The words of Greenpeace co-founder Dr Patrick Moore are a good point of departure: “We should be growing more trees and using more wood. If [those] land owners had no market for wood, they would clear the forest away and grow something else they could make money from instead. When you go into a lumber (wood) yard, you are given the impression that by buying wood you are causing the forest to be lost, when in fact what you are doing is sending a signal into the market to plant more trees.”

Given that in South Africa, paper is made from farmed trees, we can easily replace the word ‘wood’ above with paper.

Paper goes beyond common A4 printer paper from which the flawed antidote of “paperless” has emerged.

Paper includes packaging – from the boxes in which computer equipment is protected during shipment to the box that teabags come in; from your morning cereal, to the label on the coffee jar, to the bag of sugar and to the milk carton; from the tissue box to the bag and box that contained your takeaway lunch. It also includes books, magazines and newspapers. And then the important things like toilet paper, facial tissues, paper towel, feminine hygiene and diapers.

I won’t even go into the number of fibre-based, cellulosic innovations that are set to rival fossil-based materials.

Paper saves forests

South African paper products are produced from a renewable resource, in the form of:

• Wood pulp from trees farmed sustainably managed timber plantations (not from the wood of indigenous trees)
• Recycled paper fibre
• Bagasse (byproduct from sugar cane processing)

Just like most industries, paper manufacturing has an impact on the environment, but this is mitigated through the carbon sequestration by plantations, and the release of oxygen; the use of biomass-based renewable energy (derived from by-products of the papermaking process), emission reduction and water recycling initiatives, biodiversity conservation at plantation level as well as the promotion of paper recovery and recycling.

Carbon capture

In papermaking, the timber is chipped, pulped and paper is made and converted into countless products that we connect with all day, every day – in the kitchen and bathroom, at the office, at the supermarket and while travelling.

Through the papermaking process, carbon (from the CO2 absorbed by the trees) remains locked up and out of the atmosphere. And 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.

While there is no doubt that digital technologies offer security, integration, immediacy and convenience, using the mantra of “saving forests” to promote digital means needs to stop. Because it is simply untrue.

The post Using paper saves trees – a South African perspective 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).

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).

On this day Toshiba proposes to ‘raise awareness of the impact printing has on our planet’ and of ‘the role of paper in the workplace’, They are asking people and companies not to print or copy anything that day. This campaign is backed up by a number of contentious and unsourced claims designed to support this ill-conceived initiative.

There are many flaws surrounding Toshiba’s campaign including:

 • 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. It’s a lot more complex than that. If the alternative is, for example, electronic communication, then what is the environmental impact of this? Greenpeace have identified electronic waste as the fastest growing component of the municipal waste steam. (1)
• 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 per cent. (2) 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 world-wide think about this campaign?

Two Sides openly challenges Toshiba’s claims and would like to understand if Toshiba have taken into account verifiable and accurate environmental facts about print and paper in a multi-media world.

Before withdrawing this flawed campaign Toshiba should consider the plethora of accredited facts on the Two Sides Website: www.twosides.info including:
• Since 1950 Forests in Western Europe have increased by 30 per cent. (3)
• European forests are increasing by 1.5 million football pitches every year – an area four times the size of London. (4)

Two Sides promotes print and paper as a versatile, sustainable communications medium. We do not usually comment on the comparative environmental performance of other industries but we cannot let this unwarranted attack on our industry go unanswered.

We look forward to Toshiba’s response.

(1)Greenpeace, The E-waste Problem 2009
(2) The European Declaration on Paper Recycling 2006 – 2010 Monitoring Report 2010
(3) UNECE, FAO, The Development of Forest Resources, 1950 to 2000
(4) CEPI, Forest Fact Sheet, July 2008

Two Sides is a worldwide initiative by companies from the Graphic Communication Value Chain including forestry, pulp, paper, inks and chemicals, pre-press, press, finishing, publishing and printing. 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.

Visit: www.twosides.info to learn lots more.

Source:  http://www.graphicrepro.co.za/asp/news_long.asp?nid=20041

The post Two Sides challenges Toshiba’s ‘No Print Day’ as Greenwash first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).