Let us stop buying into claims by service providers that going paperless saves trees and combats climate change.

Both sides of the story

“We live in the digital age – an age of convenience and accessibility. But these benefits should not be promoted as ‘greener’ than print,” says PAMSA’s Jane Molony.

Paper is produced from a renewable resource – wood. All paper produced in South Africa comes from plantation-grown trees, recycled paper or sugar cane. It does not come from indigenous forests but from sustainably managed timber plantations.

Around 600 million trees across 762,000ha are specifically farmed for pulp and paper manufacturing. These act as massive carbon sinks, absorbing millions of tons of carbon dioxide. When timber is harvested and turned into pulp and paper, the carbon stored is only released when the paper burns or biodegrades. (This is why we should recycle paper – to keep the carbon stored for longer.)

And just like most other crops, we plant, we harvest and we replant – 260,000 new trees every day!

The darker side of digital

In his report Print vs Digital Media: False Dilemmas and Forced Choices, Don Carli, a senior researcher at the Institute of Sustainable Communication, says: “While paper mills emit visible plumes of steam, and waste paper piles up in plain sight, the invisible ‘grey energy’ used to manufacture digital technologies and the toxic ‘e-waste’ associated with electronics are largely out of sight and out of mind. ‘Dark data’ is also exchanged between computers but never seen by human eyes.”

The average American consumes almost 34 gigabytes of data daily, mostly invisible ‘dark data’, the impact of which researchers are just beginning to study.

“We don’t know the environmental impact of saving a document on a server for 10 years or more. And we have no idea of the impact of extracting finite resources to make electronic devices that cannot easily be recycled safely and practically,” says Hans Wegner, chief sustainability officer of the National Geographic Society. (See eQ JOURNAL ISSUE 004 – Sappi)

Notably, Greenpeace has identified electronic waste as the fastest growing component of the municipal waste steam.

The bigger picture

“We need to look at the life cycle of the products we use – whether paper or digital,” stresses Molony.

“Environmentally conscious citizens who use digital media would need to consider raw materials, how and where items are manufactured, their means of transportation, how they are powered and their recyclability.”

In considering sourcing paper products and printed material, the simplest way is to buy locally produced paper or look for certification symbols (FSC, PEFC or SFI) which demonstrate a sustainable process, from the forest to the consumer. 

Consumers often fall into the trap of insisting on printing on recycled paper. “Most recycled paper is imported along with a hidden carbon footprint. Locally produced, FSC-certified virgin paper is just as green, and you support the domestic economy.”

Carli sums it up: digital media doesn’t grow on trees.

The post Going green? Paper is the way to go. first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).

“23% of tablet users prefer digital magazines on tablets over print,” says a blog post from Mequoda about its new study “How American Adults Consume Magazines on Tablets.” The blog post and trade-media coverage interpret the data as meaning that tablet magazines are about to enter a boom period.

But here’s the real news: Three-fourths of U.S. tablet users do not prefer digital magazines to print magazines. Read that sentence again: It doesn’t say three-fourths of U.S. Luddites or of adults or of magazine readers; it says three-fourths of tablet users.

Isn’t that a bit like people with Blu-Ray players preferring to watch VHS tapes?

In the same study, 51% of tablet users prefer streaming video to broadcast and 39% prefer e-books to printed books.

Yes, tablet use is growing. Mequoda found that a majority of U.S. internet users have access to a tablet. And yes people are learning to do more and more with them. Tablets are displacing laptops for many people.

But tablet owners apparently haven’t fallen in love with reading magazines on their tablets.That may be why Newsweek has reportedly gone from 1.5 million subscribers to 470,000 less than six months after dropping print to go digital-only.

Despite all the hype about iPads and Kindles, U.S. magazine publishers are making far more money on the web and generally wondering when their tablet investments will pay off.

In fact, though no one seems to talk about it, the real game-changing technology for subscription magazines has been browser-based editions — that is, digital replicas that can be read on any computer. Many a B2B publication has shifted 50% or more of its subscription base to these simple page-flip editions, but few print-and-digital publications get even 10% of their circulation from tablet editions.

Source

The post A Troubling Sign for Tablet Magazines? first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).

Day in, day out, we are faced with messages about the harm that paper does to our environment. More often than not, these messages can be found in two places: at the bottom of emails and from service providers informing you of their move from postal to electronic distribution of documents.

