COMMENTS: 47
A Call to Go (Nearly) Paperless
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Environment headlines via email.
Please consider the environment before printing this article.
On Election Day, millions of us went down to our corner newsstand to pick up a copy of the daily paper. The headlines spoke of history in the making, and we took home the printed pages as souvenirs commemorating the most exciting election of a generation. But for many, this was the first paper we've bought in years, and it may be the last.
Earlier this month the Pew Research center reported that more Americans are now getting their news from the internet than from newspapers -- not a terribly surprising announcement. About two-thirds of us have a home computer, and over 70 percent use computers at work. Online news is updated constantly, whereas the traditional daily news cycle is frozen for several hours each night during printing, dooming the print edition to be outdated by morning. Plus, most online news is free -- a quality that none of us can resist, particularly these days.
The advantages to giving up printed news are clear, but when it comes to kicking our addiction to other paper products most Americans aren't jumping on board. Paper permeates every aspect of our lives -- we use it at home, school and work, we wrap our food and gifts with it, read stories off it, and we put it to use when drying our tears and wiping our butts. We use and throw out more paper than any other material, and the pulpy stuff makes up a whopping thirty-two percent of all the tonnage entering our waste stream. Americans trash 83 million tons of paper per year, and we flush away an additional seven billion rolls of toilet paper on top of that. About half of the paper we throw out -- including newspaper, magazines, junk mail, packaging, office paper and cardboard -- gets recycled. The environmental benefits of recycling paper are huge, as producing a ton of recycled paper takes less than half as much water and energy as making paper from wood pulp.
Plus, recycling saves trees. It takes about 17 trees to produce a ton of paper, and often those trees are sourced from sensitive and essential ecosystems and carbon sinks like the Amazon Rainforest and Canada's Boreal Forest. When a tree is cut to make paper only about half of the wood is used for pulp, and recycling our existing paper supply is significantly more efficient and in some (and increasing) cases less expensive than producing new paper from trees.
Paper has an important place in our culture and hearts -- what would America be without dollar bills, postcards, cereal boxes, card games, trashy magazines and birthday parties colored with streamers and gift wrap? There's nothing more comforting than a paper trail -- paperless voting has been widely denounced and paper receipts and contracts serve an essential role in our economy and legal system. And although millions around the world have no use for paper in the bathroom, most Americans cringe at the thought of living without toilet paper and it's unlikely that our penchant for wiping will go away any time soon.
When it comes to these somewhat "essential" paper products that are simply not going away, the greenest option is recycling. There are currently no federal requirements governing how companies source paper materials, and federal leadership has been weak when it comes to setting limits on the use of virgin paper. To its credit, the Federal Government -- along with several states -- has adopted standards that require its offices to use paper made with a minimum percentage of post-consumer recycled content. Environmental organizations like NRDC and Greenpeace have launched campaigns urging large paper companies like Kimberly Clarke to increase their use of recycled content and put an end to sourcing wood pulp from virgin forests, but as of yet most companies source only a minimal percentage of their pulp from recycled paper.
The issue of making extra-soft toilet paper from virgin forests has gotten a surge of much-overdue attention recently, following a scathing article in the Guardian last month and Greenpeace's publication of a consumer toilet paper guide. Until the EPA sets regulations requiring companies to utilize recycled paper or businesses start taking the initiative on their own, it's up to consumers to forego extra-fluffy TP and vote for recycled paper products with their wallets. And while we're in the paper aisle, maybe we should forget recycling and consider just giving up other paper products that we can simply live without.
At work, it's not uncommon to get an email punctuated by this popular note, "Please consider the environment before printing this email." And the recommendation is generally easy to follow, considering that the term "paperless" has become synonymous with "efficient" in the modern workplace. Although over 70 percent of office paper is reclaimed for recycling, offices are in a prime position to save money and time by and employing technology software like GreenPrint and adopting intra-office paper use policies.
