The Catablog
Posts Tagged ‘The green perspective’
Electronic vs. Printed Communication: The Sustainability Battle (Part III)
I’ll try to keep this short and sweet. The idea of full lifecycle analysis of print and paper versus digital and electronic communication seems to be gaining steam. The result: print and paper might not be as bad as advertised and perhaps we should be focusing more of our attention on the digital and electronic media.
In honor of Earth Day, I thought it might be a good time for a follow-up on my previous posts about the sustainability battle between electronic and printed media.
Let me be clear: I am not advocating the elimination of digital media. On the contrary, I am a big supporter of it. What I am not a fan of is the false notion that paper and print are more harmful to the environment than digital. If you really dig deep and think of the total lifecycle of a product, you can clearly see how that particular product, from cradle to grave (or cradle to cradle) has the ability to impact the environment.
I recently came across a couple of articles that correspond directly with what I am trying to achieve through this dialogue; one from the New York Times and one from PBS. In addition, this post from the Dead Tree Edition blog discusses what one publication did to fully understand what its environmental footprint really is.
Point is, let’s really think about these matters in a way that encompasses everything.
I look forward to hearing your feedback on this post. Feel free to contact me any time!
Electronic vs. Printed Communication: The Sustainability Battle (Part II)
My first post about this subject brought up some lively debate. One of the critiques of my last post was that in comparing print and paper to computers and electronics, people do not purchase computers to receive advertisements. Very true. But I think it misses a huge point, and that is that people DO buy computers to communicate and to disseminate and store information, and some of that information is in the form of advertisements. The discussion of how green print is versus electronics is not just related to advertising, it applies to ALL forms.
As I was working on a follow-up, I received perhaps the best educational piece I have yet seen on the subject. NewPage, one of our mill partners, periodically puts out a new piece in their educational series they call “Ed.” Their 13th edition is titled “Balance” and it is all about communication and sustainability. The pages about the lifecycle of both the computer and paper are what really caught my attention. The lifecycles of both start at the cradle (with the obtaining of the raw materials), and ends at the “grave” (end of life of the product). Some key distinguishing factors:
Manufacturing:
- After the raw materials are gathered for a computer (materials which include zinc, iron, and nickel), it takes as much chemicals, water and fossil fuels to make one desktop computer as it does to manufacture a mid-size car. (The amount of fossil fuels used to make that same computer is roughly 10 times the weight of the computer itself.)
- In contrast, paper’s main component (wood from trees) is a readily-renewable resource. More than half of the papermaking sector’s energy needs are met with renewable biomass fuels. And, 99% of the chemicals used in the pulping process are recovered and burned in the mills’ boilers to create steam energy.
Transportation to consumer:
- Most computers used in the United States today come from manufacturers overseas. In order to get them here, computers are shipped via transport ship or air freight, the two modes of transportation leaving the greatest carbon footprint. And then it is put on trains or trucks to get to its final destination, adding further to the footprint.
- If your paper is manufactured domestically (here in the U.S.), rail or truck are the shipment options and the carbon footprint in minimized, with rail being one of the (if not THE) most efficient forms of transportation.
Grave (or “back to cradle”)
- 18% of the three million tons of electronic waste in the U.S. is recycled each year, and of that waste, only about 14% of the components can be recycled into usable materials. The other components (like lead and mercury) must be specially handled.
- 57% of the paper produced is recycled, and recycled paper can be collected and returned to be remanufactured up to five times.
Some other interesting factoids in this piece:
- 70% of toxic waste in the U.S. landfills comes from e-waste.
- Burning a CD produces four times as much CO2 as printing a single annual report.
- Four million trees are planted EVERY DAY in the U.S.
- 62 trillion spam emails are sent every year, contributing greenhouse gases equivalent to two billion gallons of gasoline.
The piece is excellent and a real eye opener. I would highly recommend reading it. If you would like a copy, I would be more than happy to send you one. (Or, you may order your own copy at http://www.edliveshere.com/)
The Effect of Post-Consumer Waste Paper (PCW Content)
As a catalog printer, from time-to-time, Arandell will receive concerns from environmentalists about the products we produce and the materials used to produce them. (You can imagine, as the one charged with purchasing all o f our paper, I take an interest in these concerns because most of them revolve around paper!) In a previous article I addressed the “greenness” of catalogs and direct mail pieces. As I continue to research the environmental impact of direct mail pieces I am finding helpful tools to calculate the positive and negative impact of direct mail.
A tool that I found most interesting was created by the paper suppler West Linn. The tool helps calculate the impact of using PCW (Post-Consumer Waste) paper. Click here to use the tool. This is a impressive calculator because users are given the opportunity to change multiple variables, such as PCW percentage and paper tonnage and basis weight on their paper grades.
At Arandell, we implement best practice green initiatives in both the office and manufacturing facilities. We are certified to produce catalogs on FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative) and PEFC (Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes) certified papers.
If you are interested in using “green” certified papers let us know! Along with aforementioned calculator we have various tools at Arandell that can help you calculate the positive environmental impact your paper choice will create.
Electronic vs. Printed Communication: The Sustainability Battle
As the United States House of Representatives sends the newly passed “cap & trade” legislation over to the Senate for debate, I thought now might be a good time to discuss electronic versus paper communication.While it is true that both can (and should) be used in concert with each other, is one better than the other from a sustainability standpoint? The answer is a resounding “YES.”
Consider the issue of inputs/raw materials being renewable. Printed communication uses paper as its primary material. Paper comes from trees, which are a renewable resource, and have been for longer than humans have been on the planet. Since this is the case, and since forest products companies rely on trees for their products, they take great care to “renew” their main resource. The forest product industry plants 1.7 million trees per day, more than three times what they harvest. The primary materials used to make a computer require the mining and refining of many different metals and minerals (including gold, silver and palladium). These are non-renewable resources from the standpoint that an individual cannot just “plant” a metal or mineral.
In addition, paper and printed pieces have a leg up on the electronic medium when it comes to energy consumption. 60% of the energy required to manufacture paper in the U.S. comes from carbon neutral sources and is produced onsite at the paper mills. Compare that to the electronics industry, which obtains over 90% of its power from the national power grid, a large part of which is greenhouse gas-emitting, coal-powered power plants.
As well, paper products stand a much better chance of being recycled properly. Nearly 60% of all paper in the U.S. is recycled annually, while only 18% of electronic devices are; and of those that are, almost none are being reused for other products. E-waste is the nation’s single largest toxic waste export.
Some interesting facts, courtesy of International Paper:
- 20% Less CO2 is used per year by a person reading a daily printed newspaper versus a person reading web-based news for 30 minutes a day.
- On average it takes 500 kilowatt-hours of electricity to produce 440 pounds of paper, the typical amount of paper each individual uses in a year. That’s the equivalent of powering one computer continuously for five months.
- It costs an estimated $2.8 billion of energy to leave computers sitting idly overnight in the U.S. On a CO2 basis, that’s an amount equivalent to four million cars on the road.
The paper industry has had much more time to figure out how to be sustainable and responsible. In time, the electronics industry will do the same. But, until then, paper and printed communications have the upper hand when it comes to being sustainable. And while a balance is required between the two for effective communication, it is important to keep the above facts in mind when finding that balance.
Get Connected
Call Us: 866-810-7728
View Map | Get Directions- Request Information
- ArandellN82 W13118 Leon Road
Menomonee Falls WI 53051