Recent Blog Posts

Jun 30
000

Building A Global Voice for the Paper Based Communication Industry

By Maynard Benjamin in Facts About The Paper Industry

 
Redwood trees in Muir Woods National Monument,...
Image via Wikipedia

I recently had a business trip to Australia, Japan and New Zealand. The trip was most interesting as during my stay, a new prime minister emerged in Australia that talked about a more collaborative approach to government with references to the environment.

I met with Jim Henneberry the CEO of Australian Paper and his colleague Peter Diplaris. Both were most impressive, especially the proactive approach they were taking to improve the dialog on paper based communication. Frequently, during my visit, you would hear concerns about a stronger voice for the paper based communications industry. I feel that the process of engagement that Jim Henneberry and his colleagues have established in Australia are exactly the collaborative approach that all of us need across the globe.

I am saddened to learn that many school children have come away with the impression that paper is bad and forests are being cut down to produce paper in Australia. Yet many of us know that trees are a renewable crop, that these forests are replanted, that we don’t cut in old growth forests and we have a strong recycling record. Yet, little is being done in school systems to right the impressions of these young learners. We all have the materials but somehow we are not getting them in the right hands.

It seems to me that we must all do a better job educating not only our customers but the next generation of customers on our practices and records. I also believe that Mr. Henneberry’s collaborative approach has great merit and maybe we should look at its applications elsewhere across our industry.

It was also interesting to note the difficulty everyone is having with “cap and trade” systems in trying to validate offsets and determining what an offset should be in the first place. While we all have a good understanding of our individual carbon footprints, it is how we manage and deal with those footprints in the future that are important to all of us. How do we validate an offset? It is on everyone’s minds.

I have left with the region with a better understanding of the very big job we have before us.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 
 
Comment On This
 
Jun 24
000

Following the Paper Trail of Identity Theft …

By BrookSpaulding in Facts About The Paper Industry

 

… reveals a path that changes the way we think!   

Yes, we are all taught that anything that leaves a paper trail can compromise identity, but statistics released by the FTC and the US Postal Inspection Service suggest we need to look elsewhere to stem this rapidly growing crime. Identity theft effects a whopping 9.9 million people each year at a cost of $5 billion, but fewer than 4% of all identity theft cases reported are due from stolen mail according to the FTC and the US Postal Inspection Service. See: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/investigations/MailFraud/fraudschemes/mailtheft/IdentityTheft.aspx

An informative video, “Identity Crises: Protect your Identity”, offers great tips on what to do to reduce the risk of identity theft from both physical and electronic predators. See: https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/pressroom/videos.aspxis

Brook Spaulding
brookspaulding@aol.com

P.S. In full disclosure Brook Spaulding is the principal for a B2B strategic sales, marketing and innovation consultancy; the chief technology officer of a company that licenses patented and patent pending technology for environmentally-friendly mailers; and president of an envelope manufacturing company.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 
 
Comment On This
 
Jun 24
000

“Where’s The Baloney (or Beef)” Label?

By BrookSpaulding in Facts About The Paper Industry

 
Preparing stud beef cattle for an agricultural...
Image via Wikipedia

In a previous blog entitled Please Consider the Environment Before Printing This Email – Baloney, Maynard Benjamin, President and CEO of the Envelope Manufacturers Association, raises some interesting observations on the carbon footprint of coal powered electricity and its implications for web sites, emails, blogs (guilty here, too) and spam. But the “baloney” should also get our attention.

“Please consider the environment before eating this baloney!” I can see the warning label now. How does a baloney sandwich compare to the digital and electronic media?

As one looks at the environmental impact of human activities, I recently came across Mongabay’s web site that points out that nearly 65% to 70% of the Brazilian Amazon Rain Forest Deforestation from 2000 to 2005 was due to cattle ranching (see www.mongabay.com/brazil.html#cattle) while about 2%-3% of deforestation was due to logging. Ok, so the world likes cattle (or at least the beef they provide), but are we recognizing the full environmental impact of liking cattle? IF you are on the fence, then add to this the EPA findings that “methane is over 20x more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period” (see www.epa.gov/methane/) and “ruminant livestock” (cattle, sheep, goats, etc.) are the “third largest source of methane in the US from man related activities” and the largest source for the rest of the world (www.epa.gov/methane/rlep/index.html). So, “where’s the baloney” (or beef) label for fast foods’ carbon footprint?

