Is digitisation really better for the environment?

Can paper and its digital equivalent be compared? Can the electricity cost of digitisation and making data available be calculated in comparison with paper? The historical article says an exact calculation is difficult because these costs vary by company, sector and application. It identifies several factors that can help estimate them. One main factor is electricity consumption: digitisation and data provision require substantial energy to operate computers, servers and data centres. The source cites a 2019 study by The Shift Project, attributing about 4% of global greenhouse-gas emissions to the digital industry and reporting a forecast that this could rise to 8% by 2025. For comparison, the source attributes about 1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions to paper production, citing the Confederation of European Paper Industries. Another factor is resource consumption. Digitisation and data provision also require substantial raw materials, including metals for computer hardware and rare earths for smartphones and tablets. The article says these materials can cause environmental problems, especially if not properly recycled. Paper costs likewise depend on raw-material prices, energy requirements and transport costs. The article identifies ways to reduce resource consumption and environmental impacts in paper production: recycled paper, renewable energy sources and optimised transport routes. It concludes that an exact cost comparison depends on many factors. It nevertheless points to substantial energy and resource consumption from digitisation and data provision, with associated potential environmental problems and costs. Can paper therefore have a better environmental footprint than a digital alternative over the long term in some applications? The article answers yes and gives information delivery as an example. It claims that reading a paper document causes no emissions or resource use once it has been printed. By contrast, it attributes emissions from digital information to the energy needed by reading devices, and notes that storing and transmitting data also uses energy and resources, particularly for large data volumes. A further example is paper packaging. The source describes paper as renewable and reusable or recyclable. It says sustainable production and disposal can give paper a better environmental footprint than plastic packaging made from non-renewable resources and often slow to degrade. The article stresses that both paper and digital environmental footprints depend on many factors, making direct comparisons difficult. Both have advantages and disadvantages; cost, convenience, efficiency and environmental impacts influence the choice. So, when comparing a digital receipt with a paper receipt, which has the worse long-term environmental footprint? The article says this is difficult to determine because many factors are involved. Considering direct environmental impacts alone, it claims that conventional paper receipts generally perform better. It also says digital receipts have lower production impacts because no paper or printing ink is needed, and that transport is largely avoided because they can be sent directly by email or app. However, the article attributes emissions to electricity generation and data transmission for digital receipts. Displaying them requires devices such as smartphones or computers; data processing and storage in data centres also have an environmental footprint. The source further claims that paper receipts are recyclable and biodegradable, while electronic devices often degrade slowly and can contain hazardous chemicals. It notes that a physical receipt can be practical for later returns or as an accounting record. The article concludes that the choice depends on many factors and no blanket environmental verdict is easy. It suggests reducing impacts through recycled paper or renewable electricity sources. Our conclusion The historical conclusion does not decide which option is better. It says the company sought to avoid unnecessary plastic waste through coreless till rolls, expecting an environmental benefit. It reports sales of more than 3 million rolls without a core or plastic sleeve in the preceding year, claiming more than 12 tonnes of plastic waste avoided, and refers readers to coreless.de or paperdiscount24.de. [Archive note: these are historical source claims, including an old forecast, an unverified comparison of sector-wide percentages, and generalisations about emissions, recycling and biodegradability. They are not a current life-cycle assessment or disposal guidance for a specific receipt material. The reported sales and plastic savings have not been independently verified here.]