There’s a short section in this article wherein a HarperCollins rep claims that using “eco-friendly fonts” uses less ink and less paper, and therefore fewer resources when compared to other fonts.
I don’t doubt that there are eco-friendly fonts out there, but Garamond Pro? That’s been around, in various forms, for decades.
Basically the HarperCollins designers just redesigned the books to use fewer pages. Why can’t that be the lesson?
To be clear, I’m all for responsible and sustainability in the book industry. My gripe is with the “eco-friendly fonts” terminology; until I see that this specific version of Garamond was deliberately designed to use less ink, just credit your designers for adjusting their workflow.