Is Ipad better than paper in flight cockpits?

Recently, I have read on Twitter an airline has changed all the paper used during the flight for Apple Ipad and there is a discussion about which is the better option? You can read it here: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2011/09/ask-pablo-will-ipads-in-the-cockpit-lower-paper-use.php?campaign=th_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+treehuggersite+(Treehugger)&utm_content=Google+Reader

This is a good post but I am fed up with everybody only uses the CO2e (CO2 equivalent) or the green-house measures in order to make each analysis because they forget there is other problems.I guess I will write my thesis about climate change and about other environmental issues.

In this case, according to the post, Ipad is better than 8 paper sheets per flight because CO2 is lower. Okay, It is fine and I don t deny it but has somebody thought that several patterns are required to make an analysis? Unfortunately, the answer is no... We are in the real world.

In this case We make like poor countries because we don´t employ a scientific methodology, that is, we don´t include all the patterns related. Maybe It is intentional to promote Apple Ipads in each cockpit, I don´t know but I find it very possible.

So, in my opinion like an environmental scientist, It is necessary to include all the patterns of each option (Ipad and paper) with a multi-criteria methodology. Thus, we could know which option is the better (maybe the worst for Apple, lol).

Consequently, I will speak about another problematic associated to Ipad like energy required, water used or polluted, metals, heavy metals (very toxic for human and environmental health), acids and bases from battery, different kinds of plastic and so on (since manufacturing process to waste phase).

In the other hand, I am tired people doesn´t use the things real price for materials non renewables . What is the real price when I talk about resources non renewables? Despite all the inconvenients that they could be because of their use, we remove the possibility  that futures generation can profit them or use. Of course, environment also lose this resource. Therefore, we use a false price in our goods. For example, in Spain the petrol used to produce energy costs 0,09 euros per liter or US$0,12 per liter
(when the petrol for cars or for heating costs nearly €1,4 per liter or US$1,92 per liter), an economic price if we think that we are removing little fossils forever and, mainly,  we eliminate a precious resource to obtain plastics, oils and other materials.

To sum up, I want to say if we add all the patterns involucrated, we could know more precisely which is the alternative with less environmental impact. Maybe with this way Apple will able to loss some of money, I don´t know.

Indeed, I would like to remember an idea from the Spanish philosopher Ortega-Gasset: We shouldn´t look one only dimension, we must look around the deed which concerns us in order to understand all dimensions presents.

Have a nice day!