Paper Consumption and Its Environmental Impact

Focus the Nation Essay Contest Winner - Business Obligations and Opportunities in Response to Climate Change By Katherine Vance Distributions of this paper or ideas contained herein, without the consent and permission of Katie Vance, is prohibited

Abstract:
As of 2005, paper and paperboard consumption, in the United States, grew 154% from 1961 levels and peaked in 1999 at a 174% increase from 1961. The U.S. is the world’s largest producer and consumer of paper; over six times greater than the worlds average and about 25% greater than Japan, the world’s second largest paper consumer, per capita.   Post Consumer paper recycling is a beneficial practice, but not enough.  Paper consumption must be reduced, not reused.  The reduction of paper consumption and deforestation rates will allocate the remaining forests to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, while the world lacks other conversion methods.  Deforestation is costly to individual eco-systems and also Earth’s climate.  An innovation to replace certain types of paper consumption is direly needed.  This paper provides an overview of the global warming problem and how paper consumption contributes.  It also addresses potential business opportunities that incorporate the reduction of paper consumption.  By reducing paper consumption and production a reduction in GHGs will follow.

Paper Consumption and Its Environmental Impact

Paper consumption has escalated since mass production took hold, about AD 105.(i)  As of 2005, paper and paperboard consumption, in the United States of America, grew 154% from 1961 levels and peaked in 1999 at a 174% increase from 1961.  It is estimated that 20% of deforestation is due to paper consumption; and to manufacture one pound of paper requires three and a half pounds of wood and produces three pounds of carbon dioxide(CO2).(ii)  Because paper consumption diminishes natural resources and increases greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere, it is an ideal arena to introduce innovative methods by which humans can reduce superfluous environmental impacts.  Recent antecedent decades were riddled with debate (and denial) regarding the harmful effects wreaked by GHG’s in the atmosphere.  In spite of the dispute, humans instituted a few changes in paper consumption behaviors, but, because paper consumption remained fairly steady, the changes provided insignificant relief.   Leading up to present day paper consumption has received modest attention.  Currently, measures such as post-consumer recycling slightly reduce deforestation; however, the energy consuming recycling process produces GHGs and recycling requires using another natural resource: water.   Therefore, recycling logic is advantageous but less valuable than recycling coalesced with consumption reduction.  Reducing paper consumption reduces deforestation, which results in forests available to convert CO2, from other CO2 producers, into oxygen.  To further explore the reduction of paper consumption the remainder of this paper will elaborate on three areas: (1) GHGs: their effects and how deforestation contributes, (2) Potential solutions and business opportunities, and (3) Primary data regarding the feasibility of prospective business opportunities. 

Greenhouse Gases and their Effects:

Earth’s atmospheric GHG constituents are: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), and Flourocarbons (typically chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)).  This paper focuses mainly on CO2, the largest contributor (See Fig1).

Not long ago physicists discovered a simple equation regarding incoming power (light waves) from the Sun:  Power in = power out.(iii)  Earth is in a radiation power balance with the Sun.  Power comes in from the sun, some energy is stored in Earth’s surface and atmosphere, and then infrared radiation (IR) radiates out to space.  When Earth’s atmosphere is devoid of GHGs, there is good drainage of power-out from the Earth.  But when GHGs are added, it restricts power from exiting; thereby building pressure and temperature until power-out equals the incoming power (See Fig2).

If GHGs failed to exist in Earth’s atmosphere Earth’s surface temperature would be colder than temperatures during an ice age.  With roughly 200 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere, Earth’s temperature would roughly be freezing (350F).   Clearly, we need GHGs in the atmosphere to sustain our life on Earth, but excessive GHG saturation generates negative effects.  From the Industrial Revolution until the end of the 20th century CO2 in the atmosphere increased by 30%, likely because of humans.  Humans contribute to CO2 when they burn fossil fuels for: heating their homes, driving their cars, turning on lights, manufacturing goods, and transporting those goods.  If CO2 production keeps apace, the average global temperature could increase 10.4° F, by the end of the 21st century.(iv)  An increase in temperature holds potential consequences for forests, such as slower tree growth.  According to Stan Wullschleger, “…a tree may experience reduced growth because of an inadequate supply of nutrients.  Also, because leaf pores tend to close under drought conditions to hold in what little water the tree has, the tree’s uptake of photosynthetic CO2 will be reduced, further slowing its growth.” (v) Reducing a tree’s CO2 intake will force humans to find another means by which to covert CO2 into oxygen (see Fig3 for a causal loop diagram showing the relationship between CO2 and forests).

