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).

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).

Sir Nicholas Stern, head of the Government Economic Service in the United Kingdom, released the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change in 2006. This tackled the effects of climate change and global warming on the world economy.

He used the 700-page document to demonstrate how paper and print have a better environmental footprint than electronic communications.

– Printing the Stern Review emits 85g of carbon dioxide (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 carbon dioxide every time.

– Burning the Stern Review to CD is estimated to emit 300g of carbon dioxide for every copy, while burning it to DVD is estimated to produces 350g of carbon dioxide for every copy.

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 carbon dioxide per minute. Reading a piece of paper results in no additional emissions.

By all means, opting for electronic billing but do not label as ‘going green’. It is simply about reducing cost (to the service provider) and improving convenience to you as the user.

The post Paper vs digital – Let’s get Stern about the facts first appeared on The Paper Story (PAMSA).