Green is dying nobodies cares. There is virtually no enforcement of ecological laws and regulations in this industry. There are thousands of laws around the world with no enforcement. Virtually every green certifying body has very little in the way of chemicals used for manufacturing. All of the green certifications aren't worth the paper they are printed on. There is no way to enforce them or any ramifications. The worst that can happen is you loose your certificate.
Since it is apparent that not a single body or association except for ( INGEDE - the International Association of the Deinking Industry ), is worried about anything other than their own preservation why should i bother with this.
The comment made by Sustainable " You Can't Fix Stupid" pretty well sums it up.
good riddance... certifications just line the pockets of the certifiers.
I was once told that I was certifiable.
Originally Posted by TheProcessIStheproduct
I think Green printer has hit on a huge silent part of this industry. I have been in many shops throughout the USA and I heard from just about all of them that the green movement is dead or never even made it to there. A very big portion informed me that the general public doesn't know anything about sustainable green printing manufacturing nor do they even care. The education of the public is the only help for this. Most of the green about printing is directed toward the industry or should we call it the choir. The choir is getting tired and bored of being preached to. Let's get something started and teach the public. All suppliers from equipment to consumables are effected and should join in any activity directed at the general public.
Last edited by Sustainable; 05-20-2012 at 10:07 AM.
Green printing is more difficult than the old methods. The following comments are based on my experience with greener printing. The green solvents don't clean as well so washing blankets and rollers takes longer. Time is money. The green fountain solutions have a narrower operating band which can lead to spoilage. Spoilage is money. Running green requires a well-maintained and finely tuned press. Maintenance requires time and parts which equal money. In any business, the bottom line is the bottom line. When green methods become cheaper to implement than the old ways, then green will take hold. Otherwise, forget it.
On the other hand, printing is an industry that seems to shorten lifespans. Is it the chemicals we have used, the stress of the job or the bad habits many of us have picked up to reduce that stress? I have had three former co-workers die of cancer in the last 18 months and two more diagnosed with stage 4 cancer in the last two months. With 35 years in the industry, the damage has pretty much been done to me. Greener chemicals won't have much of an effect on my cancer risk at this point, but there's still hope for those just getting started.
There are quite a few suppliers of green printing technology and I know of only 2 that provide systems that work in real production environments Amerikal and BestChem&Supply. With proper training these 2 are the most economical offset printing methods available. This systems work for both energy curable and oxidative drying.
Originally Posted by CD102
There are shops who have tried these systems and failed because of not following training, procedures and instructions. I have been in shops were the mangment says that their press crews are untrainable. Some things cannot be fixed until properly educated management can manage the pressroom.
Last edited by Sustainable; 05-29-2012 at 09:16 AM.
I would have to agree with Sustainable. I have been using Amerikal's products for many years now with great success. They are environmentally friendly and safe as far as health concerns.
As far as production efficiencies I have not found anything that can beat them. We are a high end commercial shop with high expectations from our vendors as our customers have of us. Amerikal has never let me down.
Efficiency is high, waste is low, print quality is high, I can't complain.
marketing green is simply another sales gimmick. efficient technologies in general only are taken into account if over all costs are measured in the economy. If dumping toxic waste is measured as an economic loss (and those losses are not just "dumped" on nature) then those who seek opportunities will develop from the loss.
The fact of the matter is, we still use early 19th century combustion engine designs rather than moving towards ceramic turbines that have a higher energy yield due to their design using the thermal components of the energy. Laziness and protection of the producers of this old technology is what makes us keep putting more bells and whistles on an old technology.
Same goes for the print industry.... or any other industry you pick for that matter.... Wind included!!!
Pressroom consumables that are both environmentaly friendly & also safe for the user will never have the same wide operating window as most harmful - standard consumables. One will always need the press condition & settings to be of a good standard, the other will still work & cover up a ill maintaned machine.
One has to ask themselves -
Do you want to use a technology that is safe but requires a commitment to maintanance, correct opperating procedures & a slightly tighter operating window
Do you want to use a technology that is harmful but cover's up for a lack of press maintanance / condition, gives you a wider operating window & less chance of issues from miss use.
If I had the choice I would choose the safer option..
This is extremely humorous CD102 and Lukew talk about lack of maintenance and the narrow operating window of green materials. Again the misnomer is spread! Where do these guys get this stuff? For any press to work correctly it must be maintained. Even the crappy chemistry works a hell of a lot better with a properly maintained press. A properly maintained press can easily be 30% up to 50% more productive no matter what type of chemistry is being used.
Has this ignorance permeated the industry?
Last edited by Sustainable; 05-30-2012 at 08:18 AM.