Saturday, October 27, 2007

PROF'S POSER - Paper Cuts

This is one I'd been pondering awhile, and have been tilted to pose following a reader post about recycled book stock.

It certainly should be prefaced with a LiKADaT (little knowledge is a dangerous thing - all together now in a good Italian accent: 'Jus' a likeadat!') tag!

Let's start with the down sides of what I think I know.

Getting virgin paper needs trees. And energy. You have got to cut 'em down, munch 'em up, tidy it all with chemicals and then lay it out and stuff. That means where once there was a tree there isn't any more, and a wadge of CO2 is produced, and a load of water (I think) consumed just to get to the raw stock (we're ignoring logistics of printing and distribution, say, versus a PDF).

Getting recycled paper needs old paper. And energy. And, I believe, quite a few chemicals, too. And for some reason or other, it all costs a lot more, though the gap is closing. But what it doesn't do is consume new trees.

But.... and as I am oft minded to say, it's a big one.... here's my poser: is the former quite as bad as made out, enviROI+wise? Especially in comparison to the latter?

I am set on this trail by the logic, ironically, of offsetting. In simplistic (and now more often than not less practiced) terms it has been sold as good for the planet in the form of planting a tree, which will grow and act as a carbon sink.

So I guess my poser would be whether one could view using virgin paper, so long as it is derived from properly managed forests (and I need to sort out my FSC-certified from my stewardship-thingie. I'm guessing there are as many schemes and logos to confuse as any other e-industry), as logically being an encouragement of good environmental practice? If so, in fact the perverse logic of projection would be that using more paper from such sources is actually even better, as it promotes the planting and tending of forests to full term as opposed to say, a bio-diesel field.

Just how does it compare to recycled which, if one accepts where I am going with the above (which is in the form, at present, of a question I stress!!!) actually seems to be rather stuck in a cycle of energy consumption from collection to reprocessing. And no new trees going up taboot.

I guess ignoring the latter, a key factor in weighing them is the amount of CO2 that gets from raw material (tree vs. waste paper) to new stock. With a few pollutant nasties factored in too, but in another enviROI- tick box, which makes comparison more tricky.

2 comments:

Dave said...

A lot of your questions are already answered on the wasteonline.org.uk website. There is a hefty section on recycled paper - see recycled paper analysis.

Emma said...

Awesome, ta.

There is still a bit of a question in my mind when it comes to where it comes from as opposed to where it goes to, at least in terms of enviROI.

Interesting site. I'd either forgotten about it or it has evolved since my last visit (if I made one).

It seems to have some form of commercial model - Google Adsense at least - going, so I wonder what the funding is?

And I'm one to talk with Junkk's categories being so woefully mainatained and updated, but it has its own blank spots.

I can accept (sniff) no Junkk.com, but Freecycle?