For the Environment

[Cory Smith]

 

[DanB]

Like the question at the store "paper or plastic" who knows????

 

[gordo]

Like the question at the store "paper or plastic" who knows????

This particular cartoon was inspired by exactly that question. I was having a chin-wag with an engineer and his point was that plastic was better since it did not decompose in the landfill the way that paper does and therefore did not release any toxics into the environment.

Also according to a life cycle analysis by Franklin Associates, Ltd, plastic bags create fewer airborne emissions and require less energy during the life cycle of both types of bags per 10,000 equivalent uses -- plastic creates 9.1 cubic pounds of solid waste vs. 45.8 cubic pounds for paper; plastic creates 17.9 pounds of atmospheric emissions vs. 64.2 pounds for paper; plastic creates 1.8 pounds of waterborne waste vs. 31.2 pounds for paper.

Plastic also has lower energy requirements - these numbers are expressed in millions of British thermal units (Btus) per 10,000 bags, again at 1.5 plastic bags for every one paper bag. Plastic bags require 9.7 million Btus, vs. 16.3 for paper bags at zero percent recycling; even at 100% recycling rates, plastic bags still require less - 7.0 to paper's 9.1. What does that mean to me and you? Plastic bags just take less energy to create, which is significant because so much of our energy comes from dirty sources like coal and petroleum.

But if you have a choice then using reusable canvas bags is the way to go. I have a cupboard full of them because I always forget to bring them when I go grocery shopping

best gordo

 

[Deleted member 16349]

But if you have a choice then using reusable canvas bags is the way to go. I have a cupboard full of them because I always forget to bring them when I go grocery shopping

best gordo

Some say that the reusable bag such as your canvas bag, is a breeding ground for germs etc.

The best solution is to quickly eat the food before you get to the check out counter. That way you don't need a bag of any kind and it costs less as long as you don't get caught.

 

[gordo]

Some say that the reusable bag such as your canvas bag, is a breeding ground for germs etc.

The best solution is to quickly eat the food before you get to the check out counter. That way you don't need a bag of any kind and it costs less as long as you don't get caught.

That's why I love the engineering mind. :-D

best, gordo

 

[DanB]

This particular cartoon was inspired by exactly that question. I was having a chin-wag with an engineer and his point was that plastic was better since it did not decompose in the landfill the way that paper does and therefore did not release any toxics into the environment.

Well now I know. Thanks Gordo.

 

[oxburger]

If you want FSC approval for your paper cups, it will take 1 to 3 business days. So you'll have to pre-plan your coffee intake for the week.

 

[MailGuru]

It's like the wording at the bottom of emails now that discourage print "Think before you print - Save the environment". In reality, the Green House Gas emissions and carbon foot print required to provide the electicity to support the computer that you received the email on, as well as the support of infrastructure of the internet that is used for the transmission far outweighs the impact of printing that email. As far as GHG accounting/inventory/carbon usage and reduction is concerned -- it's cheaper to print.

 

[Al Ferrari]

Can you please give some reference to back the idea that computing and the internet create more power consumption that printing.

Put another way, how many of us would have to stop using the internet entirely and/or stop using computers for any purpose so that printing would "again" be the mayor problem?

Al

 

[maas]

"“Many people still believe printing is a dirty industrial process using solvents, smelly inks and noisy equipment.
“The truth is that printing is the most competitive of all. That competition drives owners and managers to reduce waste and become more efficient. That efficiency is the key reason why the carbon footprint has reduced.
“The industry has, almost by accident, become environmentally friendly,” he said.
In 2007 the printing industry was 97% less damaging to the environment than it was in 1990. Phil put this into context by saying that if the automobile industry had achieved the same level of change, a car would now be travelling 100 miles on half a cup of petrol.
Comparing types of media, he said a CD or DVD produces 300 to 350 grams of CO² per copy and becomes a landfill disaster, and a television commercial played on a plasma 106cm display is equal in CO² emissions to one copy of a 16-page paper catalogue.
By comparison, a newspaper is approximately 60 to 70 grams of CO². Even an annual report of 100 full-colour pages releases only about 80 to 85 grams of CO².
“A print advertising campaign is about 1% of the ecological footprint of a television campaign,” he said.
Asking the question whether people would pay for something that was “green”, he said that would not necessarily be the case, but that corporatations would pay for something that enhanced or protected their reputation, and that gave printing an entrée to press its credentials." source

 

[JoeatData]

Just love this version of Re: Print.

I am just finally making some time to respond to it. Like some of you it reminded me of that commercial years ago. Before that commercial ever aired, I got into an disagreement with woman behind me in a check-out line when I paused momentarily when asked...."paper or plastic". My response to the clerk was paper. This led the woman to say...."save a tree". I looked back to the woman and said, trees grow back.....do you have any idea how long that plastic bag is going to sit in a landfill once I trash it? Or the long term affects it will have?

