Is paper better than plastic?

Forest and Bird, Issue 266, 1 November 1992, Page 18

Is paper better than plastic?

Ian Close

HE ONGOING DEBATE over the relative environmental failings of paper and plastic illustrates many of the dilemmas that exist in establishing environmental standards. This magazine, for example, is despatched in a plastic wrapper and we get queries from members about the wrapper and its supposed lack of environmental friendliness. To be honest, there are some pretty good non-environmental reasons for using the plastic: it costs us less which leaves more money for the society’s conservation programmes. It also protects the magazine better: you get less damaged and wet magazines, we get less complaints. If it was just a matter of saying that paper is a renewable resource and is relatively easy to recycle, while plastic is made from petroleum which is not renewable and is more difficult to recycle, then the decision would be easy. But a good cradle-to-grave analysis has more to it than that. What about some of the less visible environmental impacts such as the relative levels of pollution in manufacture? Or the energy used in transporting the raw materials and the finished products?

Here are some issues to think about in determining the environmental costs of paper and plastic: * paper is a renewable resource but doesn’t always come from renewable forests. * paper production generally creates more air pollution (sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and dust, but not hydrocarbons) than does plastic production. In fact paper manufacture is one of the least environmentally friendly industrial processes known. The paper recycling process is less harmful. ¢ plastic bags require only half as much energy to produce as the equivalent-strength paper bags. * paper manufacture produces a lot more waste water than plastic manufacture and also a higher chemical pollutant load. * plastic is lighter for the equivalentstrength paper thus saving significantly on the energy needed for transport and distribution. * plastic is very slow to degrade and is hazardous to wildlife if it ends up in waterways or the ocean. * paper degrades more quickly but in the compacted airless condition

of landfills produces methane — a greenhouse gas. Sometimes it barely degrades at all and there have been cases of decades-old newspapers being dug up which are still readable. * paper can be recycled and often is. ¢ plastic can be recycled but not much is. There are more issues to consider in the equation. The technology used in the paper manufacture can vary considerably in its environmental impact, depending on whether the paper is bleached with oxygen or chlorine agents. Also, paper made in New Zealand will cause less air pollution than paper made overseas because more of the energy used is from hydro rather than thermal sources. There will also be less energy transport costs. Confused? It is not obvious whether paper or plastic is the clearcut environmental villain. Both have their uses. The answers lie in using less, reusing and recycling more, and ensuring that environmentally efficient technologies are employed in manufacture and distribution.

recycled plastic products, laundry, hand and machine dishwashing detergents, and torch and hearing-aid batteries. By the end of the year, criteria will be developed on paper, paints and re-refined oil. Products carrying the environmental choice logo will hopefully soon be available in the shops. { VERSEAS, the Japanese Eco- ( ) Mark Scheme, launched in 1989, , | has given 850 labels to 31 kinds of ‘\ products. Canada’s Environmental Choice has been awarding labels since 1990, mainly to recycled and low-pollu-tion products. So far it has licensed about 60 products in 18 categories. The longestrunning scheme is Germany’s Blue Angel. It has been awarding labels since 1978, and a 1988 poll found that 79 percent of German consumers recognised the label. As the pioneer system, Blue Angel has attracted a lot of criticism. For instance, it gives eco-labels to aerosol deodorants which do not contain the ozone-deplet-ing CFCs, yet not to the roll-on kind. Wine bottle labels made of recycled paper wear the Blue Angel, prompting concern that the bottle and the wine inside may receive undeserved kudos. The New Zealand scheme is trying to avoid such pitfalls and learn from the apparent mistakes. Manufacturers of plastic containers, for example, will not normally be able to use the logo on the

container unless the contents are also licensed. The New Zealand programme is adopting generic criteria similar to those of the Canadian Environmental Choice programme. It was hoped that a system compatible with Australia could be developed, but recently Australia has set out on quite a different tack. Instead of setting product standards and inviting manufacturers to reach them, Environmental Choice Australia intends to check out the truthfulness of environmental claims made by the manufacturers themselves. This may be useful to the consumer, but does not meet the New Zealand aim of raising standards. The Environmental Choice committee is very conscious that mistakes would damage the credibility of the scheme, sO We are progressing with caution. Certainly, New Zealanders will not see a flood of eco-labels, and that is a good thing. If the labels are to raise product standards, they need to be awarded sparingly. But, on the other hand, if too few products qualify, or too few product categories are involved, we risk losing the interest of manufacturers and consumers. Another dilemma to face is the many products that fall into the "too hard" category. For example recyclable materials offer more obvious environmental criteria -and attract more eco-labels — than household cleaners. Indeed some schemes exclude all such cleaning products on the grounds that even the best cause too

much harm. Yet it is precisely these products — detergents, washing powder and cleaners — that shoppers worry most about. Therefore a scheme that shies away from the difficult issues will be of limited service to consumers and less use to the environment. So we engage in a balancing act. Encouraging manufacturers to raise their standards, without putting them off with impossible goals, yet not debasing the scheme with "jelly baby" standards. Endorse too few products and lose public identity. Endorse too many and lose credibility. Whatever the committee resolves will attract criticism. I don’t think this makes the environmental labelling programme worthless. We are all consumers, and a modest, pragmatic, ethical scheme, even if controversial, is better than no scheme at all. Per person, Australians and New Zealanders consume about 17 times as much of the world’s resources as people in the poorest nations. While nobody wants to be poor, there is no escaping the fact that we are the world’s big spenders and that the world cannot sustain Western consumptive habits for ever. The more I enter into the minefield of environmental assessments, the more I realise that the greenest consumer is a modest consumer. Tread lightly in the market and your tread will be lighter on the environment.

Ann Graeme is Forest and Bird’s education officer and is based in Tauranga.