On recycled vs. certified paper

03 Sep 2008

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Check out Umbra's video archive.

Dear Umbra,

Our office is trying to develop an environmental paper procurement policy, and we were wondering which component is most critical -- certification by the Forest Stewardship Council, or recycled content? If you could help us understand which is best to support, we would greatly appreciate it.

Dan S.
Denver, Colo.

Dearest Dan,

We need to pause and celebrate: 15 years ago, was it even possible for this question to be written? Could an office worker casually toss off "environmental paper procurement policy" and know that it would be generally understood? And were there two eco-positive, decent paper choices to baffle us? I was still in diapers, of course, but I think not. To ice the cake, I think the answer is "both."

A new sheaf on life?

Paper with recycled content performs multiple environmental purposes. To begin with, the recycling process takes waste paper -- both from paper processing (pre-consumer) and from recycling bins (post-consumer) -- and diverts it from the general waste stream. Instead of getting dumped in landfills or incinerators (hello, pollution!) it gets transformed into new products. Recycled paper eases the pressure on forests and related ecosystems. Paper made even in part from reclaimed pulp uses less total energy than virgin (unused) paper, and generates fewer air and water pollutants [PDF].

You knew all that, of course, but I think it's helpful to spell it out again, because looking at the benefits helps us see the forest for the, um, trees. (OK, I had to say it. I had to. Even if it doesn't quite make sense.) Recycled content paper is not only beneficial to those trees, but it also helps reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions created when paper decays in landfills. One drawback to recycled paper, however, is the lack of oversight on the system. I'm not saying there's cheating -- I'm just suggesting I could print out the recycled logo and put it on my car and no one would write me a ticket.

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

The Forest Stewardship Council, for its part, is a respected independent NGO that sets standards and carries out certifications to assure that forests and forest products are managed responsibly. The FSC certification criteria include human rights considerations, habitat protections, and prohibitions on the use of dangerous chemicals, among many other points. The FSC is a lovely outcome of the environmental movement, and there are a lot of FSC-certified products on the market, from chairs to paper. But even if paper comes from a sustainably-managed forest -- and even if a certified "chain of custody" guarantees good works all along the way -- making that paper still involves using new trees, lots of energy, and more pollution than we'd like.

Unless ... the paper is both FSC-certified and recycled. Yes, we can get the best of both worlds. The FSC has three labels: 100 percent, recycled, and mixed sources. The 100 percent label indicates that all involved forests are FSC-certified (handy when buying lumber and lumber products). The mixed label indicates a blend of wood fibers from recycled material, FSC-certified forests, and "controlled sources" [PDF], involving forests with certain less stringent guidelines than the FSC-certified variety.

I'll go out on a (sorry) limb here and suggest FSC recycled paper as your best bet. At least 85 percent of the wood in this paper is post-consumer and at most 15 percent is pre-consumer. Just as in cholesterol tests, one number should be high and the other should be low; the FSC has them in the right proportions. This kind of paper is widely available in stores, and one can search the FSC website for products, too.

More email alerts | Privacy

As I was looking around on your behalf, meanwhile, I found a few interesting resources that might be helpful for green ream seekers such as yourself. The Environmental Defense Fund and friends ran a Paper Task Force a few years back and one result was a "paper calculator" that shows the comparative impact of various levels of recycled content -- I thought it might be useful in procurement meetings. The Green Guide offers a nice wrap-up on paper issues, including non-tree paper (made from hemp, cotton, kenaf, and other plants) and recommended eco-brands, and so does the Ethical Consumer.

As you weigh these matters, I will further celebrate the evolution of our environmental situation by assuming we all know the basic first step in paper use improvement, and hardly mention what that aforesaid first step might be.

Reduce-ly,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (9 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

15 years ago in diapers?

I don't mean to be a butthead here but... Umbra - were you really in diapers 15 years ago? Estimating generously, that would mean you're 17 years old now. I do hope I'm taking broad based eco-lifestyle advice from someone a tad older than 17. Props to all the green teens out there but still.

[I for one would have been a little older than age 17 about 15 years ago - and I would have wanted to quote eco paper policy chapter-and-verse to any employer. Whether they would have listened is another story. I was the mid--to-late-90s "eco warrior" riding my bike to work at a >county< job for years - to the building that used its employee shower as a storage closet - enduring disgusted looks and rolled eyes of inconvenienced supervisors... and NOW King County is all about employee health and trip reduction. But, anyway...]

by DannyGirl at 11:46 AM on 03 Sep 2008

diapers...

I, too, can't get past the diapers 15 years ago. Please tell us that either a) that was a "new math" lapse and really it was more like 25 years ago or that b) you skipped grades 1-4 and have a degree already and are precociously smart and savvy beyond your years... Maybe there is some other option c) that I haven't imagined.
Now on to the content. Thanks for the well written guide. Any paper procurement policy should include directions for minimizing use in the first place. Some low-hanging fruits are using a print preview to eliminate pages with one or two lines (common on email printous) and printing double-sided. If there is a central printer, you might consider designating a 'scratch' paper tray where you load used paper with the clean side ready for printing. This can be used for printouts destined for markups and non-critical purposes. It's easy enough to select the paper tray from a print dialog.

by timdiller at 8:47 PM on 03 Sep 2008

Another thing...

Stay away from STI "certified" products. STI is an industry-sponsored organisation which has, at least as far as I know, not set up any reliably independent certification process.