America's schools face a similar opportunity as businesses in terms of reducing their massive consumption of paper. The millennials attending 21st century schools have no trouble giving up paper -- most of them are on the computer whether they're seeking entertainment or doing school work, and they're faster at texting than writing by hand. But even if students are open to paperless education, schools won't be able to reduce paper use until teachers and administrators get on board. This kind of leadership has been demonstrated in Chicago, where the public school system promotes the reduction of paper use by offering awards to classrooms and offices that recycle more and use less, and the program has yielded positive results.
But, like most environmental action, the shift to a paperless life begins at home. Aside from toilet paper, there are few household paper products that Americans are really married to, but we still consume and throw away tons of the stuff -- literally. Our country goes through three thousand tons of paper towels each day and mountains of tissues when dish cloths and hankies present a cheap, accessible and reusable alternative. These days we use over twenty-five percent more of these kinds of paper than we did a mere twenty years ago -- most of our grandparents didn't use them, and we don't need them.
Unlike our grandparents, today's homes have the internet, which we can use for paying bills, monitoring bank accounts, and cancelling junk mail (which alone amounts to four million tons of paper a year). We read our news online, get our celebrity gossip there, and some of us are even buying and reading books using digital media. Unless you're too lazy to wash dishes and instead use paper cups and plates (and some of us, sadly, do), there's really no need to buy paper at all.
Paper is a low-hanging fruit compared to many of the environmental challenges we face. It makes up the largest portion of our waste stream, so a relatively small reduction in paper use would result in a significant drop in overall landfill waste. Recycled paper is doubly effective, not only reducing energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions, but also saving trees that take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Compared to solving the energy crisis and revamping our food system, the paper issue is a featherweight that we could easily tackle with some simple recycling and product sourcing legislation.
People have been hooked on paper for over a thousand years, and the thought of a completely paperless world is not only naïve, it's also kind of sad. Paper is here to stay, but ideally in smaller quantities. And there's certainly no reason to keep cutting down trees to make the stuff, especially when we're throwing away over forty million tons of recyclable paper each year and there are tree-free options like hemp which can be grown quickly and efficiently in the US. In our race to establish a more sustainable society, the paper hurdle is small -- why not just jump right over it?
Stay up to date with the latest Environment headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: -matti on Mar 10, 2009 2:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How progressive.
How radical.
How alternative.
What is going on here? Did I get smarter or did Alternet get stupider?
In this person's mind there are apparrently no books in the World. Why not? I mean what use are they? What use could a person possibly have for a written record of some other person's thoughts or stories or histories that can last for centuries? What good is a system that allows one to store information and access to it without electric and fiber-optic connection?
The "millenials" would be ready and willing to drop them even from school says the author. And how could anyone possibly doubt the obvious wisdom in this? Why would it occur to anyone that since the "millenials" are largely a bunch of morons and social inepts who can't think or feel -unless through the electric mediators that have been shoved down their throats since age 2- their presumed endorsement might not exactly make an idea shine with brightness?
No mention of hemp-paper either.
That's so ridiculous I won't even bother to write anything more about it. Maybe just a little.
Some other points:
1. As far as I can tell, the "virgin forests for TP" bit is a trick. You are supposed to think of old-growth, irreplaceable-in-7-liftimes trees, when what is really being talked about is planted tree farms and regrown clearcuts and younger forests. The trick is in the "vigin" bit apparently. The term for first-time-pulped-not-previously-recycled paper is "vigin paper". That Guardian aticle pulls a switch between this and "virgin forests" and so does this one. (Don't believe me? Read it again and see. But be aware that the Author or the editor -or anyone else- could have changed the sentence I was referencing AFTER I referenced it. Still on board with the "Let's chuck the papers and ignore the existence of books and just trust the Internets for our info" idea?)
2. Recycling of paper does NOT provide a 100% return. A quick search -of the Internets- didn't turn up the actual percentage. Though I did find -in my small personal library- that paper fibers can only be "deinked" 4-6 or so times before they are too short to be made into new paper (so if there is to be ink on our paper it can only be recyled 6 or so times). Common sense should tell us this. So obviously unless another source for pulped paper fibers is found -*cough*hemp- then trees are still gonna be falling for your butt-wiping in the 100% recycled paper future.
