In the current age of digital communication, it is important to consider how our choice of media and communications impacts on our carbon footprints. 

“While there is no doubt that technology offers immediacy and convenience, we need to take a careful look at the lifecycles of both digital and paper. Too often there are claims – many of which are unsubstantiated – that market digital as ‘greener’ than print,” says Jane Molony, executive director of the Paper Manufacturers Association of South Africa (PAMSA).

Save the planet and go digital. Go green, read it on screen. Consider the environment before printing this email.  “Many of us have inherited a mindset that paper is bad for the environment, that its production kills trees,” states Molony. “But few would believe that responsible paper manufacturing, consumption and recycling is ‘green’.”

We need to start considering both sides of the story.

The paper story
South African paper producers source wood from sustainably farmed plantation trees, as well as recycled paper and sugar cane fibre. To sustain production, less than 10% of the plantations are harvested annually.  The timber is chipped, pulped and paper is made. In the same year, saplings are planted – an average of 262,000 new trees per day.

Mitigating impact

Just like most industries, paper manufacturing has an impact on the environment, but this mitigated in a number of ways. Perhaps the most significant is the carbon sequestration of plantations from where the wood is sourced. The 762,000 hectares of South Africa’s commercial timber plantations absorb 20 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO₂) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) annually.  Similarly, these trees release some 15 million tonnes of life-giving oxygen per year.

The paper industry invests heavily in biomass-based renewable energy, emission reduction and water recycling initiatives, biodiversity conservation at plantation level as well as the promotion of paper recovery and recycling.

Once paper is produced, the carbon is locked up and kept out of the atmosphere – in copier paper, books, printed documents, cardboard boxes – to name a few.

By recycling paper, we keep this carbon locked up. Destined for landfill – a compact, anaerobic environment – paper (mixed with other waste) will degrade and release gases such as methane which is 25 times more potent than CO₂.

The digital (dark) side

Computers, servers and digital devices are made from, in most cases, non-renewable materials and require electricity to function. Many components are imported too. Electronic documents are stored in data centres and server rooms which generate heat and further require air-conditioning to regulate temperature.

Researchers are only beginning to study the environmental effects of e-mail, digital data storage, internet searches and social networking. “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[i].

Consider the unseen

In his report Print vs Digital Media: False Dilemmas and Forced Choices, Don Carli, a senior researcher at the Institute of Sustainable Communication, says: “[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.”

According to a study by the Centre for Energy-Efficient Telecommunications at University of Melbourne, by 2015 wireless ‘cloud’ infrastructure will consume as much as 43 terawatt-hours of electricity worldwide while generating 30 megatons of CO₂ – the equivalent of 4.9 million vehicles worth of carbon emissions. 

Be responsible users of both

“Digital is here to stay and we have nothing against that,” assures Molony. “But paper has its benefits too. Both have their place and fulfill different needs. We must use our chosen means of communication responsibly.”

Paper is a renewable resource and we should look at its entire lifecycle when calculating its carbon footprint. “It is important to source paper from certified producers. In South Africa, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC®) mark of certification is one that businesses and consumers should look for,” explains Molony. “Educate your colleagues about the importance of responsible paper consumption and recycling, especially those overseeing procurement and waste management.”

[i]eQ Journal, Issue 004

The post Use Paper to Reduce Your Carbon Footprint first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).

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).

This award-winning article from Don Carli looks at digital media and compares its environmental impact against print.

His article states:

“Public opinion polls show that concern about the environment rises and falls based on the state of the economy and other factors, but concern about the negative impacts associated with using paper and printing continues to rise. Nothing captures the essence of these feelings more vividly than the signature line appearing at the foot of more and more emails: “Please consider the environment before printing this email.’”

The article says that “if you care about the environment and the health of forests you should become more informed about the energy sources used by both digital and print media.”

He concludes: “Just because we cannot see something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. While paper mills emit visible plumes of steam and waste paper can pile up visibly in our homes and businesses, the invisible embodied energy or “grey energy” used to manufacture digital technologies and the toxic e-waste associated with electronics are largely out of sight and out of mind, but their impacts can be profound.”

Read the full article here: Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print?

Source: http://info.outputlinks.com/insights/bid/53229/One-Writer-Asks-Is-Digital-Media-Worse-for-the-Environment-Than-Print

The post Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment Than Print? first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).