Here's a few interesting items I have read.

Manufacturing computers is materials intensive; the total fossil fuels used to make one desktop computer weigh over 529 pounds (240 kilograms), some 10 times the weight of the computer itself. This is very high compared to many other goods: For an automobile or refrigerator, for example, the weight of fossil fuels used for production is roughly equal to their weights. Also, substantial quantities of chemicals (45.5 pounds or 22 kg), and water (3,307 pounds or 1,500 kg) are also used. The environmental impacts associated with using fossil fuels (e.g. climate change), chemicals (e.g. possible health effects on microchip production workers) and water (e.g. scarcity in some areas) are significant and deserve attention.

It is estimated that the production and running of the ICT(information and communication technology) sector equates to 2% of global GHG emissions, similar to the airline industry, and this is expected to double by 2020.

With a reading time of 30 minutes per day the environmental impact of the web based newspaper was in general in the same range as the printed newspaper environmental impact.

A recent study estimates that developing countries will produce at least twice as much electronic waste (e-waste) as developed countries within the next six to eight years. The authors, who are based in China and the United States, forecast that in 2030 developing countries will discard some 400 million to 700 million obsolete personal computers per year compared to 200 million to 300 million in developed countries. This is significant because uncontrolled toxic emissions result from the informal recycling practices that are often used to deal with e-waste in the developing world. Informal recycling practices documented in China and other developing nations over the past decade include burning plastic computer materials and using crude methods to recover precious metals such as copper and gold by using acids and cyanide. The resulting emissions, which can include dioxins, furans, and cyanide, can harm the recycling workers and pollute local environments.

A study commissioned by the Internet security software company MacAfee estimated spam wastes 33 billion kilowatt-hours annually, with the same greenhouse gas emissions as 3.1 million passenger cars using 2 billion gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive a car around the globe 1.6 million times.

In the United States, we grow more trees than we harvest. The country continues to benefit from a large and diverse forest inventory distributed across about one-third of total land area. The amount of U.S. forestland has remained essentially the same for the last 100 years at about 750 million acres, even though the U.S. population tripled during the same period

Over the last 50 years, the volume of trees growing on U.S. forestland increased 49%.

Over 2.5 billion trees are planted in the United States each year. The forest community plants over 1.5 billion of these trees; that's an average of 4 million new trees planted every day by the forest community. Millions more trees regrow from seeds and sprout naturally.


Don't get me wrong. Yes, we should want less pollution. I just wonder what the long term affects of "Going Green" are going to be? Is it going to be good......or are we just kicking the can further down the road?

 

[DanB]

source[/URL]

Does that include the cost of distribution such as mail trucks and planes?

 

[Deleted member 16349]

In the last year or so, I have become much more optimistic about future energy uses and sources.

As the economists have always stated, when things get expensive due to scarcity or other factors, some other discovery or development comes along. This general rule did not seem to be going to hold up as oil started to become more scarce and expensive to obtain plus the environmental issues with it. But it seems there are lots of other possibilities.

So far my favourite one is nuclear energy from a different nuclear process. Energy from Thorium. This is not heard of much but it has been tested many years ago and there is now a movement to get support to develop it. Its potential is that it is safe and much more efficient than the existing nuclear energy being used and without the enormous waste issues.

The existing nuclear energy process was developed to support the development of weapon grade nuclear material. The Thorium process was not developed because it can not be used for weapon development. This was during the Cold War and the priorities were a bit different then.

And there are many other potential concepts being developed. I have been quite surprised and pleased to see so many new ideas come up when they were needed. A nice mix of really good potential ideas along with the crack pot ones.

How does this potential affect printing? Well it would shift the argument towards the use of intensive electrical usage as being more environmentally beneficial if the electricity would be produced with non petroleum based energy.

It will be more environmentally sound practice to use electrons than paper due to the need to transport paper which will still require fossil fuel energy for quite some time.

 

[iamgemini]

I agree that the printing industry is at the forefront of the green movement. Soy based inks and biodegradable paper are just some of the things that a lot of companies are using, but the truth is that everyone needs to do their part.

Most of the industry knows that they produce too much waste, and whether or not it's for the purposes of saving the planet or increasing profit, many companies are taking steps to reduce the amount.

The whole Green thing is a transition and I think people are prematurely pointing fingers and taking a 'greener than thou' attitude. The truth is the industry is still dirty just like every other industrial based assembly.

The print industry could be doing better, but it is in my opinion on the cutting edge of green technology.