3. From the 11th paragraph: "...today's homes have the internet(sic)...". Really? That's funny because I swear that I read in the 2nd paragraph that "About two-thirds of us have a home computer, and over 70 percent use computers at work.". Seems to me to be a bit of a contradiction here. Are the "millenials" seeing it, or do the need help? Hint: If only about "two-thirds of us" even have a computer, then that is the maximum who can have access to the Internets. So at least a third of "today's homes" DO NOT have such access. Guess which third that would be (mutiple choice for the "millenials"):
A) The wealthy (exploiters).
B) The "middle class" (aspirationals).
C) The working poor (exploited).
See why this article pisses me off?.
Lastly a nit-picky one,
4. A newspaper that is printed in the early morning hours of a certain date on the calendar CANNOT possibly be "outdated" by the beginnings of the work-day on that SAME date now can it you dummy? Your Newspeak offends me. What you mean is "not up-to-the-minute".
Have fun,
-matti.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An article on paper-use that mentions NEITHER books nor HEMP?
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» HEMP was mentioned you Dummy
Posted by: outlook
» RE: HEMP was mentioned you Dummy
Posted by: Beck
» RE: HEMP was mentioned you Dummy
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» RE: HEMP was mentioned but not DISCUSSED you DUMMY
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» The reason they rarely mention hemp let alone discuss it is simple.
Posted by: Jason Jordan
» That's because the Democrats pushed for overtaxing it in the 1930s and after that they allowed
Posted by: Jason Jordan
» By the way, the ban on hemp was based on methods used to outlaw alcohol and even try it on guns.
Posted by: Jason Jordan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 10, 2009 6:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why can't schools get rid of paper?
Posted by: JudeK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sawdust on Mar 10, 2009 7:25 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Mar 10, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The disadvantages are clear as well -- nobody gets paid including the reporters who gather the actual, you know, NEWS.
And I don't know about anybody else, but my Sunday paper more than pays for itself with the food coupons (my local supermarket does not accept internet coupons, only newspaper coupons)... and news is just easier to read in that format, plus a couple can split it up without needing two computers at once... plus newspaper is handy around the house with the cat litter box, and for cleaning mirrors, packing shipping boxes and things like that.
The prospect of my city becoming a one newspaper town, or even a no newspaper town, is chilling. The resulting increase in local political corruption alone will be staggering.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Newspapers -- misguided lead-in to this story
Posted by: hilaryuk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Mar 10, 2009 7:42 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hemp is a great idea. Unfortunately, most Ds and Rs oppose it because of Big Oil and Timber.
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Hemp is a great idea. Unfortunately, most Ds and Rs oppose it because of Big Oil and Timber.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Mar 10, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Probably more importantly, how much mercury and other toxic gunk goes into every computer? How long does the computer stay in use? What happens to it when it's obsolete? (And... every cellphone? Blackberry? etc., and... what slave labor in China, or wherever, went into the manufacture of them?) And as a poster mentions above, are we now just blithely dismissing the one-third of the population too poor to afford computers as insignificant, unworthy of news?
When you look at the bigger picture, maybe old-fashioned newspapers aren't such a bad environmental bargain after all!
Don't get me wrong, the subject of toilet paper from virgin forests is a new one to me, and I've seen it mentioned only on AlterNet so far.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Aren't computers environmentally destructive?
Posted by: EHarold
» Unlike a kindle or a computer...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SnakeBehindMe on Mar 10, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be honest with ourselves: This is just the next stage of glowing-screen addiction that began with television sixty years ago. We love all our pretty shiny devices too much to admit that they might not have the answer to every problem which comes before us.
Technology can only help us achieve solutions; it should never be mistaken for the solution.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm 26, and I LIKE paper
Posted by: Crazy H
» Then you'd better start pushing for legalizing industrial hemp or kiss paper good bye.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» 26-year-old you are my hero. Seriously.
