Electronic vs. Printed Communication: The Sustainability Battle (Part II)
- Blake Hutchison, Director of Purchasing
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/)
Related posts:
With family veterans in the paper industry, I have spent a lifetime defending paper consumption. That said, I have probably done more research than many of my peers on sustainable forestry, responsible environment management, and the true ecology of my/our industry. You brought up a few points and facts that, even I had not considered, and I very much appreciate the paper vs. computer side-by-side comparisons.
I’d really like to point out that another fact that many people fail to recognize is the environmental impact of new vs. old trees. [This is one of my favorites to bring up, too.] “Old” trees are a net LOSS to the environment, producing and emitting toxic and highly flammable gases that catalyze, feed and spread forest fires. New trees (planted, of course, in place of old ones used to make paper products) create more oxygen than they consume, renewing and reenergizing the same forests that so-called environmentalists are so concerned about. And I don’t mean to sound callous, but a simple Google search can tell any of these “green” folks exactly that information.
On a personal note, I do use cloth bags at the grocery store and environmentally friendly household products, so I ask the reader to please abandon those sinister misconceptions of tree-killing naturehating paper people. If you ACTUALLY considered the environment, you may be surprised at what you’d find out. Thanks for shedding some light, Blake.
Brian, thank you for your feedback. I can certainly appreciate where you are coming from. If my argument were that all electronic forms of communication should be transferred to print, it would be illogical. However, my argument here is not that we can save the earth by printing millions of catalogs, but rather that printed communication is more sustainable than electronic communication at this time. While electronic communication is very inexpensive and has the ability to reach just as many consumers (if not more) as print does, electronic communication does not give anything back to our environment. Every time an email blast is sent out, a certain amount of energy must be used. More often than not, that energy is being produced by a coal fired power plant that is contributing CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. The computer or cell phone itself is manufactured from components that are not renewable and are somewhat scarce. And when that computer is 2-3 years old, it is more often than not just thrown away and not recycled properly, thereby potentially putting harmful materials into our waste stream.
And although paper production also requires the use of some of the same resources, its deliverables (newspapers, catalogs, printer paper, etc.) are completely recyclable. And their primary component (wood) comes from trees which are incredibly renewable and plentiful. (According to TAPPI.org, forest growth has exceeded harvesting since the 1940s and over four million trees are planted daily by the forest community.)
The point is, when considering the many available forms of communication, it is important to look back through the supply chain and manufacturing process and consider all inputs and outputs of that form of communication. Pritned paper is a very sustainable form of communication, which I believe is a surprising fact to many consumers on this planet.
As for print advertising ROI vs. electronic advertising ROI, I hope you’ll tune in for my next post. Thanks again for your comment.
I agree with Joe’s comment in the first post - this is some of the worst logic I have ever heard.
Yes, if we had to build a new computer for every recipient of our email, that would be much worse for the environment than printing a mailer. But we don’t. By sending email, we’re taking advantage of something that already exists in the consumer’s home. There is no incremental resource consumption. There clearly is a significant incremental cost to each printed piece we send.
Look, printing and sending mailers is a necessary part of our economy for a variety of reasons, and given that, we should try to conduct these activities in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. But to believe that we are helping to save the earth by printing millions of catalogs instead of sending electronic communication is just delusional.