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).

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).