Posted by: catfish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SnakeBehindMe on Mar 10, 2009 10:15 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can anyone confirm this? It it's true, then Gwen Schantz needs to quit picking on newspapers and find herself a good teepee if she's so intent on saving trees.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Then tell your radical environmentalist about HEMP for Homes.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» Re: HEMP for Homes.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: Besides, most timber is eaten up in Housing
Posted by: Crazy H
» Maybe paper costs will fall soon
Posted by: catfish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Mar 10, 2009 11:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WyrdSister on Mar 10, 2009 12:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
more paper can be made from industrial hemp with little to no overhead.
its a cash-crop, people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gnagle on Mar 10, 2009 12:18 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but I have also planted over 300,000 trees with my own hands.
yes, we can reduce paper use and should be it is incorrect to say that much paper comes from old growth forests. The vast majority comes from plantations or from naturally regenerated industrial forests that have been cut over many times already.
Not that I think that is the best use of forests but...
Up until about 25 years ago, most paper in the Pacific Northwest came from what was left over in lumber mills, stuff that used to be burned. Even today a lot of paper is coming from such mill residues.
I do have to disagree about a paper less environment.
I suggest that for many people (??) reading something on a screen is not quite the same as reading it on paper. Others may disagree.
But keep recycling for all those good reasons the author suggests.
And some of you, please lay off on snarky comments to the authors on alternet, they may sometimes be incorrect but a snappy tone does not do much for dialogue with those who agree with us on so much else.
People will spin things out on the internet that they would never allow themselves to voice face to face.
I am sure that almost all of you are perfectly charming in person.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthlover on Mar 10, 2009 1:31 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspapers aren’t the same as computers. I’m not going to strain my eyes and sit staring at a screen over breakfast, thank you. I want to drink my coffee in an easy chair with a newspaper.
Books aren’t the same as computers. Ever read “Day of the Triffids”? It’s about what happens when civilization collapses. The survivors form a colony on an island and send some of their members into cities to the libraries, to get books on science, technology and traditional methods of doing things. Oops! Why didn’t they get that information from the Internet…? Why didn’t they want it in a form that required undamaged machinery and electricity…? You can read books as long as you have them: get a computer glitch or a power surge and you know what happens. Want to know what’s in the pipeline for us? You want all your information on a disk you can’t read because the power went off?
You suggest giving up toilet paper, saying that millions do without it. But you don’t tell us how they keep clean using another method: people will need to know that before they give up toilet paper! Of course, you can’t recycle that!
we wrap our food and gifts with it
Fine. What’s the alternative? Not plastic, I hope!
I agree we could do without junk mail, and over-packaging.
We do need paper trails, and we might be able to rethink how to do that better.
The 1/3 of schoolchildren without home computers should not be further disadvantaged by being the ones who can’t do their school work properly.
Tissues are chosen over cloth hankies for reasons of hygiene, not just convenience. If we’re to go back to that, we need to be taught again HOW to deal with it hygienically (sometimes simply throwing them in the washing machine isn’t enough).
And that’s just it – this article is long on “ought” and very short on “how”, apart from things that are already being done (no action required therefore).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madhypnotist on Mar 10, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wow...Its the genius behind this article that amazes me. Im the son of a papermaker and trust me.. theyve been doing it right for a very very long time.
Why dont ya focus on this stupid CFL lightbulbs...and remember the day someone pointed out... THEY CONTAIN MERCURY AND WE ARE INCREASING HOW MANY THERE ARE... Soon wihjt mercury poisoning we can all be madhatters and continue to vote for the dems
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tokerdesigner on Mar 10, 2009 2:09 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. Toilet paper is soft and fluffy in order to flush down toilets without clogging. An alternative approach: composting (green and brown). Green composting contains vegetative food scraps etc. only. Brown composting (wrap brown tape around the bucket) contains animal wastes, bones etc. The latter should not be sent to agricultural uses, due to the chance of spreading an infectious disease; but meanwhile, there's reforestation. The brown-labeled buckets can be trucked out to some remote place where no agricultural activities are planned for 20 years.
3. You can gather left-over bags of lunches, save the napkins, and use them as toilet paper, disposing them along with the animal wastes in plenty of composting medium (sawdust, woodflour, dried leaves, etc. etc.).
4. Old plastic sacks and food containers can be used as the interior structure of an 8-inch kickball (light) or 4-inch croquet ball (heavy). Secondmost outer layer: beautiful colored tape or glued-on papers. Outermost: plenty of clear plastic tape for weatherproofing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Trucked? TRUCKED????
