(I work at Stripe.) We've made sure the process is carbon-neutral from forest to page. (And the paper itself is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.)
That's great, but paper's pollution footprint is far larger than mere carbon output. There's so much focus on climate change that people forget a bucket of mercury is carbon-neutral but still not great to pour in a lake.
Someone elsewhere in the discussion asks for a Kindle edition; that'd be a great way to keep unnecessary paper down.
discarded paper and paperboard make up roughly 26% of solid municipal solid waste in landfill sites
In the United States the pulp and paper industry released about 79, 000 tonnes or about 5% of all industrial pollutant releases in 2015...
Worldwide, the pulp and paper industry is the fifth largest consumer of energy, accounting for four percent of all the world's energy use.
Wastewater discharges for a pulp and paper mill contains solids, nutrients and dissolved organic matter such as lignin. It also contains alcohols, and chelating agents and inorganic materials like chlorates and transition metal compounds. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus can cause or exacerbate eutrophication of fresh water bodies such as lakes and rivers. Organic matter dissolved in fresh water, measured by biological oxygen demand (BOD), changes ecological characteristics. Wastewater may also be polluted with organochlorine compounds. Some of these are naturally occurring in the wood, but chlorine bleaching of the pulp produces far larger amounts.
The pulp and paper industry is also associated with important emissions of heavy metals. In Canada, for example, this industry is the third source of lead (Pb) emissions to water[27] In the U.S., the pulp and paper industry is responsible for 9% of industrial releases to water.
and so on...
Even if the 1% number were fair/complete, combating climate change is likely going to involve a lot of small cuts rather than one or two big ones. Avoiding printing stuff we don't need to print is worthwhile.
You're right that it's about more than just carbon, and looking at it purely from a carbon footprint might be the wrong perspective. I was considering climate change to be the most urgent of our environmental issues and in terms of impact to climate change paper production is insignificant.
That being said, an individual reducing their consumption of paper based products is arguably the least impactful action we can take as a society.
Instead we should be focusing on the packaging industry's use of onetime use packaging for products, particularly those that are difficult or impossible to recycle (e.g. milk cartons, juice boxes, etc). This is not only a huge contributor to paper pollution but also micro-plastics pollution and landfill waste in general.
Greater Container-deposit legislation on more products (e.g. plastic bottles) and on limited use but highly recyclable paper goods (e.g. newspapers and magazines) would greatly increase the amount of recycling we do as well.
Moving the goalpost much? Clever but not constructive at all.
Producing crop for food supplies is not the same thing as producing crop for transmission of blob of text. The former is critical for human survival whereas the latter is totally undesirable. Especially now that we have a well permeated web to distribute books on, we don't need anyone to sow or reap the trees anymore. Period.
Producing crop for food supplies is not the same thing as producing crop for transmission of blob of text. The former is critical for human survival whereas the latter is totally undesirable.
Do we need to produce more food? No, we have an over supply and producing more would only drive down prices and harm the producers who are already struggling and require subsidies. Proposing we produce more food crop farms is asinine at best.
Especially now that we have a well permeated web to distribute books on, we don't need anyone to sow or reap the trees anymore. Period.
Suggesting that web delivery is a suitable or even complete replacement for books or printed literature is equally asinine. Conveyance of discrete data is only one small aspect of printed media. The experience of reading a book, magazine, pamphlet, or paper is entirely different from reading on an electronic device. Dissemination is also another critical difference, sure everyone can download your PDF but that doesn't mean they will. A magazine sitting on a coffee table in a waiting room is an entirely different experience from anything electronic and it is complete incomparable.
The average American's total paper consumption accounts for less than 1% of their total carbon footprint. So in terms of impact, you would reduce your carbon footprint more by going vegetarian 2 days a week than you would by entirely eliminating your paper consumption.
Comments
Yucks, more dead-tree printing. So much for the 'cradle of innovation' from Silicon Valley, lol.
Trees for paper are specifically grown to produce paper pulp. They’re not cutting down virgin forest.
You could argue it’s pretty monocultural but otherwise I don’t see much of s problem with it.
The overall manufacturing process pollutes quite a bit, doesn't it?
(I work at Stripe.) We've made sure the process is carbon-neutral from forest to page. (And the paper itself is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.)
That's great, but paper's pollution footprint is far larger than mere carbon output. There's so much focus on climate change that people forget a bucket of mercury is carbon-neutral but still not great to pour in a lake.
Someone elsewhere in the discussion asks for a Kindle edition; that'd be a great way to keep unnecessary paper down.
Strip mine the land for more minerals for more never-decomposing plastic devices with chemical batteries?
I'd rather have the dead trees, thanks.
I read my Kindle content on the smartphone I already own.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Of course you will prefer dead trees. There's money to be made isn't it? :-) Thanks, but no thanks!
1% or less of your carbon footprint is from your consumption of paper products.
https://twosidesna.org/US/our-carbon-footprint-how-do-paper-...
There's more to pollution than just carbon, and that's an industry advocacy group's website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper
and so on...
Even if the 1% number were fair/complete, combating climate change is likely going to involve a lot of small cuts rather than one or two big ones. Avoiding printing stuff we don't need to print is worthwhile.
You're right that it's about more than just carbon, and looking at it purely from a carbon footprint might be the wrong perspective. I was considering climate change to be the most urgent of our environmental issues and in terms of impact to climate change paper production is insignificant.
That being said, an individual reducing their consumption of paper based products is arguably the least impactful action we can take as a society.
Instead we should be focusing on the packaging industry's use of onetime use packaging for products, particularly those that are difficult or impossible to recycle (e.g. milk cartons, juice boxes, etc). This is not only a huge contributor to paper pollution but also micro-plastics pollution and landfill waste in general.
Greater Container-deposit legislation on more products (e.g. plastic bottles) and on limited use but highly recyclable paper goods (e.g. newspapers and magazines) would greatly increase the amount of recycling we do as well.
Yeah right, tilling arable lands and pulping more trees isn't a problem at all. Whatever happened to critical thinking.
So you're arguing against using crop land to produce a crop?
Why wouldn't one argue against unnecessary landuse producing more pollution?
I think you'd first need to prove that it's unnecessary.
Moving the goalpost much? Clever but not constructive at all.
Producing crop for food supplies is not the same thing as producing crop for transmission of blob of text. The former is critical for human survival whereas the latter is totally undesirable. Especially now that we have a well permeated web to distribute books on, we don't need anyone to sow or reap the trees anymore. Period.
How is that moving the goal post?
Do we need to produce more food? No, we have an over supply and producing more would only drive down prices and harm the producers who are already struggling and require subsidies. Proposing we produce more food crop farms is asinine at best.
Suggesting that web delivery is a suitable or even complete replacement for books or printed literature is equally asinine. Conveyance of discrete data is only one small aspect of printed media. The experience of reading a book, magazine, pamphlet, or paper is entirely different from reading on an electronic device. Dissemination is also another critical difference, sure everyone can download your PDF but that doesn't mean they will. A magazine sitting on a coffee table in a waiting room is an entirely different experience from anything electronic and it is complete incomparable.
The average American's total paper consumption accounts for less than 1% of their total carbon footprint. So in terms of impact, you would reduce your carbon footprint more by going vegetarian 2 days a week than you would by entirely eliminating your paper consumption.
Do you use a bidet?
Swapping paper for water isn't much better for the environment long term.