Fossil fuels, rich in carbon because they are primarily made up of decayed plants from millions of years ago, combine carbon with oxygen to form CO2, when they are burned. (vi)  The process of deforestation results in fewer plants available to convert CO2.  The problem of CO2 production rate, therefore, begins to grow exponentially because as deforestation adds to the total CO2 in the atmosphere, simultaneously the only known CO2-converter is depleted.   Once in Earth’s atmosphere CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect for fifty to two hundred years.  Understanding this relationship between CO2 and forests is of great importance because it is estimated that deforestation is responsible for 25% of global CO2 emissions. ii   If humans can significantly reduce deforestation, then the resulting greenhouse effect can plausibly be manipulated before irreversible damage occurs. 

One obvious option may jump out:  plant MORE forests and green plants to offset any greenhouse effect resulting from humankinds’ addiction to fossil fuels.  Unfortunately soil erosion and urbanizations prevent reclaiming land to use for planting forests.  According to EarthTrends.com, the original amount of forest area in the U.S. as a percentage of total land area was: 53.5%; as of 1996 the current amount of forest area in the U.S. as a percentage of the original amount is 60.2%.  This means in roughly 200 years the U.S. wiped out 40% of its forests.(vii)  To give you an idea of the amount of forest destroyed, the U.S. (50 states and D.C.) is 9,161,923 square miles (sq/mi) of land; 53% (4,855,819 sq/mi) originally was forest.  Today, however, remains 2,913,491.5 sq/mi of forest. 

Current paper reduction methods: 

The U.S. is the world’s largest producer and consumer of paper; over six times greater than the worlds average and about 25% greater than Japan, the world’s second largest paper consumer, per capita (See Fig4). 

Assuming the consumption rate of paper for the previous two hundred years continues without intervention then in roughly 300 years the U.S. would completely deplete its forests.  Even if intervention tactics are instated scientists are unable to predict the efficacy of replanting on nutrient deficient soil, and/or how forests will react to rising temperatures.  Therefore, slowing deforestation rates is critically important right now. 

Current paper conservation programs commonly focus on college students; whereby students are asked to reduce their paper margins to .75 inches; doing so saved Penn State over $123,000 per year.  Another method encourages printing on both sides of one sheet of paper.   According Drew University’s “Drew Vision”, double sided copies saves 1.5 Million sheets of paper per year.  The aforementioned methods are good and fine, however I envision a larger program will yield larger results (and substantially decrease the deforestation rate). 

Potential Solutions, Business Opportunities, & Primary Data:

Improve current methods

If reducing printer margins from one inch to .75 inch saves $123,000 per year for one college, then using .60 printer margins will save $196,800 per year for colleges similar to the size of Penn State.  Encouraging all colleges, primary and secondary education institutions to adopt .60 printer margins, increases the impact and savings as seen by Penn State.  Additionally all education institutions should instate using a single spaced format for all student-authored documents.  With a single-spaced format, I estimate a savings of 151,574 pounds of paper per year, at the University of Colorado, alone.xi  People read books everyday that are single spaced, it should be the same for student reports. 

Instate my innovation

Immediately stop issuing receipts for certain goods and/or services.  I surveyed 100 people to gauge the typical American’s opinion regarding a paper-less receipt system.  The survey respondents, from age 18 to over 42 years old, suggest that approximately 80% of the U.S. population (greater than 15 years old), receives one to three receipts per day.  Responses to the survey revealed that eleven percent disposes of their receipts immediately.  This is an area that paper consumption can be immediately reduced.  For if the receipts being issued are immediately discarded then what is the point of the receipt?  If eleven percent of U.S. citizens bypassed accepting just two receipts per day, the paper savings would be 23,971,264 lbs of paper each year, which equates to 83,899,422 pounds of wood, 542,371 trees, and 0.0123% of 2005’s consumption record. 

Eleven percent of the population (> 15 years old, in U.S.) is a conservative estimate.  If consumers were offered an alternative option to paper receipts, the survey respondents suggest they would use the alternative.  My innovation is loosely analogous to users of the Safeway Club-card; I call it the “green card.”  Using my innovation a “green card” user is given the option from the credit-card terminal at the point of purchase, to send a receipt to their email (privately tied to the card).  This permits those who want receipts to keep them in an email account, and print them only when necessary, as well as, those who wish to waive the receipt can decline the receipt altogether.  The “green card” provides consumers a safe, organized, and reliable storage of their receipts.   This proposal includes massive savings, from the cost of purchasing and transporting paper used to issue receipts, for retailers.  Survey respondents (74%) answered that they believe on online receipt system is an acceptable alternative to paper receipts.  Of the 100 people surveyed seventy-one responded that they do not think moving to a digital receipt system would be a difficult change affecting their daily life.  Using results from the survey, in conjunction with potential and feasible estimates for the reduction of paper consumption, I believe this is not only possible, but necessary given the state of the deforestation system. (viii)

 Fig3:

*Global warming effects are, but not limited to, dry forests susceptible to forest fires (natural, and human caused), large amounts of forest being eaten by bugs due to longer warm seasons, inability to replant forest due to nutrient depletion in soil, etc. 

Citation: