But of course the Remarkable has an ecological footprint too, just like paper has.
A non-zero amount of energy and resources went into manufacturing the device. Extracting and shipping metals/oil/silicone, refining those materials, then constructing the display/CPU/motherboard/other components, then shipping all the components to the assembly site, then shipping the device to the store/warehouse, etc. It’s a lot more complicated than making paper.
Then multiple times per week the device has to be charged, using electricity that might come from a coal power plant in worst case.
I’m not saying one shouldn’t buy a Remarkable. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that the Remarkable is less wasteful than paper before doing a life cycle assessment.
It's not like making paper is energy free. You need to grow the trees, cut the trees using machinery, transport cut trees to factory which is under all likelihood not anywhere close, turn tree pulp into paper, package it, ship it to warehouses before it's actually shipped to the end store to be eventually picked up by a consumer. Not sure what your point actually is, if you want to compare both supply chains then you need to take everything in account, including the amount of paper you'd need over your lifetime in case you did not use any electronic device, the amount of garbage it produces, etc...
I don't think using paper in a reasonable and conscious manner is "wasting" the paper. Most of the paper waste, I suspect, is from different uses (like printing tons of crap in offices). Thoughts?