Keeping it on screen is not going green
“While the paper industry cannot swim against the digital tide and the convenience of receiving such documents electronically, the electronic distribution of information should not be touted as being more environmentally friendly than print,” says Jane Molony, PAMSA executive director.

In fact, reading a document on screen produces more carbon dioxide (CO2) than printing out the same document.  A printed document can be read over again without further emissions and can also be recycled, according to a 2006 study by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the Government Economic Service in the United Kingdom.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change  tackled the effects of climate change and global warming on the world economy. Stern used his 700-page document to demonstrate how paper and print have a better environmental footprint than electronic communication.

• Printing the Stern Review emits 85g of CO2 (one copy can be read over and over again without further emissions).
• Reading it on a computer for one hour emits 226g of CO2 every time.
• Burning the Stern Review to CD is estimated to emit 300g of CO2 for every copy
• Burning it to DVD is estimated to emit 350g of CO2 for every copy

Further to this, in September last year the New York Times stated, “The [information] industry has long argued that computerising business transactions and everyday tasks like banking and reading library books has the net effect of saving energy and resources.”

Quoting Power, Pollution, and the Internet, the New York Times asserts that the energy consumption of massive data centres is ‘sharply at odds with its image of sleek efficiency and environmental friendliness’.

E-waste is the fastest growing component in the municipal stream
Greenpeace has identified electronic waste as the fastest growing component of the municipal waste steam”[i].

Hans Wegner, chief sustainability officer of the National Geographic Society notes, “We don’t know the environmental impact of saving a document on a server for ten years or more. And we have no idea of the impact of extracting finite resources to make electronic devices that cannot easily be recycled safely and practically.”

But what about all the trees that are killed to make paper?
Few people realise that all paper in South Africa is produced from plantation-grown trees, recycled paper or bagasse (sugar-cane fibre). Some 600 million trees across 762,000 hectares are specifically farmed for use in pulp and paper manufacturing, just as maize was planted for your cereal and wheat for your bread.

“Contrary to popular and often misinformed belief, the fibre used to make paper products is not sourced from the wood of rainforests, indigenous or common garden trees,” notes Molony.

As massive sinks for atmospheric carbon, forests mitigate greenhouse gas emissions by absorbing CO2 and releasing oxygen through the natural process of photosynthesis. South Africa’s timber plantations lock up 900 million tons a year of CO2, which is a massive environmental service and a key means of mitigating climate change[ii].

If it were not for the pulp and paper industry operating world-wide for the last 150 years the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would be 5% higher (about 0.5 degree) than they are at present[iii].

Over 80% of South African plantations are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), ranking it as the highest level of international certification in the world.  FSC’s Chain of Custody tracks certified material through the production process – from the forest to the consumer, including all successive stages of processing, transformation, manufacturing and distribution.

Please consider the environment before NOT printing this
“While PAMSA certainly does not advocate wasteful printing, we ask that paper and printing, and the environment, be treated with respect.”

PAMSA’s Green Office Week Tips

• Buy locally manufactured paper that is FSC-certified. This way you can be assured that the paper is produced from sustainably managed plantations.
• Recycle your paper, keeping it dry and away from other waste and have it collected regularly. Visit www.mywaste.co.za
• Be responsible with your electronic waste. Do your research and find reputable e-waste recycling companies that you know will handle your old computers and printers with the environment in mind.

[i] Greenpeace, The E-waste Problem 2009

[ii] Forestry South Africa, 2011

[iii] Special Report No 07-02, February 2007. The greenhouse gas and carbon profile of the global forest products industry. NCASI (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement) 

The post Don’t let corporate ignorance cause a paper jam first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).

7th March 2013, London, UK – A resolution placed before the US Senate seeks to reverse recent federal initiatives to eliminate paper-based information

‘Consumers for Paper Options’, a US group set up to challenge the drive towards a digital only society, applauds the resolution

Originally reported by Industry Intelligence, 5th March 2013

The resolution, introduced by U.S. Reps. Duffy & Michaud, says Agencies Should Continue to Provide Americans with Paper Options for Social Security Benefits, Savings Bonds, Tax Forms & Other Services

‘Consumers for Paper Options’, a coalition of individuals and organizations advocating for the right to paper-based communications, today applauded a new Congressional resolution to protect access to paper-based options for government services and information. This bipartisan resolution (H.Res. 97), introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) and Mike Michaud (D-Maine), seeks to reverse recent federal initiatives to completely eliminate paper-based information and services, such as Social Security checks and earnings statements, savings bonds and income tax forms.

