Electronic vs. Printed Communication: The Sustainability Battle
Blake Hutchison, Director of Purchasing
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.
Related posts:
Sorry I wasn’t more specific. I honestly didn’t think anyone would read my comment with much sencerity.
Specifically, I believe the logic is flawed because people do not purchase computers to receive advertisements. People will own a computure regardless of whether they receive advertisments or not. Its almost like saying people purchase a home to receive mailers in their mailboxes.
If you think about the volume of print ads received everyday nationwide, that amounts to a HUGE use of paper. And how many, like myself, simply toss that in the trash can (recycle bin in some cases) on their way into the house. Also, this duplicates itself depending on the number of habitants. However, in any given household, there is usually only one computer. In most cases that computure is shared and will last around 3 to 5 years. If all the print adds this household was going to receive were instead fed to that computure, and not the mailbox, thats a lot of trees. Also, many retailers who sell computers also run free hardware recycle programs, like Best Buy, and even give incentives to do so.
So, I think we should call print advertising what it is.
@Joe Thank you for taking the time to review the Arandell blog! It is very much appreciated.
I did come across your comment in response to this post. I am sorry for the delay in responding to your comment. As I am always interested in what our clients think and what they are experiencing in the marketplace and in their particular areas of expertise within the industry, I am curious as to what some of the specifics were in the article that weren’t up to par. I think it would be interesting if we were to open a dialogue on this subject, as I think it might be pertinent to many of our other clients and vendors who are looking at the pro’s and con’s between print and electronic communications and how they best fit their business.
I look forward to hearing from you soon, and thank you again for your business and support of Arandell Corporation.
This the WORST logic I have ever heard.
Very good perspective and points. I’m not sure the “electronic media” has saved paper and ink; too many e-mails and messages are printed (and filed) in a more permanent form. Filing cabinets do not generally “crash.”