Posted by: truthlover
» A new mantra . . .
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: foxxx on Mar 10, 2009 2:28 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Mar 10, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There are glare screens to reduce blindness from computers, sir.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: There are glare screens to reduce blindness from computers, sir.
Posted by: YogiBear
» Reduce computer blindness
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent on Mar 10, 2009 6:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff9 on Mar 10, 2009 7:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Better for your Bum
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gnagle on Mar 11, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a scientist so I read a lot and I get the sense that I am one of the few who still does this in my field(?). An overstatement maybe but skimming a 15 page article on a screen seems to be missing much.
Maybe not for some people(?)
As others have noted, a screen is no substitute for some print media and our libraries are highly refined repositories, developed over centuries. I seriously doubt that digital will be able to replace much print media.
And believe me, I can scan a newspaper twice as fast if in print.
In a recent experiment a 60 GB set of various files was sent to and between six universities to test whether their systems were compatible and whether the files could be effectively shared and archived.
To sum it up....No....
I wish I had the link to that, and yes, such links can be critical. I do not dismiss computers of course.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jonalist on Mar 11, 2009 5:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the rich print shops can get richer I would suppose and pay higher Union Wages for Common Laborers that have to move less paper from businesses they have to cleanup. Or maybe, hemp photo paper, how about hemp chewing gum which is flavored paper.
>> Posted by: outlook on Mar 10, 2009 3:38 AM
Really, you mean 'Hemp Toilet Paper' (Not So Extra Soft Tissues), and 'Hemp Milk Cartons' (Life without picture printings of Lost or Missing or Exploited Children), and 'Hemp Rush Limbaugh Dolls For Democrats'. Gosh so many Hemp things that makes just plain old 'Hemp' obsolete quickly. Beat it - Recycled paper products Cost More! The term "paperless" is a fake representation of what we should see a ARCHIVED MATERIAL which is accessible always, hence forth - No Need To Print. Then the only paper is remaining is the paper hat you should be wearing that says 'Launch Of The New Paperless Society (Give a Date)', and the paper posters with magic marker smudges stating 'Paperless Society Day'. That recycle paper idea should swing into 'Recycle That Car So I got It Next' - Under Review Currently by Administration for Government Vehicle Hybridization with Paper Manuals and Paper Covered CD Sleeves Protecting The Instructions. More Teleprompter Education with Illustrations you can actually see. There are more than four million tons for new uses for paper yet to evolve and that could mean a Stock Market Planned crash Date without paper especially Money. You do not have to save trees to stop CO2 New CO2 Capture Method Discovered Image [Al Gore Blog's Comment-7686 On March 13th, 2008 - User Profile: NoCO2Problem].
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: -matti on Mar 10, 2009 2:11 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How progressive.
How radical.
How alternative.
What is going on here? Did I get smarter or did Alternet get stupider?
In this person's mind there are apparrently no books in the World. Why not? I mean what use are they? What use could a person possibly have for a written record of some other person's thoughts or stories or histories that can last for centuries? What good is a system that allows one to store information and access to it without electric and fiber-optic connection?
The "millenials" would be ready and willing to drop them even from school says the author. And how could anyone possibly doubt the obvious wisdom in this? Why would it occur to anyone that since the "millenials" are largely a bunch of morons and social inepts who can't think or feel -unless through the electric mediators that have been shoved down their throats since age 2- their presumed endorsement might not exactly make an idea shine with brightness?
No mention of hemp-paper either.
That's so ridiculous I won't even bother to write anything more about it. Maybe just a little.
Some other points:
1. As far as I can tell, the "virgin forests for TP" bit is a trick. You are supposed to think of old-growth, irreplaceable-in-7-liftimes trees, when what is really being talked about is planted tree farms and regrown clearcuts and younger forests. The trick is in the "vigin" bit apparently. The term for first-time-pulped-not-previously-recycled paper is "vigin paper". That Guardian aticle pulls a switch between this and "virgin forests" and so does this one. (Don't believe me? Read it again and see. But be aware that the Author or the editor -or anyone else- could have changed the sentence I was referencing AFTER I referenced it. Still on board with the "Let's chuck the papers and ignore the existence of books and just trust the Internets for our info" idea?)