Federal agencies have been forcing Americans to go “paperless” without public comment or Congressional oversight, despite the fact that millions of Americans cannot access information in electronic formats and cybersecurity threats are on the rise. The Duffy-Michaud resolution seeks to bring these agency decisions under Congressional review, while directing the federal government to ensure that Americans receive paper information and services, unless they specifically choose electronic-only.

“Federal efforts to eliminate paper-based services and information are disenfranchising millions of Americans, including senior citizens, lower income Americans and those who are concerned about cyber-threats,” said John Runyan, executive director of Consumers for Paper Options. “More than 30 million American households lack Internet access both at home and at work, and yet our government expects all citizens to e-file tax forms, manage their finances online and purchase savings bonds electronically.“

Runyan continued, “It’s time for Congress to step in and protect equal and appropriate information access for all Americans. We are pleased to see Reps. Duffy and Michaud leading the charge to make federal agencies accountable for their decisions, and to defend the right for Americans to receive government information in whatever means they choose. The federal government has a duty to serve every citizen, regardless of which side of the digital divide they inhabit.”

Martyn Eustace, Director of Two Sides, comments, ‘Consumers for Paper Options’ has done a great job in the US to highlight the growing tendency of Government departments and large organisations to drive unwilling consumers down a digital path whereas, in reality, research shows that consumers prefer to read from paper and value paper based communication above digital.

We also know that many consumers print out their bills for security so the term ‘going paperless’ is totally misleading. E billing and other digital communications are often promoted as environmentally friendly. There is significant evidence that this is just not true.

There is clearly a need to present the facts to large UK organisations, including Government, and discussions are continuing about launching a similar UK initiative in the very near future”.

ENDS

About Consumers for Paper Options

Consumers for Paper Options is a coalition of individuals and organizations who believe paper-based communications are critically important for millions of Americans, especially seniors and the 30 percent of Americans without Internet access. While regulated entities and governments at every level need to streamline services, cut costs and improve efficiencies, preserving paper-based options for information and essential services for those who need or want them should remain a crucial priority. The goal of Consumers for Paper Options is to preserve access to information in a way that neither hinders the natural evolution of technology nor discriminates against those who may not, or cannot, use it. For more information, visit www.paperoptions.org.

About Two Sides

Two Sides is an initiative by companies from the Graphic Communication Value Chain including forestry, pulp, paper, inks and chemicals, pre press, press, finishing, publishing and printing. Membership spans Europe, the United States and Australia. Our common goal is to promote the responsible production and use of print and paper, and dispel common environmental misconceptions by providing users with verifiable information on why print and paper is an attractive, practical and sustainable communications medium. www.twosides.info

Contacts:
Two Sides

Martyn Eustace     e: mje@twosides.info
Sonya Sanghera    e: sks@twosides.info
Sarah Collins    e: sjc@twosides.info
t: 00 44 1327 262920

The post US senate to reconsider the elimination of paper based communication first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).

While we cannot dispute the convenience and immediacy of having annual reports on our company websites and our latest bank statement emailed to us, we have to ensure that electronic information is not ‘green-washed’. In the case of your bank statement being sent straight to your inbox, it is simply about reducing cost (to the service provider) and improving convenience to you as the user. It is certainly not about ‘going green’.

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change published by Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the Government Economic Service in the United Kingdom, in 2006 explains it simply. His 700-page document tackled the effects of climate change and global warming on the world economy and he used the same document to demonstrate how paper and print have a better environmental footprint than electronic communications.

• Printing the Stern Review emits 85g of CO2 (one copy can be read over and over again without further emissions).
• Reading the Stern Review on a computer for one hour emits 226g of CO2 every time.
• Burning the Stern Review to CD is estimated to emit 300g of CO2 for every copy
• Burning the Stern Review to DVD is estimated to emit 350g of CO2 for every copy.

Consider the environment before you send that email

Stern notes that sending 50kb via e-mail causes the same emission as posting a 10g item, with all its fossil fuel consumption in mail delivery etc.  The big difference is that reading an item on a computer emits greenhouse gases at the rate of 3.8g of CO2 per minute. Reading a piece of paper results in no additional emissions.

