The Carbon debate - paper vs electronic

I read an interesting article about Carbon myths and being environmentally responsible. It basically stated that if you think you’re saving a tree by reading your news online as opposed to a hard copy paper version – think again.

It might be interesting to a few of you that work in ‘paperless offices’ and think they are doing a world of good (no pun intended).

Here are a few excerpts from the article:

The perception that electronic media leaves less of an environmental footprint than printed material is one of those myths that needs to be debunked once and for all. It’s just not true!

Putting ink on paper is one of the most environmentally responsible ways you can get your message across. However, what is most concerning is that we see many organisations cringing at the thought of using paper as a communication medium.

Some organisations are starting to actively discourage the use of print on paper because apparently it is negatively impacting on the environment. Whether the concern is real or just cost cutting, it is being said often and people are starting to believe it.

So being able to provide a factual counter to these claims is critical… TREES LOCK UP CARBON.

A significant portion of the earth’s carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere and organic matter such as trees and bushes. Carbon in the atmosphere traps sunlight and in doing so contributes to global warming. Paper production can have a valuable impact on reducing this influence.

A report done for the US Carbon and Climate Working Group highlights how the huge reforestation programs taking place in many parts of the world are helping to create a positive shift in the amount of carbon trapped within the environment, rather than the atmosphere.

The reason why this is beneficial is that a tree, which is almost entirely carbon with a small measure of water, grows for about 100 years. Its weight represents the amount of carbon taken out of the atmosphere, so after 100 years very little carbon is absorbed into the atmosphere.

FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING. The more paper we use from sustainable forests, the stronger the contribution towards the fight against global warming. More managed tree plantations equals more carbon locked up and the fibre can be recycled four or five times. Has anyone ever recycled their 1995 laptop into a brand new –up-to-date laptop?

The article then gives a great example of the Carbon myth – print versus electronic. It makes a comparison between reading the printed version of the Stern Review (a 700 page report) and viewing its content using electronic media. The environmental impacts are quite surprising:

-Each copy of the printed review = 85 grams max CO2 that will ever be amounted to. This can also be read as many times as you like over 100 years.

-For every hour spent reading the review on a computer = 226 grams of CO2 for each time you read it (electronically).

-To manufacture the review on a CD = 300 grams of CO2 per copy.

-To manufacture the review on a DVD = 350 grams of CO2 per copy.

So in summary, it’s interesting to get info like this across my desk (note: I did get this in a printed version on 100% recycled stock). I like to think I do my part for the world today so that one day my kids will have a sunnier future.

Take what you will from this, but remember, don’t fall into trends – do your own research and make decisions for yourself. Our world is too precious!