2. Recycling of paper does NOT provide a 100% return. A quick search -of the Internets- didn't turn up the actual percentage. Though I did find -in my small personal library- that paper fibers can only be "deinked" 4-6 or so times before they are too short to be made into new paper (so if there is to be ink on our paper it can only be recyled 6 or so times). Common sense should tell us this. So obviously unless another source for pulped paper fibers is found -*cough*hemp- then trees are still gonna be falling for your butt-wiping in the 100% recycled paper future.
3. From the 11th paragraph: "...today's homes have the internet(sic)...". Really? That's funny because I swear that I read in the 2nd paragraph that "About two-thirds of us have a home computer, and over 70 percent use computers at work.". Seems to me to be a bit of a contradiction here. Are the "millenials" seeing it, or do the need help? Hint: If only about "two-thirds of us" even have a computer, then that is the maximum who can have access to the Internets. So at least a third of "today's homes" DO NOT have such access. Guess which third that would be (mutiple choice for the "millenials"):
A) The wealthy (exploiters).
B) The "middle class" (aspirationals).
C) The working poor (exploited).
See why this article pisses me off?.
Lastly a nit-picky one,
4. A newspaper that is printed in the early morning hours of a certain date on the calendar CANNOT possibly be "outdated" by the beginnings of the work-day on that SAME date now can it you dummy? Your Newspeak offends me. What you mean is "not up-to-the-minute".
Have fun,
-matti.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: An article on paper-use that mentions NEITHER books nor HEMP?
Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» HEMP was mentioned you Dummy
Posted by: outlook
» RE: HEMP was mentioned you Dummy
Posted by: Beck
» RE: HEMP was mentioned you Dummy
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» RE: HEMP was mentioned but not DISCUSSED you DUMMY
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» The reason they rarely mention hemp let alone discuss it is simple.
Posted by: Jason Jordan
» That's because the Democrats pushed for overtaxing it in the 1930s and after that they allowed
Posted by: Jason Jordan
» By the way, the ban on hemp was based on methods used to outlaw alcohol and even try it on guns.
Posted by: Jason Jordan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Mar 10, 2009 6:30 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why can't schools get rid of paper?
Posted by: JudeK
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sawdust on Mar 10, 2009 7:25 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Mar 10, 2009 7:30 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The disadvantages are clear as well -- nobody gets paid including the reporters who gather the actual, you know, NEWS.
And I don't know about anybody else, but my Sunday paper more than pays for itself with the food coupons (my local supermarket does not accept internet coupons, only newspaper coupons)... and news is just easier to read in that format, plus a couple can split it up without needing two computers at once... plus newspaper is handy around the house with the cat litter box, and for cleaning mirrors, packing shipping boxes and things like that.
The prospect of my city becoming a one newspaper town, or even a no newspaper town, is chilling. The resulting increase in local political corruption alone will be staggering.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Newspapers -- misguided lead-in to this story
Posted by: hilaryuk
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Mar 10, 2009 7:42 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hemp is a great idea. Unfortunately, most Ds and Rs oppose it because of Big Oil and Timber.
Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: Hemp is a great idea. Unfortunately, most Ds and Rs oppose it because of Big Oil and Timber.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Mar 10, 2009 8:52 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Probably more importantly, how much mercury and other toxic gunk goes into every computer? How long does the computer stay in use? What happens to it when it's obsolete? (And... every cellphone? Blackberry? etc., and... what slave labor in China, or wherever, went into the manufacture of them?) And as a poster mentions above, are we now just blithely dismissing the one-third of the population too poor to afford computers as insignificant, unworthy of news?
When you look at the bigger picture, maybe old-fashioned newspapers aren't such a bad environmental bargain after all!
Don't get me wrong, the subject of toilet paper from virgin forests is a new one to me, and I've seen it mentioned only on AlterNet so far.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Aren't computers environmentally destructive?
