X-Envelope-to: biosph-l@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BIOSPH
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.biosph-l
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:09:00 EST
Reply-To:     "TRACY LOGAN, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE,
              EASTON PA" <LOGANT@LAFAYETT.BITNET>
From:         "TRACY LOGAN, LAFAYETTE COLLEGE,
              EASTON PA" <LOGANT@LAFAYETT.BITNET>
Subject:      Article: Pursuing Truth about Recycled Paper

Paula Ford found me a useful and current article on paper
recycling. It's Ed Ayers' "Whitewash: Pursuing the Truth about
Paper," in the September/October issue of *World-Watch* magazine.

The article's a good read if you want to learn about trends in
papermaking as pressure mounts from environmentally concerned
consumers, and about the paper companies' flimflam, too.

A few quotes:

"Conservatree estimates that every ton of recycled paper saves 17
trees (a very rough estimate) and 3 cubic yards of landfill (a
fairly solid one)."  [So we now have a source for the famous 17 trees!]

"In a typical recycled magazine paper made by a US manufacturer
this year, for example, the total recycled content is 50% -- but
the postconsumer content is only 10%.  Since most printing and
writing paper produced in the US isn't recycled at all, only
about 1% of the material going into it is 'real' waste.  The rest
is virgin wood."

Alan Davis, president of Conservatree.... notes that since 1988,
the EPA guidelines for federal purchases have defined recycled
printing paper to include categories of pre-consumer waste that
have *always* been fed back into the production process.... Davis
says it woud be possible for all the paper used by federal,
state, and local agencies throughout the US to be '100% recycled"
accordig to EPA's definition -- and not reduce the flow of
garbage by one ounce, or the cutting of trees by one twig."

One of Ayers' conclusions I thought was not entirely legitimate:
after defining "post consumer" as "paper that has actually been
used and discarded by final consumers such as magazine readers
and office workers," Ayers states that "only the recycling of
post-consumer waste reduces the cutting of trees or flow to
landfills."

I believe he overlooks a standard (=insane) practice in our
normal (=insane) world, namely that most publishers print at
least twice as many newsstand copies of a magazine as will sell.
When returned at end of week or month, these magazines are not
post-consumer, and that is why the Recyconomic paper we got from
Atlantic Recycled Paper is listed as only 50% postconsumer, tho
the other half is made of such unsold magazines & newspapers.  I
contend that in this crazy world, paper utilizing such waste is
just as tree-saving as paper made from magazines read and tossed.

(Doing something about the practice of overruns, and the high
fraction of each mag that is glossy, large-scale
consumption-oriented advertising, would be even better.  Write me
if you want to see an essay on Madthink, the "logic" of the
Madison Avenue mag publishers, posted a year ago.)

Another question Ayers' does not address is whether even total
recycling of paper, with every scrap recovered, and virgin fiber
used only to replace "entropic" losses, would be viable.  In
other words, will RECYCLE suffice, or are REUSE and REDUCE
required?   - tracy

uucp    : rutgers!lafcol!logant
Bitnet  : loganT @ LAFAYETT
Internet: loganT @ lafvax.lafayette.edu