A little more than two weeks later, after an uproar from the American and global paper and printing industries, Toshiba pulled the plug on the campaign.

Ignorant statements such as ‘We know that approximately 336 million sheets of paper are wasted daily’, ‘more than 40,000 trees are discarded every day in America’ and ‘we as individuals and companies are failing to make the link between printing waste and its negative impacts on our landfills, natural resources and the environment’ was just the stuff that organisations such as Printing Industries of America and Two Sides have to challenge on a regular basis.

“Toshiba seems to have ignored the environmental impact of electronic communications. Just saying you are eliminating print and paper really does not mean you are necessarily helping the planet,” wrote Two Sides member Vince Collins in a June 13 response to NNPD. “It’s a lot more complex than that. If the alternative is, for example, electronic communication, then what is the environmental impact of this?”

The National Association for Printing Leadership also had its say: “The real waste problem is the rapidly escalating number of discarded computers and other electronic components, which are not biodegradable and will sit in landfills for generations, taking up increasing amounts of space and ultimately leaching lead, mercury, and other toxic metals, hazardous chemicals, and plastic residue into the soil.”

Greenpeace has identified electronic waste as the fastest growing component of the municipal waste steam[i].

In an article published by Graphic Repro On-line, Two Sides challenges the campaign as ‘greenwashing’, with the following:

• “Toshiba has linked paper use to deforestation (or killing trees and destroying forests) when, in fact, responsibly made paper can be a sustainable way to communicate. Paper is a highly recycled commodity in Europe, with a recycling rate approaching 70%. [ii] Does Toshiba recycle its products so effectively? We think not.”
• “Paper is based on wood, a natural and renewable material. Electronic equipment, ink and toner cartridges, including those with the Toshiba brand, are made mostly from non-renewable resources and are not so easily recycled. Has Toshiba considered the life cycle of all of its own products before professing expertise on others?”
• “What do the thousands of men and women employed by Toshiba to manufacture, sell and distribute copiers, printers and toner cartridges worldwide think about this campaign?”

Much more has been written about the failed campaign.  Simply pour yourself a big mug of your favourite beverage and Google ‘Toshiba No Print Day’. Much of it is constructive; some simply laughable.

As the industry, we need to stand together against the promulgation of ‘anti-paper’ ignorance.  Arm yourself with the facts and enlighten colleagues, family and friends (download our paper fact sheet) and ask them to remove footers from their emails such as ‘Consider the environment before you print this’ (download some alternative footers).

While PAMSA certainly does not advocate wasteful printing, we ask that paper and printing be treated with respect:

• Buy locally manufactured paper that is FSC-certified. This way you can be assured that the paper is produced from sustainably managed plantations.
• Reuse your paper – print draft documents on the reverse side.
• Recycle your paper, keeping it dry and away from other waste.

Lastly, be responsible with your electronic waste. Do your research and find reputable electronic waste recycling companies that you know will handle your old computers and printers with the environment in mind.

The post Toshiba’s National No-Print Day causes paper jam 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).