Posted by: EHarold
» Unlike a kindle or a computer...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SnakeBehindMe on Mar 10, 2009 9:28 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's be honest with ourselves: This is just the next stage of glowing-screen addiction that began with television sixty years ago. We love all our pretty shiny devices too much to admit that they might not have the answer to every problem which comes before us.
Technology can only help us achieve solutions; it should never be mistaken for the solution.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'm 26, and I LIKE paper
Posted by: Crazy H
» Then you'd better start pushing for legalizing industrial hemp or kiss paper good bye.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» 26-year-old you are my hero. Seriously.
Posted by: catfish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SnakeBehindMe on Mar 10, 2009 10:15 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can anyone confirm this? It it's true, then Gwen Schantz needs to quit picking on newspapers and find herself a good teepee if she's so intent on saving trees.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Then tell your radical environmentalist about HEMP for Homes.
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield
» Re: HEMP for Homes.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: Besides, most timber is eaten up in Housing
Posted by: Crazy H
» Maybe paper costs will fall soon
Posted by: catfish
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Mar 10, 2009 11:12 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WyrdSister on Mar 10, 2009 12:02 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
more paper can be made from industrial hemp with little to no overhead.
its a cash-crop, people.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gnagle on Mar 10, 2009 12:18 PM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but I have also planted over 300,000 trees with my own hands.
yes, we can reduce paper use and should be it is incorrect to say that much paper comes from old growth forests. The vast majority comes from plantations or from naturally regenerated industrial forests that have been cut over many times already.
Not that I think that is the best use of forests but...
Up until about 25 years ago, most paper in the Pacific Northwest came from what was left over in lumber mills, stuff that used to be burned. Even today a lot of paper is coming from such mill residues.
I do have to disagree about a paper less environment.
I suggest that for many people (??) reading something on a screen is not quite the same as reading it on paper. Others may disagree.
But keep recycling for all those good reasons the author suggests.
And some of you, please lay off on snarky comments to the authors on alternet, they may sometimes be incorrect but a snappy tone does not do much for dialogue with those who agree with us on so much else.
People will spin things out on the internet that they would never allow themselves to voice face to face.
I am sure that almost all of you are perfectly charming in person.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthlover on Mar 10, 2009 1:31 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Newspapers aren’t the same as computers. I’m not going to strain my eyes and sit staring at a screen over breakfast, thank you. I want to drink my coffee in an easy chair with a newspaper.
Books aren’t the same as computers. Ever read “Day of the Triffids”? It’s about what happens when civilization collapses. The survivors form a colony on an island and send some of their members into cities to the libraries, to get books on science, technology and traditional methods of doing things. Oops! Why didn’t they get that information from the Internet…? Why didn’t they want it in a form that required undamaged machinery and electricity…? You can read books as long as you have them: get a computer glitch or a power surge and you know what happens. Want to know what’s in the pipeline for us? You want all your information on a disk you can’t read because the power went off?
You suggest giving up toilet paper, saying that millions do without it. But you don’t tell us how they keep clean using another method: people will need to know that before they give up toilet paper! Of course, you can’t recycle that!
we wrap our food and gifts with it
Fine. What’s the alternative? Not plastic, I hope!
I agree we could do without junk mail, and over-packaging.
We do need paper trails, and we might be able to rethink how to do that better.
The 1/3 of schoolchildren without home computers should not be further disadvantaged by being the ones who can’t do their school work properly.
Tissues are chosen over cloth hankies for reasons of hygiene, not just convenience. If we’re to go back to that, we need to be taught again HOW to deal with it hygienically (sometimes simply throwing them in the washing machine isn’t enough).
And that’s just it – this article is long on “ought” and very short on “how”, apart from things that are already being done (no action required therefore).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: madhypnotist on Mar 10, 2009 2:00 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
wow...Its the genius behind this article that amazes me. Im the son of a papermaker and trust me.. theyve been doing it right for a very very long time.