The mellotron is your friend.

by archigeek at 9:24 AM on 04 Sep 2008

patagonia, gonia, gone

Sorry to be a little off topic, but my wife just received another catalog from Patagonia. A real piece of art. And FSC! But why do it? What is its environmental footprint? How much material, water and energy would be saved with email-logs only? I find their catalog highly hypocritical. I thought the new electronic age would virtually eliminate paper but I still see many clinging on to old customs and the belief that their work merits a hard copy.

by bailsout at 10:23 AM on 04 Sep 2008

On diapers and major paper companies

OK, everyone, give Umbra a break. I'm fairly confident that by "in diapers," she meant pre-"grown-up" and pre-job. Case in point: Umbra featured in the New York Times.

Another problem here is that of the supply strategy of major paper companies. I have direct experience with one of the largest paper companies, who has said that they prefer not to recycle paper at all, but instead adopt a chain of managing forests (certified by the less stringent Sustainable Forests Initiative, not FSC), producing paper, gathering used paper to downcycle into boxes, and then into housing insulation. But the heart of it is still focused on consuming virgin forests.

Here's hoping consumer preference for recycled paper helps drive the much-needed, bottom-up changes in the World of Paper-Making.

by Ashley Braun at 12:02 AM on 05 Sep 2008

Ooops...

^^^Thanks for the correction. SFI, not STI. I think, that as energy costs continue to rise, these companies will begin to realise that their current business model--as stated above--will not work. Recycling and reuse consume much less energy than direct from pulp production. We'll see which choices they make. Go overseas to cheaper energy, or stay at home and go efficient.

The mellotron is your friend.

by archigeek at 6:39 AM on 06 Sep 2008

Certified or Recycled - An unnecessary battle

Umbra, I agree with you that it's a very good thing that we can have this discussion at this point in the marketplace. It says a lot about the consumers and the companies that are making these products available.

I'm going to comment on a few of the above topics and also make some interesting information available.

Trees will not be "saved" by eliminating print. In North America, trees are primarily cut down for wood first (highest value). It would be more accurate to say "Don't build that house - save a tree." Paper mills are mostly the recipient of saw mill residuals (chips), tree tops that aren't used for dimensional lumber, and forest thinnings. There are trees cut down for paper, but it's not the 1:1 correlation that some would have you believe.
Recycled paper comes from trees. It doesn't magically appear and represent a tree not cut down. It represents a sheet of paper not in a landfill (which is still a good thing). If you take a step back and think about it - the "energy savings" by using recycled paper is a myth. The recycled paper was already turned from a tree to pulp (primary transformation - which uses the largest part of the total energy required to make paper) - but recycled paper made it's way back into the cycle instead of ending up in a landfill. Whether the paper is recycled or virgin, it still had to be turned from a tree to pulp first. Part of the "energy savings" of the much heralded "Paper Calculator" compares the energy required to turn trees into pulp then to paper (primary transormation) versus making pulp into paper (not primary transformation). This is like comparing apples to donuts.
While on the subject of the Paper Calculator - there is another reason it's a great marketing tool, but a bad representation of reality and science. The "GHG/CO2 equivalent" comparison of virgin versus recycled is flawed. One of paper's biggest contributors to GHG emissions is at the end of it's life, in the landfill. As with most anything, it emits methane in a landfill. The papercalculator doesn't attribute landfill methane/GHG emissions to recycled paper. What that means is it makes the assumption that ALL RECYCLED PAPER is reclaimed, and recycled again - and even more dangerous, it assumes that all virgin paper ends up in a landfill. Now, I think it's pretty safe to say that nobody recycles (or doesn't recycle) their paper based on the recycled content of the paper. Recycled paper wouldn't exist without a fresh supply of virgin fiber into the cycle. We're all part of the same cycle - it's not an "either/or." Let's end this ridiculous argument.
To "bailsout"- that I guess is hoping for the electronic age to finally elimate the need for paper: Paper manufacturing in the US requires roughly 75 billion kwH/year (we're fourth behind Chemical, Primary Metal, and Food manufacturing). Guess where US based servers and data centers would come in - if they were actually manufacturers? Sixth. 59 billion kwH/year. Paper is manufactured largely with about 50% renewable energy (hydro and biomass largely). More renewable energy is used in the kraft process (fine paper- think copy paper) than in groundwood (think newsprint)- so the renewable energy component for copy is in the 70-90% range, depending on the mill. Data centers and server farms can't claim this - they rely on the grid for their energy, which in this country is largely coal. The number for data centers and servers is expected to grow quite rapidly over the next 10 years. The paper industry number, sadly, is not.

Paper is a product that is grown with solar power, made with much renewable energy, is recyclable, biodegradeable, and a large contributor to manufacturing jobs in North America. Forest products "sequester" their carbon until they decompose, and if the forests are managed properly (a very important part) their existence is largely "carbon neutral" over time. Can the same be said about an electronic book? Or even a web page for that matter?

Certainly we can all do a better job, and nobody I know is in favor of wrecking the environment so they can print an email - but I am disappointed when loose "science" is thrown around and absorbed and regurgitated as fact.

by Lewis at 1:49 PM on 10 Sep 2008

Food for thought

Wow, Lewis, thanks for the insights. I love hearing the other side of the story, especially in a forum like this.

by timdiller at 9:16 PM on 11 Sep 2008

Why a monopoly?

what about other certifications? if SFI is too pro-industry, there should be another certification option i think. a monopoly is never a good thing, especially in an industry where standards differ widely based on their location.

a quick search on certification bodies show that the largest certification body for sustainable forest management is actually PEFC (Program for Endorsement of Forest Certification) by far compared to FSC. There are also articles that discusses the benefits of PEFC vs. FSC, and to me both certification seems valid.

i hope the industry will have more options for environment certifications, this should encourage more companies to sought after a better standard in environment performance.

by colinJ at 9:43 PM on 27 Oct 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

America's Top Sheaf

On recycled vs. certified paper