Putting things in perspective

In an article Sappi’s eQ Journal (Issue 0004), Hans Wegner, Chief Sustainability Officer, National Geographic Society says, “I get frustrated with people who say ‘magazines are the problem,’ when an annual subscription to National Geographic is equal to using a gallon of gas [equivalent to 3.5 litres of petrol] in your car.”

Wegner does take some comfort in knowing that the carbon footprint of the [National Geographic] magazine is something he can quantify, unlike the impact of the online version. Wegner isn’t so sure that electronic is the better medium for the environment, despite the majority of the general public believing as such.

“We don’t know the environmental impact of saving a document on a server for ten years or more,” Wegner says. “And we have no idea of the impact of extracting finite resources to make electronic devices that cannot easily be recycled safely and practically.”

Trees are an important part of the paper story

Compare the manufacture of electronic devices to support communication, which rely on energy from non-renewable fossil fuels and components made from non-renewable precious metals, with the natural and scientific wonder of the tree: It is 100% renewable and it sequesters carbon during its growth cycle through photosynthesis.

Furthermore sustainably managed plantations mitigate climate change, provide a reliable and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified timber supply into the value chain and ensure that our land, water resources, fauna and flora remain protected. In fact, South Africa has the highest level of international certification of its plantations in the world. Over 80% of South African plantations are certified by the FSC.

The use of renewable biomass-based energy has also enabled the South African paper manufacturing industry to avoid the use of 1,3 million tons of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas annually and therefore the associated carbon emissions.

Once the paper reaches the consumer, it is vital that it is recycled thereby extending the period of carbon lock-up in paper and keeping carbon out of the atmosphere for longer.

Think before you do not print

So when you get that email that asks you not to print it so you can save a tree, point them to the www.paperstory.co.za website where they can download and print the latest PAMSA fact sheet, and a new strap for the bottom of their emails.

PAMSA does not advocate wasteful printing – we advocate responsible printing and paper use, re-use and recycle.

Follow us on Twitter @PaperRocks_SA.

The post Pulling the plug on the digital vs paper debate first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).

NEW YORK, Aug. 6, 2012 (RISI)

A recent marketing campaign by Toshiba was the cause this time. The company, a global manufacturer of consumer and commercial printers, among many other products, sought to establish a “No Print Day” and hoped to show the environmental benefits of reducing paper use in the office. Within hours, due in large part to social media, battle lines were drawn between paper supporters and opponents, largely centering on whether a business that depends on the paper industry should be calling for paper’s demise.

The idea of a paperless office, and possibly a paperless society, has held sway over business’ imagination like few other topics. Since 1975, when Businessweek magazine article declared the office of the future would thrive without paper, primarily through automation and technological advancements, the theory of living without paper has become like the search for the Higgs Bosen particle.

Is a paperless office possible?

Demand for pulp and paper is approaching an all-time high. Foex, the Finnish company that publishes pulp, paper and paperboard price indexes, predicts the global paper market could reach a new record of 400 million tons in 2012. Another report earlier this year by Global Industry Analysts estimates global pulp and paper products consumption would grow to reach 446 million tons by 2015.

But these simple numbers betray a more complex trend. Global usage is expected to be largest in high-growth, high-potential markets, mainly in developing countries. In contrast, paper usage in the US and Europe has been falling steadily for the past five years and is expected to continue. The estimated number of office pages printed, copies and faxed annually in the US peaked in 2007 at more than 1 trillion pages, according to InfoTrends, and looks to fall further for the next five years.

After nearly six centuries, since the invention of the Guttenberg press, paper usage in many developed countries finally appears to be diminishing. This does not mean paper is due for extinction any time soon. Instead, there are a myriad of factors that look to keep paper around for decades and perhaps centuries to come.

Stubborn challenges remain

One of the biggest obstacles for eliminating paper in most homes and offices is legal documents, a problem first mentioned in the Businessweek article. “It always takes longer than we expect to change the way people customarily do their business,” said Evelyn Berezin, president of Redacton Corp., which once held the second-largest installed-base of text-editing typewriters, behind IBM. Both companies are still in business today.

There are still wide misunderstandings on the legal differences between a digital signature, a handwritten signature, and a digital image of that same signature.

The US Internal Revenue Service provides a telling example of how long it has taken habits to change. In 2012, electronic fillings of individual tax returns increased 6.2% to 113 million out of a total of 137 million. Pre-printing of forms and publications has decreased proportionally, instead relying on printable PDF versions from websites for individuals and businesses. It would seem the public is finally ready to actively abandon paper for electronic documents.

