As the comments began popping up on the screen during our recent Alternative Papers Webinar, we wondered if a virtual fistfight was about to take place. The bone of contention centered on what was said about the use of plastics – namely Category 3 “PVC or Vinyl” and Category 7 “Other” – for making paper.
It was apparent that attendees were passionate about buying sustainable paper. It was also apparent that we needed to address the questions in more depth than the limited online time allowed. We asked two industry experts to help us do exactly that.
Wendy Jedlicka, president of Jedlicka Design Ltd. and author of Packaging Sustainability, along with Peter Nowack, founder of PrintLeadership, provided their input on the questions we received. Their answers are listed separately, one after the other, but please note that they are not part of a conversation between the two.
Q: How do you justify the use of plastics from an environmental perspective? The fact that you can incinerate them or landfill them is not a “green” plus. To use this as a green argument seems to be disingenuous and a greenwash.
PN: This one was my question, I believe, and I stand by my sentiment that to call items that have to be landfilled or incinerated “green” is intentional deception (or the message of one who has no idea what “green” is.)
WJ: Incineration is not a plus for sure – even if you’re burning leaves. But it depends on what the plastic paper is being used for. As a mindless replacement, it’s a bad choice; but when you need water resistance, it could have benefits over laminated wood pulp (energy savings, virgin wood pulp, durability [more use-time per unit], etc.).
Q: Are digital synthetics recyclable? Are there environmental concerns with the production of this paper?
PN: I cannot answer specifically – I don’t know the manufacturing process – but if the substrate is PVC, then somewhere in the manufacturing process there is a risk associated with dioxins and PCBs and a whole host of other nasty things. I am attaching a Greenpeace paper on PVC production, which though a decade old, is still germane. When we consider environmental risk, we need to consider upstream as well as downstream impacts. In a global marketplace, the upstream impacts can take place far away from the manufacturing location of the final product.
WJ: Some are in a closed-loop system. But what are we calling recycling? True recycling like glass, or downcycling like type 7 into plastic lumber?
Q: How can you state “indefinite recyclability”? They are NOT recyclable.
PN: The use of the term “indefinite recyclability” is, in the best of cases, doublespeak – and in this case totally inaccurate. If I heard the speaker correctly, he was talking about how long this stuff lasts, so it doesn’t have to be “recycled” (more accurately, “disposed of) for a long time – an indefinite time. This has nothing to do with recyclability.
WJ: Natural pulp fiber is not “indefinitely recyclable.” It can make six trips or so before becoming too broken to use.
Q: Is there a risk of Synthetics contaminating the recycled paper stream?
PN: There is always a risk of contaminating the recycled paper stream, and it happens all the time. (I have heard of instances where heavy machine parts are put into bundles of recycled cardboard to increase the weight and the corresponding revenue.) If non-recyclable fiber is not properly separated from recyclable material, it will likely result in increased waste-to-landfill.
WJ: Absolutely. But for some recyclers it doesn’t matter all that much. Many are now taking milk cartons – lovely white board sandwiched between layers of PE, requiring no deinking as ink never actually touched the board. The new repulpers simply grind the feederstock small enough to release the white pulp. The PE laminate with the ink stuck to it simply floats away. Unfortunately then that PE/ink combo becomes part of the toxic sludge left over.
Q: How do you avoid synthetics contaminating the paper-recycling stream?
PN: Don’t use them.
WJ: Don’t call it recyclable. OR, make it so it easily disintegrates in the pulper. Though it will still become part of the toxic sludge left over.
Q: You mentioned that some of the Synthetics are great for outdoor promos of 30-60 days etc., yet given that they are not recyclable (yet) or are from synthetic, nonrenewable materials, I would encourage everyone to think beyond that time frame to look at the big picture. Some of these synthetics may in fact live way beyond their intended usage, as you say, almost “indefinitely” and still end up in the waste-stream without biodegrading. We need to consider the entire life cycle: sourcing, manufacturing and end-of-life. Yes, these products can be used a long time and then can be thrown away, but really, where is “away?”
PN: Good point. We have pretty much run out of new “away” places and are building on top of our old “aways” – with not terribly great results (methane seepage is not a lot of fun).