Why dont ya focus on this stupid CFL lightbulbs...and remember the day someone pointed out... THEY CONTAIN MERCURY AND WE ARE INCREASING HOW MANY THERE ARE... Soon wihjt mercury poisoning we can all be madhatters and continue to vote for the dems
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tokerdesigner on Mar 10, 2009 2:09 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
2. Toilet paper is soft and fluffy in order to flush down toilets without clogging. An alternative approach: composting (green and brown). Green composting contains vegetative food scraps etc. only. Brown composting (wrap brown tape around the bucket) contains animal wastes, bones etc. The latter should not be sent to agricultural uses, due to the chance of spreading an infectious disease; but meanwhile, there's reforestation. The brown-labeled buckets can be trucked out to some remote place where no agricultural activities are planned for 20 years.
3. You can gather left-over bags of lunches, save the napkins, and use them as toilet paper, disposing them along with the animal wastes in plenty of composting medium (sawdust, woodflour, dried leaves, etc. etc.).
4. Old plastic sacks and food containers can be used as the interior structure of an 8-inch kickball (light) or 4-inch croquet ball (heavy). Secondmost outer layer: beautiful colored tape or glued-on papers. Outermost: plenty of clear plastic tape for weatherproofing.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Trucked? TRUCKED????
Posted by: truthlover
» A new mantra . . .
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: foxxx on Mar 10, 2009 2:28 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Mar 10, 2009 4:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» There are glare screens to reduce blindness from computers, sir.
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent
» RE: There are glare screens to reduce blindness from computers, sir.
Posted by: YogiBear
» Reduce computer blindness
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LaughingModerateIndependent on Mar 10, 2009 6:07 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jeff9 on Mar 10, 2009 7:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Better for your Bum
Posted by: countingdaisies
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gnagle on Mar 11, 2009 7:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a scientist so I read a lot and I get the sense that I am one of the few who still does this in my field(?). An overstatement maybe but skimming a 15 page article on a screen seems to be missing much.
Maybe not for some people(?)
As others have noted, a screen is no substitute for some print media and our libraries are highly refined repositories, developed over centuries. I seriously doubt that digital will be able to replace much print media.
And believe me, I can scan a newspaper twice as fast if in print.
In a recent experiment a 60 GB set of various files was sent to and between six universities to test whether their systems were compatible and whether the files could be effectively shared and archived.
To sum it up....No....
I wish I had the link to that, and yes, such links can be critical. I do not dismiss computers of course.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jonalist on Mar 11, 2009 5:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the rich print shops can get richer I would suppose and pay higher Union Wages for Common Laborers that have to move less paper from businesses they have to cleanup. Or maybe, hemp photo paper, how about hemp chewing gum which is flavored paper.
>> Posted by: outlook on Mar 10, 2009 3:38 AM
Really, you mean 'Hemp Toilet Paper' (Not So Extra Soft Tissues), and 'Hemp Milk Cartons' (Life without picture printings of Lost or Missing or Exploited Children), and 'Hemp Rush Limbaugh Dolls For Democrats'. Gosh so many Hemp things that makes just plain old 'Hemp' obsolete quickly. Beat it - Recycled paper products Cost More! The term "paperless" is a fake representation of what we should see a ARCHIVED MATERIAL which is accessible always, hence forth - No Need To Print. Then the only paper is remaining is the paper hat you should be wearing that says 'Launch Of The New Paperless Society (Give a Date)', and the paper posters with magic marker smudges stating 'Paperless Society Day'. That recycle paper idea should swing into 'Recycle That Car So I got It Next' - Under Review Currently by Administration for Government Vehicle Hybridization with Paper Manuals and Paper Covered CD Sleeves Protecting The Instructions. More Teleprompter Education with Illustrations you can actually see. There are more than four million tons for new uses for paper yet to evolve and that could mean a Stock Market Planned crash Date without paper especially Money. You do not have to save trees to stop CO2 New CO2 Capture Method Discovered Image [Al Gore Blog's Comment-7686 On March 13th, 2008 - User Profile: NoCO2Problem].
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
California Carbon Trading Allows Timber Companies to Sell CO2 Credits for Their Worst Logging Practices
How to Answer the Dumb Things Climate Deniers Say
Why Is Obama Trying to Prop Up a Doomed 'Nuclear Renaissance'?




