By Phil Riebel, Environmental Consultant to the Pulp & Paper Industry
NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA,
Dec. 20, 2010 (RISI) -
Well-funded marketplace environmental campaigns from groups like ForestEthics in the US have been promoting increased use of recycled and FSC-certified fiber in paper and have led some major paper buyers to change their paper procurement practices. However, the real environmental benefits of these procurement decisions are rarely discussed or investigated. It is assumed that just switching paper to recycled or FSC automatically benefits the planet. This is part 1 of a two part blog series where I discuss why a focus on recycled and FSC may be failing to reduce the overall environmental footprint of paper products, and how environmental campaigns may be misleading the public on forest certification and recycling.
1. Fiber type alone does not reduce the environmental footprint of paper and print products.
Although recycled or FSC-certified fiber are key elements of sustainable paper procurement, it should not be assumed that paper with these fibers will always have a lower environmental footprint than a similar wood-based grade certified to other standards, i.e. SFI, CSA, PEFC. Paper with recycled and/or FSC fiber can have twice the carbon footprint of a wood-based or SFI/PEFC certified grade, just based on fossil fuel use at mill sites and purchased power. They can also be manufactured at mills that have below-average environmental performance compared to industry best practice levels. For example, a de-inked pulp mill producing pulp from recovered paper could be landfilling all of its residual de-inking solids if it isn't equipped with the proper boiler technology to burn solids for energy generation, or if it has no other alternative for disposal. Such mills can have significantly higher costs and environmental impacts related to landfilling than a modern wood-based mill that re-uses most of its solid waste. Such environmental performance issues can also apply to other parameters such as wastewater quality parameters and greenhouse gas emissions, to name a few. Best-available-technology use at mill sites can significantly reduce the impacts of paper regardless of fiber type used.
The environmental footprint of paper depends on many measured indicators across the product life cycle and it is also very site-specific, i.e. it depends on forestry practices, environmental impacts of raw material suppliers, mill emissions to air, water and soil, waste to landfill, water and energy use, carbon footprint, chemicals used, etc... Life-cycle-analysis (LCA) experts typically weigh the importance of environmental impacts in the following order of importance: 1) global warming 2) eco-toxicity 3) acidification 4) ozone depletion 5) carcinogens 6) particulates, and so on. By focusing on reducing these impacts more sustainable paper products can be developed. Switching fiber type may not be the most cost-effective way to reduce the overall environmental load of paper products.
If decisions are made based only on single elements of the life cycle, like specific types of fiber used, companies will be excluding wood-based paper grades that are certified to other systems (i.e. PEFC, SFI, CSA) and have a lower overall environmental footprint than the recycled or FSC grades.
2. Ensure that recycled fiber is used sustainably
Paper recovery has several environmental benefits, but the sustainable use of recycled fiber to make new products must consider economic and environmental factors that vary depending on location, technology and the type of product manufactured.
In 2007, most recovered paper (about 82%) was used as a raw material in packaging grades such as carton board and paper board. About 6% of the global supply of recovered paper was used in printing and writing grades, and this is expected to stay stable or decrease slightly by 2025, although the total volume of recovered paper used will increase significantly. One key reason for this fiber distribution is that the manufacture of carton and board grades does not usually involve de-inking and/or bleaching. Hence, the processing is less costly and may also have less environmental impacts than when de-inking and bleaching of pulp are required for graphic paper production. Other factors to consider are transportation distance of the recovered paper and paper quality needs. Mills that are located near large population densities can acquire recovered paper more cost-effectively than mills in remote areas that are closer to forest resource. In many cases, wood fiber may be a more sustainable choice for papermaking, i.e. a better balance between economic and environmental considerations.
In the papermaking process, wood fiber can be recycled an estimated 4 to 7 times, after which the fiber breaks down and becomes waste. In other words, recovered paper is not an infinite source of raw material. To make the global fiber cycle work, a continual input of 35 to 65% of fresh wood fiber is needed depending on the grade of paper manufactured. If wood fiber was not used then degradation through recycling would result in the World running out of paper within a period 6 to 18 months depending on the paper grade.
Summary
Look beyond fiber and adopt life-cycle thinking. Sustainable product design and responsible paper sourcing should include use of recycled fiber in appropriate grades and locations, promoting paper recovery and using a life-cycle based environmental scorecard to evaluate product footprint (see RISI article on Ten Ways to Green your Paper). Pressuring the marketplace to use certain fiber types when it doesn't make sense may not benefit the environment or the economy.
In the next blog I will discuss key points related to the forest certification debate.
Phil Riebel is a senior sustainability advisor to the forest, paper and print sector. He has over 20 years of international experience acquired in senior management positions in industry and consulting. Phil also owns and manages 200 acres of sustainable forest in eastern Canada. He can be reached at philriebel@bellaliant.net
Comments made in this blog are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect that of RISI, Inc., its parent company or sponsors.