WJ: “We need to consider the entire life cycle: sourcing, manufacturing and end-of-life.” This is completely true, but functionality is also part of this equation. What function is the “paper” performing? You have to weigh the physical thing against its intended purpose. You can’t just weigh variables in a vacuum.
Q: Do Synthetics have a life span?
PN: There is a physical-property life span, and a much shorter “useful life” span. When the promotion is over, the printed piece is no longer useful – that happens very quickly in this day of disposable ideas. Better to print on something that can be easily recycled.
WJ: Everything has a life span.
Q: Could recycling or manufacturing legislation affect synthetic paper products?
PN: It could. Germany insists that manufacturers take total life-cycle responsibility for their products in that country. But in this country, don’t hold your breath.
Q: Has a lifecycle analysis been performed on synthetic papers; and if so, are the results available?
WJ: Some studies have been done on these papers, but from what I’ve seen so far, they are sponsored by the manufacturers. Some good third-party investigation would be in order.
Q: Is there dependency on foreign oil in its production?
PN: Interesting question, but it really doesn’t matter if it is foreign or domestic – it is still hydrocarbon, with all of the greenhouse gas, VOC and toxicity problems of hydrocarbon production. Oil is not healthy for printers and other living things.
WJ: Depends on the paper, and where it’s made. Plus what “foreign” entity are you worried about? In the United States, we get only about 18 percent of our oil from the Middle East. I’d be just as worried about our local foreign oil coming from Canada’s oils sands. Plus how is the “paper” made? Using alternative energy or mountain-topped coal?
Q: What is the actual recovery rate for Synthetics? Paper is at 57 percent.
WJ: Effectively zero.
Q: How can PVC substrates be incinerated safely?
PN: Lots of things can be safely incinerated (if appropriate exhaust scrubbing technology is employed), but it takes a lot of fuel to get rid of the stuff we don’t want – unless the heat from incineration is used to generate energy, getting rid of waste is itself a wasteful process. And, there is no guarantee that the incineration will be done in a place that employs appropriate technology. A lot of our waste gets shipped offshore – who knows what technology (if any) is employed in such places.
WJ: They can’t. PVC is a product that should never have been produced period.
Q: Paper accounts for 25 percent of landfill waste. So how does using a synthetic substrate ease the burden since it’s not easily recyclable or burned safely?
WJ: It eases the burden on virgin tree harvesting, not landfill or incineration.
Q: What do you mean by “inert” and “benign?”
PN: See the Greenpeace document for a discussion of what can happen when PVCs are landfilled. And, while the finished sheet seems relatively inert and benign, remember to consider the upstream impacts associated with PVC production. My question to the manufacturer is WHAT ASSURANCE CAN YOU PROVIDE ABOUT ANY OF YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS?
WJ: Inert and Benign are very specific. It doesn’t readily bioaccumulate. Example: Glass is inert.
Q: There are “plastic” boxes sometimes used for things like lettuce in the grocery store that are actually made from corn. Do you know if bio-products like that have been tried to create products w/similar water proof, strength, etc. qualities like these synthetics have?
WJ: Sort of. PLA films are in production, but so far work best as structural films (Vacuum-formed clear boxes for fruit) or clear folding cartons. The thinner films (about the same weight as the paper) they’ve used for window films (cake boxes), but this is too fragile for a whole sheet of paper. Even thinner films for laminates.
Q: How many times can Synthetics be recycled?
PN: Well if a product must be incinerated or landfilled, then the answer is ZERO.
WJ: What is your definition of recycled? Which synthetic?
Q: Are manufacturers doing anything specific to work with municipal recycling systems?
PN: Recycling is a market-based activity. When there is a market for recycled something, AND the technology to recycle it is available and not prohibitively expensive, AND the costs of sorting and transporting the material to the recycling facility are not prohibitively expensive, AND there is sufficient material in the waste stream to support an ongoing enterprise, then that something has some possibility of being recycled. If not, it is just disposed of.
WJ: Don’t know, but unless they want to start another PLA Bottle moratorium counter action again, they better have this on the front burner.
Debates about the relative merits and negative environmental impacts of paper made using tree-fiber, mineral fillers and coatings vs. substrates made of petrochemical polymers, mineral fillers and coatings without disclosure and independent verification of lifecycle data are a waste of time and words.
