PrintReLeaf - Scam aimed at printers?

[gordo]

PrintReLeaf is endorsed by Frank Romano, efi, and Idealliance - and it may cost you.

Recently Frank Romano posted an interview he had at Print '17 with Jordan Darragh of PrintReleaf (http://tinyurl.com/y8ey7ujo)

PrintReLeaf (https://printreleaf.com/) describes itself as helping "printing organizations nullify the effect of print on forests. Printers use online tools to calculate print job effects and trees are planted in five forests around the world to compensate for the tress used for printing" . The printer's paper consumption is measured over time to calculate the printer's paper footprint and forest impact over time. Paper consumption data is automatically updated and converted to trees using the "PrintReleaf Standard." Then PrintReLeaf calculates "how many trees were deforested to harvest your paper footprint. Your footprint is automatically reforested at reforestation projects of your choice."

Idealliance has partnered with Jordan & PrintReleaf and will provide members of Idealliance reduced pricing.

I have concerns.

I'm all for planting trees, however, as far as I can determine PrintReleaf is getting printers to subsidize regional social initiatives that have little to no connection to the pulp used in paper making for the print industry.

The website states: "We calculate how many trees were deforested to harvest your paper footprint." However, it's unlikely that the trees that were deforested were going to be used to make paper for printing since 66 percent of the sources of wood fiber for the global paper industry comes from managed natural regeneration forests and plantations and 17 percent from unmanaged regeneration forests. Basically sustainable tree farms. And recycled paper accounts for 38 percent of the world’s total fiber supply while non-wood fibers from plants like hemp or kenaf make up 7 percent.

IMHO, if they want to plant trees - great. If they want to support social initiatives - great. But getting printers to subsidize their efforts based on what appears to be misleading information about the paper they print on is not so great.

The top 10 drivers of deforestation (http://tinyurl.com/y894v9aw) are:

Commercial Agriculture (1/10)
Cattle Ranching (2/10)
Palm Oil Production (3/10)
Subsistence farming (4/10)
Logging for Timber (5/10)
Infrastructure Building (6/10)
Mining (7/10)
Fire (8/10)
Charcoal Production (9/10)
Firewood Collection (10/10)

The pulp and paper industry isn't in the top ten - for a good reason - it's not a driver of deforestation.

They say that this tax subsidy (because that's what it amounts to) on printers is "a replacement for irresponsibly sourced paper." I took a look at their US project: https://www.printreleaf.com/projects/us
The deforestation that took place there was caused by fire - not paper making. They are planting Ponderosa Pine - which is not used in paper making - it's used in construction (#5 in the top 10 above). (They are also planting fruit trees which are also not used in paper making.) So I don't see how planting Ponderosa Pine is a replacement for irresponsibly sourced paper. PrintReLeaf has not been able to provide data on what percent of paper used in the print industry (esp. in the US) is sourced irresponsibly. And they do not actually define what they mean by "irresponsibly"? If the pulp and paper industries are causing deforestation, shouldn't they be taxing them per paper volume manufactured instead of printers who are not involved with pulp sourcing?

This organization appears to have developed a money generating program (certification/usage charges) that is unrelated to its stated goal (countering the deforestation caused by the pulp and paper industry) which AFAIK is a fictional issue.

 

[MailGuru]

Yeah, I remember seeing that story a couple of days ago, and, I had the same thoughts. Actually, my initial thought was "Why?". Printers (the majority of them, anyway) already buy paper from FSC certified sources. Additionally, most of the paper used has at least a 10% (if not, more) recycled content by the mill. Unless there is something I'm not totally getting here, I don't know why Frank, EFI, and Idealliance would lend their name to this venture.

 

[gordo]

Yeah, I remember seeing that story a couple of days ago, and, I had the same thoughts. Actually, my initial thought was "Why?". Printers (the majority of them, anyway) already buy paper from FSC certified sources. Additionally, most of the paper used has at least a 10% (if not, more) recycled content by the mill. Unless there is something I'm not totally getting here, I don't know why Frank, EFI, and Idealliance would lend their name to this venture.

The other scary bit is PrintReLeaf and its partners are promoting this not only to printers but also to print buyers. As Jordan Darragh says "Moreover, we work “through” printers but the service is typically offered to and paid for by end customers who want to strengthen their commitment to sustainability and market their participation by designating their print job as PrintReleaf Certified™.

Yet another meaningless certification.

 

[MailGuru]

They'll probably do well. In the words of PT Barnum, "There's a sucker born every minute..."

 

[Dov Isaacs]

Fortunately, Gordo wrote some excellent responses to the Frank Romano video which I thoroughly endorse.

My personal belief is that this PrintReleaf thing is a total scam not unlike Kars-4-Kids. They are neither a recognized charity or a public corporation and as such, their finances including how much they spend for reforestation as well as how much compensation is paid to the owners of this private organization are not at all disclosed.

Global deforestation is a major international problem, but it has virtually nothing to do with the paper or print industry. PrintReleaf reforestation projects are not even remotely involved in any reforestation of areas used for harvesting trees for paper pulp. If the entrepreneurs behind this organization want to run a global educational and reforestation program, great. But rename it and don't try to make this a “shaming of print and print users” issue.

I did privately correspond with Frank Romano over this and he claims he was just reporting and not endorsing as one of his “silly videos.” I tried to convince him that by not asking any questions of the PrintReleaf representative in the video especially with regards to their basic premises, he was in effect silently endorsing their efforts. I think he better understands this now.

Although I am not in a position (I am not a paper supplier, printer, or print purchaser directly) to do so, I would most strongly advocate that those of you with a stake in this pen some strongly worded letters to the executives of EFI, IDEAlliance, and others supporting this mishagoss making them understand that their position on this is ill-considered based on facts (not just who their customers are) and that your future support for them will be judged on whether they continue any support for PrintReleaf.

- Dov