Note: if a label must be applied for environmental awareness of the carbon footprint of our food, I sure hope it will use a renewable resource like paper!

Brook Spaulding
brookspaulding@aol.com

P.S. In full disclosure Brook Spaulding is the principal for a B2B strategic sales, marketing and innovation consultancy; the chief technology officer of a company that licenses patented and patent pending technology for environmentally-friendly mailers; and president of an envelope manufacturing company.

6/23/10

Enhanced by Zemanta
 
 
Comment On This
 
Jun 24
000

The Future of Paper a Global View

By Maynard Benjamin in Facts About The Paper Industry

 

While having breakfast with one of our GEA Members in Australia, he informed me of a day he spent at his son’s school. We all have spend these “what does your father or mother do” days. When he brought in some envelope blanks to fold, one student, aged 11, indicated he felt that paper was bad. He thought for a time about how best to respond to the young scholar’s statement.

What he ended up doing was talking about trees as a crop and, slightly switched his presentation to talk about how trees are raised, what the wood is really used for, and how his industry recycles products. He was fortunate in having some materials at hand in order to help those students understand that forests are not being cut down to produce printed products.

He indicated it was very difficult to explain sustainability to an 11 year old and it concerned him enough that he went back to get some additional information to send to the class. This is a story that repeats itself time and again, now around the globe. The paper based communication industry has a good record but not talking about that record and the actions the industry is taking to insure that forests are always here, could be costly in the long run.

Our colleague in Australia decided he would do more to get the word out. His message is a message we all need to carry further, after all, if we do not preach what we practice, who will?

 
 
Comment On This
 
Jun 15
000

Please Consider The Environment Before Printing This Email – Baloney!

By Maynard Benjamin in Facts About The Paper Industry

 
Coal-fired Power Plant
Image by Rennett Stowe via Flickr

How many of us have received emails with the tag line mentioned above. The problem with it is that it suggests that paper is bad for the environment and printed paper is even worse.

We are told we can sign up for paperless billing and save trees but is that what we are really doing or is moving wholeheartedly to electronic commerce really that good for the environment?

Don Carli, who is with the Institute for Sustainable Communication, wrote an article on March 31st entitled “Is Digital Media Worse for the Environment than Print?” Mr. Carli suggests a few points in this article that I hope you take with you.

Point 1 – The increased use of digital media is having a profoundly negative impact on our forests and the health of our rivers. I am sure you are saying, what, I thought digital media was powered by green energy? I thought going digital was green? Well, electricity powers digital data centers and the devices in your hand and on your desk. That power largely comes from the consumption of coal and/or oil. In fact in the USA, 57 percent of our electricity comes from coal. Well it does not take long to figure out, more electricity means more coal means more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Point 2 – According to the US Department of Energy, the electricity consumed by data centers in the United States doubled from 2000 to 2006, reaching more than 60 billion kilowatt hours per year, about equal to the electricity consumed by 559,000 homes in one year. According to EPA that number could double again by 2011. I give great credit to the electronic products industry, they are producing more energy efficient devices all the time. But it is the growth rates in these devices that is concerning because that is where the power consumption comes from.

Point 3 – Coal fired digital media is destructive to the environment in many ways beyond deforestation. Coal fired power plants are responsible for 93 percent of the sulfur dioxide and 80 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions generated by the electricity industry.

Point 4 – The paper industry can certainly do more. But look at the facts. Almost 60 percent of the paper that it produces is being recovered by recycling. Most of the power that it uses is produced either through biomass produced energy or by biomass that comes from sustainable forestry operations – ground clutter that is removed and burned to generate electricity.

So I find it ironic that the paper industry and paper gets a bad reputation for being harmful to the environment and yet a competing media, which has potentially far worse consequences for the environment gets little if any attention.

Recently, I commented an interview for USA Today that I supported choice in media and not federal legislation or regulation that drives consumers to digital media. Have we really thought about the consequences of our actions? The harm it may do to the environment in the long run? Don Carli of the Instutite of Sustainable Communications deserves our praise for setting the record straight. You can read his article at www.pbs.org/mediashift/2010/03/is digital-media-worse-for-the-environment-than-paper.

Enhanced by Zemanta
 
 
Comment On This