Paper and Other Absolute Truths Providing Analysis and Perspective Uncommon in Mainstream Media

Frank Lacontore of Green America commented on my recycling stories in April… see here and here. His retort was condescending, but I always appreciate hearing from readers, even when they have an attitude.

His comment follows, in its entirety. When you reach the end, I will take my turn.

This is an important discussion and I thank Verlefor raising the issue. As one of those “distrustful” NGOs, it would probably be helpful to provide my perspective. My points are the paper industry and NGOs are working together, and that decisions should be based on relevant comparisons.

In full disclosure, I am employed by the non profit, Green America and I direct our Better Paper Project assisting magazines’ efforts to use environmentally responsible paper. As one of the founding members of the Environmental Paper Network (EPN), I also collaborate with some of those other “frightening” and “distrustful” NGOs like ForestEthics, Dogwood Alliance, and National Wildlife Federation (NWF).

With the AF&PA, the EPN co-hosted a Paper Summitin AF&PA’s DC offices on 4/8 to talk about recovering more paper from the waste stream. You ask, “How will we recover more paper?” Guess what? We decided to collaborate; yes, NGOsand industry, and EPA, and academic institutions, and waste haulers would collaborate to boost recovery to 75% up from the current 63% recovery rate. A couple of the decisions we made that day were to develop a cohesive and comprehensive communication strategy to help educate people about recycling particularly children in K-12; and, we’d build more support from office building owners and managers to collect their paper.

As for using relevant comparisons, the argument that P&W consumers using recycled paper are harming the environment is just way off the mark. A magazine publisher’s (overly simplified) paper decision is will I print on virgin fiber paper or recycled paper? They are not deciding whether or not to print their magazine on recycled P&W vs. recycled newsprint or paperboard. If a magazine decides to use recycled paper, they will need, on average, 1.4 tons of recovered paper to make 1 ton of recycled paper – a 71.4% fiber efficiency. {We’ve learned from your recent post about your conversation with FutureMark CEO Steve Silver, that they have a much higher fiber efficiency than the average.] But, here’s the key comparison: That 71.4% fiber efficiency must be compared to the magazine’s other choices CGW or CFS, not newsprint or egg cartons. If a magazine publisher chooses CGW it requires 2.2 tons of fresh wood to make 1 ton of virgin fiber paper – a 45% fiber efficiency. If the publisher chooses CFS, they are choosing to consume 4.4 tons of fresh trees to make 1 ton of paper – a 23% fiber efficiency.

I havenot seen any research that demonstrates pulping 2.2 or 4.4 tons of trees is less energy intensive, uses less water, emits fewer greenhouse gases, or diverts more paper from the waste stream than the process of deinking 1.4 tons of paper.

Yes, there is conflict between NGOs and industry, and, just as in with democracy, a respectful debate around conflicting ideas can be healthy and drive towards lasting solutions. But, being fearful and distrustful is not just unhelpful, it’s so 2002. The last ten years has ushered in a new era of collaboration and activism. Let’s get with the program and work together to solve the problems.

Point 1 – Mr. Lacontore put “distrustful” and “dangerous” in quotes, as if it were bizarre to accuse such altruistic organizations of deceit and self-interest.  Later he suggested that “being fearful and distrustful is not just unhelpful, it’s so 2002”.

That “holier than ‘for profit’” nonsense doesn’t fly here. Fund raising and philosophy drive NGOs, and that makes them more dangerous than “for profit” businesses that are primarily motivated by financial success. 

Oh, and I can’t believe he really made that “it’s so 2002″ comment. Admittedly, I am not a very good writer, but I could never have come up with a phrase so reflective of eastern, liberal, elitism. Wow, that is perfect.

“Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience.” — Adam Smith

Mr. Lacontore writes that we should not be fearful, but he had to be smiling and winking at the time. The entire environmental movement is based on fear. These organizations sell fear like a commodity. They warn us that we will not have enough clean water, clean air, trees, waste disposal sites, and most crucial of all, climate is out-of-control. “Act now, before it is too late.”  Over and over we hear these emotional pleas. Remember, if there is no fear, then there is no money coming in. (For more on “fear” and NGOs, see pages 2 and 3 from Conventional Wisdom and the Modern Environmental Movement, part one). 

Then, of course, fear is the strategy these organizations use to coerce corporations into agreeing to this program or that. ForestEthics and Greenpeace blatantly admit to blackmailing corporations. They are proud of these “campaigns” – which, by the way, are great fund raisers. I see on the Green America web site that this NGO tells us where to shop and where not to shop, where to invest, and what companies to boycott. Obviously, Mr. Lacontore wants his NGO to be feared, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

I am afraid of these organizations. Not because they can harm me personally, but because of the impact of their policies. Pressure from environmental organizations resulted in changed laws that led to the deaths of tens of millions of the poor. See here, and here, and here. Many other programs, particularly those related to climate change will, if adopted, wreak economic havoc, and result in more pronounced world poverty.

Point 2 – In his third paragraph, Lacontore misquotes me. I did not ask “How will we recover more paper?”, but that is the question he answers. He goes on to describe initiatives that his NGO and others are involved in that will assist in recovering more paper. That is wonderful. I have been encouraging NGOs to become more involved in paper recovery for many years. By the way, while working on this issue, I hope they are also addressing the contamination problems being created by growth in the single stream collection method.

Point 3 – Lacontore suggests that my “argument that P&W [printing and writing] consumers using recycled paper are harming the environment is just way off the mark”. He then goes on to compare the fiber recovery rate of 71.4% (when converting waste paper into P&W grades) with his estimates of fiber efficiency rates when using virgin fiber.

