmental Kuznets Curve: A Survey of the Literature, (International Monetary Fund Washington, D.C., 1999).Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., “Comments on the papers by Daly and Stiglitz,” in Scarcity and Growth Reconsidered, edited by Smith, V. K. (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1979), pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., “Energetic dogma, energetic economics, and viable technology,” in Advances in the Economics of Energy and Resources, edited by J. R. Moroney (JAI Press, Greenwood, CT, 1982).Google Scholar
Georgescu-Roegen, N., “Energy, matter, and economic valuation: Where do we stand?,” in Energy Economics and the Environment: Conflicting Views of an Essential Interrelationship, edited by Daly, H. D. and Umana, A. F. (American Assocication for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., 1981), pp. 43–79.Google Scholar
Ayres, R. U., “The second law, the fourth law, recycling and limits to growth,” Ecol. Econ. 29, pp. 474–483 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruth, M., “The economics of sustainability and the sustainability of economics,” Ecol. Econ. 56, 332–342 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, C., Cleveland, C., and Kaufmann, R., Energy and Resource Quality: The Ecology of the Economic Process (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1986).Google Scholar
Faber, M., Proops, J. L. R., Ruth, M., and Michaelis, P., “Economy–environment interactions in the long-run: A neo-Austrian approach,” Ecol. Econ. 2, 27–55 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solow, R. M., “A contribution to the theory of economic growth,” Q. J. Econ. 70, 65–94 (1956).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, D., Advanced Macroeconomics (McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, 2000).Google Scholar
Ruth, M., “Thermodynamic constraints on optimal depletion of copper and aluminum in the United States: A dynamic model of substitution and technical change,” Ecol. Econ. 15, 197–213 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hannon, B. and Joyce, J., “Energy and technical progress,” Energy Research Group Document, ERG 308 (Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1980).
Ayres, R. U. and Bergh, J. C. J. M., “A theory of economic growth with material/energy resources and dematerialization: Interaction of three growth mechanisms,” Ecol. Econ. 55, 96–118 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E., “A mathematical theory of communications,” Bell Syst. Technol. J. 27, 379–623 (1948).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winer, N., Cybernetics (Wiley, New York, 1948).Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. and Weaver, W., The Mathematical Theory of Information (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1949).Google Scholar
Brillouin, L., Scientific Uncertainty and Information (Academic Press, New York, London, 1964).Google Scholar
Evans, R. B., “A proof that essergy is the only consistent measure of potential work,” Ph.D. dessertation (Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 1969).
Tribus, M. and McIrvine, E. C., “Energy and information,” Sci. Am. 225, 179–188 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, C. A., “The use of energy: A flow of information, paper presented at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,” Conference on Socioeconomic Impacts of Regional Integrated Energy Systems, Prague, CSSR, Oct. 10–12, 1988.Google Scholar
Spreng, D. T., Net-Energy Analysis (Praeger, New York, 1988).Google Scholar
Szilard, L. “Über die Entropieverminderung in einem thermodynamischen System bei eingriffe intelligenter Wesen,” Z. Phys. 53, 840–960 (1929).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, R. U. and Miller, S. M., “The role of technical change,” J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 7, 353–371 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayres, R. U., “Optimal investment policies with exhaustible resources: An information-based model,” J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 15, 439–461 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez-Alier, J., “Some issues in agrarian and ecological economics,” Ecol. Econ. 22, 225–238 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgärtner, S., “Thermodynamic models,” in Modelling in Ecological Economics, edited by Proops, J. and Safonov, P. (Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2004), pp. 102–129.Google Scholar
Jørgansen, S. E. and Svirezhev, Y. M., Towards a Thermodynamic Theory for Ecological Systems (Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier, 2004).Google Scholar
Luvall, J. C. and Holbo, H. R., “Thermal remote sensing methods in landscape ecology,” in Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology, edited by Turner, M. and Gardner, R. H. (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991), pp. 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sousa, T. A., “Is neoclassical economics formally valid? An approach based on an analogy between equilibrium thermodynamics and neoclassical microeconomics,” Ecol. Econ. 58, 160–169 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruth, M., “Thermodynamic implications for natural resource extraction and technical change in US copper mining,” Environ. Resource Econ. 6, 187–206 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gössling-Reisemann, S., “Entropy as a measure for resource consumption – Application to primary and secondary copper production,” in Sustainable Metals Management, edited by Gleich, A., Ayres, R., and Gössling-Reisemann, S. (Springer, Amsterdam, 2006), 195–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shephard, R. W., Cost and Production Functions (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, P. S. and Heal, G. M., Economic Theory and Exhaustible Resources (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979).Google Scholar
Meshkov, N. and Berry, R. S., “Can thermodynamics say anything about the economics of production?,” in Changing Energy Use Futures, edited by Fazzolare, R. A. and Smith, C. B. (Pergamon, New York, 1979), pp. 374–382.Google Scholar
Ruth, M., “Information, order and knowledge in economic and ecological systems: Implications for material and energy use,” Ecol. Econ. 13, 99–114 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiss, J. A., “Comparative thermodynamics in chemistry and economics,” in Economics and Thermodynamics: New Perspectives on Economic Analysis, edited by Burley, P. and Foster, J. (Kluwer Academic, Dortrecht, The Netherlands, 1994), pp. 47–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sousa, T. A., “Equilibrium econophysics: A unified formalism for neoclassical economics and equilibrium thermodynamics,” Physica A 371, 492–512 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prigogine, I., From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1980).Google Scholar
Glansdorf, P. and Prigogine, I., Thermodynamic Theory of Structure, Stability and Fluctuations, Second Edition (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York, NY, 1971).Google Scholar
Kay, J. J., “Self-organization in living systems,” Ph.D. dessertation, (Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 1984).
Hannon, B., Ruth, M., and Delucia, A., “A physical view of sustainability,” Ecol. Econ. 8, 253–268 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, J. J., Regierb, H. A., Boylec, M., and Francisa, G., “An ecosystem approach for sustainability: Addressing the challenge of complexity,” Futures 31, 721–742 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bak, P., How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality (Copernicus, New York, 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, H. J., Organized Criticality: Emergent Complex Behavior in Physical and Biological Systems (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holling, C. S., editor, Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management (Wiley, London, 1978).
Gunderson, L. C., Holling, S., and Light, S., editors, Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions (Columbia University Press, New York, 1995).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×