by Edward Milford
12. February 2009 03:21
Trying to get concrete information to compare the environmental impact of publishing electronically against publishing on paper is surprisingly difficult. As so often with any environmental question the answer usually is ‘it depends’ – both on the particular circumstances and the assumptions built into the calculation. It is also an issue on which people tend to take sides, and simply look for information to back up their point of view or to support their commercial position.
One of the areas where there are always hidden assumptions comes in the calculation of the environmental impact of paper. At one extreme, there is clearly a very high impact if the pulp is from non-sustainably managed sources (particularly if the clear-cut forest then emits methane from the soil to the atmosphere), is then turned into paper with fossil fuels, transported thousands of kilometres, used once for a day in a newspaper or as packaging, and then sent to landfill. Compare that with the impact of pulp from a sustainably managed source, turned into paper with renewable energy such as hydro power, used relatively near the point of manufacture, kept for many years (books are carbon sinks, in the jargon) and then responsibly disposed of.
Taking this a step further, I have seen a posting on an American magazine publishing trade body’s web site that argued magazines should become a weapon in the battle against climate change. Specifically, they suggested that provided the magazines were printed on paper from sustainably managed forests, if they were then disposed of underground in old mines, this could act as long-term carbon sequestration. (I have been unable to track down this link; if anybody else finds it, please let us know!)
Is there a flaw in this argument? If so, I’m not sure I have seen it. If not, what are the necessary conditions to put this into action?