(These fiber efficiency rates of 45% for coated groundwood and 23% for coated free sheet have little meaning, for a number of reasons. We will just mention a few items, and then move back to the main issue. First, harvesting trees is not a bad thing and preferable to allowing trees to die of disease, old age, and fire. Second, virgin fiber is needed to produce lumber and paper, etc because we can not recycle more than 100% of all waste paper recovered. There is no more waste paper to recycle. Third, the majority of fiber used to produce paper in North America is residual fiber which is a lumber mill by-product.)

Lacontore  frames his argument as a choice between using recycled fiber to produce P&W grades and using virgin fiber to produce these same grades. But that is not the issue. The issue is that there is more demand for recycled fiber than there is supply. We can not increase the use of recycled fiber in P&W grades without reducing the use of recycled fiber in other grades. The choice is simply where to use the limited supply of recycled fiber at our disposal.

In order to be clear, a summary of our position on paper recovery and recycling follows.

1. Recovering waste paper and recycling it is a net positive for the environment.

2. Since more fiber is recycled when utilizing waste paper for production of packaging, and the lower quality paper grades (as well as insulation and other industrial applications) these low-end applications generally havea relative environmental benefit over P&W grades. (Steve Silver of FutureMark taught us that this is not always the case. His company’s coated groundwood mill does not fit the pattern and utilizes recycled fiber even more efficiently than newsprint recycled machines.)

3. For at least the last decade, probably the last 15 years, and maybe the last 20 years, all recovered paper has been recycled. Recovered paper does not go to landfill! A possible exception to this blanket statement might be a short period of time in late 2008 or early 2009 after the financial crisis.

4. So in summary, if we choose to use the limited amount of recovered paper we have access to in the production of higher quality grades (with the FutureMark exception), then the amount of fiber recycled would be reduced due to lower efficiency. Therefore, promoting recycled fiber in new value-added applications (copy paper, magazines, direct mail, Sunday inserts, etc) results in less paper fiber being recycled.

Let’s not exaggerate; the amount of fiber lost or gained from using recycled fiber to produce one grade rather than another is not enormous. It has only a very small environmental impact. Nevertheless, the point is that NGO and government pressures to increase recycled content are not only unneeded, but disruptive to the free market system (drive some of the most efficient paper recyclers out of business), and are even negative for the environment.

What Steps Can We Take to Recycle More Paper

The actual question I had asked (see point 2 above) was, “How do we increase the amount of paper being recycled?” In the past I suggested that there was only one way to increase the amount of paper being recycled, but I have modified that stance a bit. There is one primary step we can take to recycle more paper, and that is to recover more waste paper. Growth in the use of recycled fiber is not constrained by too little demand, but by too little supply.

Although  increasing paper recovery rates is the primary answer, there are at least two other ways we can recycle more paper fiber. The single stream collection method is contaminating and destroying up to 20% of all the paper recovered. It is extremely important, therefore, to take steps to clean up this means of paper recovery. If the single stream method can not be fixed, then other methods for collecting paper should be developed.

Lastly, utilizing recovered paper in the most efficient manner increases the amount of fiber being recycled.

Increasing Demand is not the Answer

Creating additional demand for recycled fiber does not result in more paper being recycled! That would only be the case if additional demand saved recovered paper from going into landfill – and it doesn’t.

Just as an aside, it could be argued that high demand for waste paper is actually resulting in reduced supply. If municipal waste collection companies had to work hard to find buyers for their waste paper, then they would do a better job of figuring out how to reduce paper contamination. As it is, with recovered paper in short supply, waste paper buyers are forced to buy whatever is collected, regardless of the poor quality. Waste companies have no incentive to reduce contamination. In fact, throwing a little garbage into each bale of paper increases the weight, and therefore the price, of that bale of “paper”. I am not suggesting that this happens intentionally, but it is clear that waste companies have inadequate financial incentive to improve the cleanliness of the process.

How About the Future?

Even if paper consumption was still growing in North America (so that the supply of recovered paper was increasing), and even if there had been no great surge of demand from China, the free enterprise system would have been able to efficiently recycle all the waste paper recovered in the years ahead. However, I will acknowledge that if North American paper demand was still growing, and China was not a major source of demand for recovered paper, then the NGOs could make a counter argument (weak though it would be) that demand for recycled paper should be encouraged because that demand would be needed in the future.

But that is obviously not the case. There is absolutely no reason to believe that there will be an excess of recovered paper in the future that will have to be landfilled. It is highly probable that P&W paper demand in the US will continue to decline (cyclically) – we just hope it is a slow decline. As the graph below demonstrates, supply of recovered paper probably won’t increase at all, even if our recovery rates jump much higher. By the way, keep in mind that growth in paper recovery rates in recent years is primarily due to the greater adoption of single stream collection methods. If we don’t clean up the single stream process then much, maybe all, of the additional paper recovered will be lost to contamination.

Meanwhile Chinese demand for U.S. waste paper continues to climb. The only thing that tends to slow Chinese purchases is extremely high prices. When recovered paper prices run up sharply, the Chinese back off. But they will always return. Many of the machines in China require recycled fiber to operate. We expect the Chinese to continue buying higher volumes of recovered paper from the U.S. in the years ahead – as long as U.S. trade regulations allow this to happen.

Summary

Our government and NGOsshould be held accountable for false claims. The facts are clear. This is not a subjective issue. What we hear from Green America, Greenpeace, ForestEthics, etc is  dead wrong. Furthermore, these NGOs know that they are not being truthful when they claim that additional demand for recycled paper is needed and helpful.

The absolute truth is that there are only two reasons for government entities and NGOs to promote increased demand for paper containing recycled fiber – ignorance or opportunism.