But businesses often must take a different approach, simply because of regulations and legal requirements. The legal force of physical paper frequently holds more symbolic power than digital documents in courts and legal proceedings, despite electronic records management and electronic documents laws in many countries, including the US, Canada, and most of Europe. Insurance documents, wills, bank statements, accounting records all must be held for various lengths of time and many legal advisors still recommend keeping permanent paper records of the most important documents, such as stock certificates, articles of incorporation and tax records.

Digital signatures form another problem. While many government authorities have electronic document policies on the books, the laws and standards surrounding digital signatures in place of physical or handwritten signatures are not uniform. Public understanding, as well as time and costs, are still on the side of pen to paper. There are still wide misunderstanding on the legal differences between a digital signature, a handwritten signature, and a digital image of that same signature.

Our digital culture

The publishing industry is acutely aware of paper’s decline, although more as a medium of transmission than a loss of information. Jeff Gomez, author of Print is Dead – Books in our Digital Age, says that paper will never disappear. Instead, society is slowly making its way toward an age less centered on paper transactions.

“The same way we still have candles even though there’s electric light, paper will always exist in a multitude of forms and formats,” says Gomez. “Whether this means the way information is shared, money is exchanged, or even the way we pay bills or communicate with each other.”

There is a middle ground to be found between paper and print, explains Gomez. If anything, our culture is headed for an era where paper will be celebrated for its inherent worth and beauty. Many paper producers and commercial printers are already taking this approach, emphasizing how paper can add value in conjunction with, or in contrast to, the digital.

“Books that continue to be printed will celebrate their ‘print-ness’,” says Gomez, “by having gorgeous covers and beautifully designed interiors with textured pages that feel good to the touch.” There will also be digital-only novels, adds Gomez, that celebrate their ‘digital-ness’ by taking advantage of new and emerging digital technology.

To understand the future of paper, says Gomez, there is a need to define the difference between print and paper.

“The idea of print means lots of things. Yes, it’s true that newspapers are in trouble and that the industry, in the past decade, has contracted at an alarming rate. But the fact that huge swaths of the world’s populations find their information online or through mobile devices means that print no longer has an inherent cultural function. But paper still has plenty of other uses, both aesthetically and functionally; it will never go the way of the dodo.”

he book-on-demand printing business, such as the Espresso Book Machine in partnership with Xerox, has yet to provide a suitable alternative to either print or digital.

Corporate strategies

The world is full of irony. When Toshiba recently announced its marketing campaign for a “No Print Day,” another older, larger question raised its head again. Should companies with an investment in the pulp and paper business advocate for a paper-less society?

In that 1975 Businessweek article, George E. Pake, at the time the head of Xerox Corp.’s Palo Alto Research Center, said that the office copier giant was developing a new strategy for how business worked. “There is absolutely no question there will be a revolution in the office over the next 20 years. What we are doing will change the office like the jet plane revolutionized travel and the way TV has altered family life.”

In this moment, Xerox declared it was not a paper-based company, but an information technology company. Whether paper is used or not would become irrelevant to how Xerox saw the future of the office. Malcolm Gladwell, in his 2002 article “The Social Life of Paper” agreed by saying “Computer technology was supposed to replace paper.” Society’s continuing need for paper has less to do with technology and more to do with intangibles and he points out that paper use has not disappeared as quickly as many had hoped or planned.

“This is generally taken as evidence of how hard it is to eradicate old, wasteful habits and of how stubbornly resistant we are to the efficiencies offered by computerizations,” writes Gladwell. “A number of cognitive psychologists and ergonomics experts, however, don’t agree. Paper, they argue, has persisted for very good reasons: when it comes to performing certain kinds of cognitive tasks, paper has many advantages over computers.”

In the last decade, paper use in Europe and North America has indeed fallen and businesses now regularly push for paperless solutions to many tasks. Whether this is smart business is another debate. But it is interesting to note that the industry has been in a similar situation before.

Wood use for fuel in the United States peaked in 1906. After that, firewood use plunged as coal, and later natural gas, would replace it. Overall, US wood consumption would not surpass its former high until the 1980s. In that same time, the US population grew by approximately 150 million people. The cultural change in wood consumption over those seven decades can be attributed to corporate vision and technology advances as well as public perceptions.

For the time being, the evidence points to society using less paper. But there appears to be little proof of going paperless anytime soon.

The post The debate about the paperless office has flared again first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).