On the Environmental Cost of Paper vs. Other Media

The following is a perspective by postal commentator Gene Del Polito for OutputLinks. The views expressed are the author's.

By Gene Del Polito

If you're over the age of 50, you probably remember carbon paper, i.e., the stuff offices once used to make copies of typewritten matter. If you're under 50, there's a greater chance you're more familiar with the term carbon footprint than you are with carbon paper.

Simply put, a carbon footprint is defined as "a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide or CO2 emitted through the combustion of fossil fuels; in the case of an organization, business or enterprise, as part of their everyday operations." In recent days, you've probably heard or read more than one news report on the need for all of us, for the sake of the planet, to reduce our carbon footprints. I know I'll be reducing mine...on the day I die.

For many years, the Bush Administration sought to deny there was any relationship between the use of carbon fuels and global warming. Now, however, it seems most people hold the opinion that global warming is a real problem that requires a global response.

Over the past year or so, the print communication industry has been under pressure (i.e., attack) to address its carbon footprint. Some who are not particularly well informed (but may otherwise be well-meaning) and others who absolutely haven't a clue and couldn't care less, have been decrying print-based communication, and particularly printed advertising, as an environmental pariah, and they've called on government to limit businesses' free commercial speech.

The supposition underlying their complaint is that the creation, the use and the discarding of paper comes at great cost to our world's ecology. If such a supposition were true, I'd be among the first to say "Right on!" In reality, however, much of what underlies this argument is totally without foundation. In fact, I have yet to find any definitive proof that those who decry the use of paper have the requisite data to document their horrific paper-related carbon footprint claims.

In an earlier article ("Mad As Hell" >>>), I ran through the litany of charges that have been levied at advertising mail, and have proven (at least to my own satisfaction) that they are meritless. By now you should be familiar with them, (e.g., advertising mail despoils the nation's forests, produces a monumental environmental problem largely in the form of solid waste that is saturating landfills, or that advertising mail is a vehicle that facilitates criminal identity theft). What I find amazing is that even in the face of the truths, much of the general public, the press and politicians still fall sucker to the myths and untruths about mail that others have propagated.

Even enterprises that have a long history of successful mail use mindlessly join the misguided campaigns against mail-based communication. Apparently, it's in these days to favor the ostensibly more environmentally-friendly alternative avenues of communication, such as the Internet.

Now, I can't tell you the exact dimensions of paper's carbon footprint, but I can tell you this---all of it which should be greeted as good environmental news.

        1. Paper comes from trees that are grown, harvested, and regrown. During their life cycle these trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen.

        2. Used paper can be recycled and remanufactured into other paper products saving the need to use purely virgin fiber.

        3. Paper waste can be converted into electrical energy.

        4. Paper-based information can be stored and read without the need for an external energy source such as electricity.

As for the carbon footprint of mail's electronic alternatives, there's really been no definitive determination of that yet either. Here, however, is some worth pondering.

Effective Internet communication requires the use of computers to serve up the information and communication that this medium makes possible. The Internet as a whole represents millions of computers worldwide that must be online 24 hours a day seven days a week. To access this information also requires that millions of computers be online and connected to the Internet.

How many megawatt hours do you think all this represents? Where do you think the power for these computer systems is coming from? How much of this generated power actually comes from coal? I'll bet that when you total up the answers to these questions you end up with one whale of a carbon footprint.

Think for a second about radio and television (broadcast, satellite, cable). How much power do you think is consumed to be on the air 24 hours a day seven days a week. Think also about the power that is consumed by the millions of televisions and radios that must be turned on to receive these broadcasts. Add to that the power that's consumed to download, store, and replay radio and television programming on wearable, portable audio and video playback devices. Again, I'd bet that all adds up to one Godzilla-sized carbon footprint.

Now, recall for a second the weeping and gnashing of teeth you've been hearing from ForestEthics, GreenDimes, Catalog Choice and every other quick buck outfit trying to make hay off this issue. They've castigated commercial mailers for sending ostensibly "unwanted, environmentally harmful" advertising.

Think about this. For every 30 minutes of TV time only 20 minutes is devoted actual programming. That means 20 minutes out of every broadcast hour consists of advertising. Was all this advertising "wanted" or "environmentally friendly?" And what have the environmental carpers done to give Americans choice over these media? Not a darn thing.

Should they have? No. Why? Because any thinking person knows that without advertising it would be impossible to receive television and radio programming at today's no or low cost.

The bottom line is this. Don't let anyone snooker you into believing that something is true of mail, when it isn't. You want to talk carbon footprints? Before you throw any stones at paper you'd better have your facts (not your myths) in order. And don't make complaints about the mail that could easily be dwarfed by the facts or complaints one could level at other communication channels as well.

That old saying is still true. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.