If buyers want to make informed decisions they should require independently verified ISO 14025 Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and ISO 14040 Life Cycle Assessments for all products.
It always amazes me how such ordinarily intelligent people fail to dig deep enough into issues to get to the heart of the matter. This is especially true in the case of sustainability given the fact that answers to questions always come from parties with their own particular agenda.
To that end, I could go on forever in discussing the inaccuracies in, or more often than not the inadequate replies to, environmental questions. A good example of an inadequate reply to an evironmental question can be found in the very first question regarding incineration. While it is, of course, true that incineration creates green house gases, it is rediculous to think that incineration is automatically a bad thing based on the fact that it creates green house gases. The incineration process creates valuable, usable ENERGY which would otherwise be supplied by processing FOSSIL FUELS (a.k.a.-non-renewable resources). Considering this OBVIOUS, but somehow overlooked fact, the questions becomes, “which is WORSE for the environment?” Unless we are willing to return to hunters and gatherers, we must find alternative energy sources which reduce or eliminate negative impact on the environment. But be wary, “negative impact on the environment” is defined quite differently by different NGO’s depending on their particular agendas.
This brings me to the next glaring lack of detail-when we talk about the harvesting of “virgin fiber trees,” we should think regionally. Why, well take Sweden (the country where my company is located) as an example. Government legislation passed before 1910 regarding how forests should be managed (with sustainable growth at it’s core) meant that Swedish forests would have met FSC and PEFC criteria in 1910. Hmmmm…wonder why. Well, considering that the forest has ALWAYS been the economic lifeblood of the post industrial Swedish economy, legislators thought it might be a good idea to preserve that natural resource. DUH! Unique? No! The same is true for the North American forest products industry and many other places around the world. In fact, given the fact that virgin fiber is in MORE abundant supply today than it was 50 years ago, it might be worth considering that RECYCLED fiber is a finite resource. Oh and by the way, has anyone stopped to ask where recycled fiber comes from? Answer-VIRGIN FIBER! So, given the above stated fact that a fiber can be recycled a maximum of 7 times before it’s unusable in the papermaking process (with significantly diminishing return with each recycling process), it is safe to say that without a significantly greater supply of virgin fiber, there can be NO RECYCLED FIBER. Again, the question changes in light of these fairly obvious (if you’re willing to ask yourself some common sense questions) facts. The question isn’t whether to recycle or not, it’s where, or in which type of papers, should the limited recycled fiber available be used? Or better put, where can it be used most efficiently? So, a word of advice for Forest Ethics-be careful not to cut off your nose in spite of your face. We simply cannot ALL use recycled paper!!! Take off your narrow minded blinders, man! Consider the impact on the environment wholistically, not with an eye to your personal agenda.
Another quick example of how the benefits of recycling are often misconstrued-let’s consider reusable glass milk bottles or milk packaged in paperboard containers. It almost seems obvious, how could using paperboard, which will either end up in a landfill or incinerated, be better for the environment than reusable glass milk bottles? Well, consider that 40% of the space on a truck which not only delivers the milk, but which also picks up the empty bottles, is taken up by glass versus 5% with paperboard. So, not only do you need almost twice as many trucks to deliver the milk, but yo need just as many to pick up the bottles and bring them back to the plant for processing. Then, of course, we must consider that the processing/sterilization process has it’s own carbon footprint which also produces greenhouse gases. In order to consider the OVERALL impact on the environment we must consider ALL the facts. Which process, in it’s entirety creates more greenhouse gas emissions? Why don’t people think like this? These are not questions only a rocket scientist can answer, they are COMMON SENSE questions?
Lastly, are we talking about environmental responsibility or sustainability? They are not one in the same; sustainability is a 3 pronged fork. It addresses not only environmental sustainability, but also SOCIAL AND FINANCIAL sustainability! It is very often the case that those objectives are at odds with one another, and as such cultures, companies and governments walk a fine line in balancing their commitments to each.
Just some food for thought. Stop, and THINK!
Thank you SO much for this follow up. I had many of the same questions in mind when I listened to the presentation, and I am so glad you asked them. Gives me pause before I spec that stuff.
– artdogz (m hutchins)