>>In researching recycled paper, working with activists, educating the public, and talking with people in the pulp and paper industry, I have come across many questions. Some came to me repeatedly from students, faculty, friends, and others. Some I were forced to answer through my actions as an activist. Here I present the three main questions and my conclusions relating to paper recycling as part of an environmental solution.

Is Recycled Paper Really the Environmentally Preferable Choice?

It’s easy to see how the use of recycled paper reduces waste and the demand for forest products. This brings many people to the logical conclusion that it is better for the environment. Others, however look deeper into the question. In campaigning for a 100% post-consumer paper purchasing policy at Hampshire, I was sometimes asked how recycled measures up to virgin paper in terms of the production process, energy use, water use, and pollution. The answer is complicated because energy use, the production of greenhouse gases, water use, and the release of dangerous pollutants varies from one case to the next depending on many factors other than recycled content.

Waste paper recycling versus incineration
In the late 1990’s many European studies were published arguing that while recycling is a better option than landfilling wastepaper, incineration for the production of energy may be better for the environment than recycling. Burning paper for energy reduces the need for fossil fuels which give off higher levels of carbon dioxide. It also eliminates the energy needed to sort and de-ink the paper if it were recycled. When paper is made from virgin sources, about half the wood is used to make pulp, the remainder (bark, small chips) can be burned to make energy which is used in the paper making process. This in combination with the incineration of wastepaper can create a process which uses no fossil fuels at all (Bystrom and Lonnstedt, 1997; Pearce, 1997). Incinerators are also usually located closer to sources of municipal waste than are recycling facilities. This means recycling can require more fuel for transportation than incineration (Pearce, 1997). One study, which uses a dollar amount to calculate environmental costs, found that when a low value was placed on the environment, recycling was the suggested option for wastepaper; but when the environment was given a high value, incineration was suggested (Pearce, 1997).

I can see many flaws in the incineration argument. The author of one extensive study advocating wastepaper incineration admits that the recycling process uses about 25% less energy than the production of virgin paper (Pearce, 1997). Other sources agree that recycled paper production saves energy, often using higher numbers such as a 38% or 52% energy reduction when compared to production of the same type of virgin paper (Alliance for Environmental Innovation and Business for Social Responsibility, 2000; Dillavou, 2001; Hershkowitz, 2002; Sierra Club, 2002). Similarly, sources that do not compare recycling to incineration as an environmental solution, often claim that creating a ton of recycled paper instead of a ton of virgin paper reduces greenhouse gas emissions due to efficiency differences in the raw material (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002; ForestEthics, 2002). Some estimates state a GHG reduction of 40% or more (Alliance for Environmental Innovation and Business for Social Responsibility, 2000; Hershkowitz, 2002). The Bronx Community Paper Company (BCPC), a proposed recycled newsprint mill in the Bronx, was designed with environmental impact reduction as a top priority. Compared to a virgin paper mill the BCPC was to use 1.3 megawatts less energy per hour per ton of material and produce 3,237.9 pounds less CO2 per ton, a 54.45% CO2 reduction (Hershkowitz, 2002).

Wastepaper incineration may be an energy alternative to fossil fuels, but incineration still produces pollutants and many greenhouse gases, mainly methane, nitrous oxides, water vapor, and carbon dioxide (Hershkowitz, 2002). Some say plantations of young, fast-growing trees that are used as a virgin pulp supply will absorb enough CO2 to offset that which is produced in the incineration process (Pearce, 1997). But tree plantations are detrimental to the environment. In some parts of the world, creation of tree plantations is a major cause of the destruction of natural forest and wetland ecosystems, both of which are CO2 sinks (Hershkowitz, 2002). The use of pesticides on plantations also decreases soil fertility (Lohmann, Wallace-Pannell, and Simpson, 1997). Research suggests that the soil of old forests contributes to carbon storage which is released when the forest is cut to be converted to a plantation (Hershkowitz, 2002). Since there is an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere contributing to global climate change, I don’t think that a carbon dioxide sink should be used as an excuse to dismiss the air pollution that results from incineration.

The incineration argument also does not address the availability of incinerators that are capable of producing energy. Landfilling is a more common form of waste disposal. In the United Kingdom, where some of the incineration studies are based, there are only 7 incinerators (Charlesworth, 1998). And not all incinerators have turbines linked to their boilers to produce energy (Pearce, 1997). The process of timber harvesting, transport, pulping, and paper making, might require less fossil fuel energy and carbon dioxide production than wastepaper transport, sorting, de-inking, and making new paper, depending on how the situation is analyzed. However, the recycling process uses raw material more efficiently. Close to one ton of new paper can be made from one ton of recycled pulp, whereas one ton of virgin paper requires 2-3.5 tons in trees (ForestEthics, 2002). Carbon dioxide emissions are not the only aspect of paper production that affects the environment. Virgin paper production causes the destruction of natural forest habitat for many species. Paper recycling can reduce the need for resource extraction in living ecosystems which cannot be given a dollar value or compared to the need to reduce carbon dioxide. In addition, United States municipal incinerators are the top industrial generators of dioxin, a carcinogenic and toxic category of pollutants (Hershkowitz, 2002). Incineration and fossil fuels are not the only energy options. The supposed benefits of incineration may disappear if renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power were used in place of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions from transportation could be reduced if fuel efficient or alternative fuel vehicles were used. New recycling and paper production facilities could also be built closer to cities or other large sources of wastepaper.


Paper bleaching & toxic pollutants
Pulping and bleaching are the two main aspects of paper production which result in hazardous pollution emissions. Conventional paper bleaching releases dioxin, furan, chlorinated phenolics, and other chlorinated organic compounds into wastewater which ends up in streams or rivers. These chemicals can have negative impacts on fish, wildlife, and people. Some chemicals are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency and these regulations have caused the paper industry to make substantial changes in the bleaching process. Other chemicals are not regulated. Regulations on toxic chemicals differ between countries and regions. For example, the chlorine compound, AOX (Absorbable Organically-bound Halogen) is unregulated in the United States, but regulated in Canada, with a zero AOX emission regulation in British Columbia (Kovacs, 2000; Hershkowitz, 2002). This shows that regulations might depend more on politics than on the dangers of a pollutant. Many environmentalists believe that even current EPA regulated chemicals are being released at harmful levels.

Many less harmful bleaching processes can be used regardless of recycled content. The average US paper mill, using the standard chlorine gas bleaching process, releases about 35 tons of organochlorines a day. Paper can be made elemental chlorine free (ECF) using a chlorine compound bleaching process which produces only 7-10 tons a day (Hershkowitz, 2002). Hydrogen peroxide can also be used for bleaching at a very low concentration. This totally chlorine free (TCF) process does not produce any organochlorines (Berry, 2000). However, hydrogen peroxide bleaching is much less popular among proponents of the paper industry (Hershkowitz, 2002). There are advantages and disadvantages to each type of bleaching, mostly surrounding issues of cost, fiber strength loss, ease of use, and presence of organochlorines (Berry, 2000). As with making paper from post-consumer fiber, totally chlorine free bleaching may cost more because it is done on a smaller scale compared to conventional processes. General resistance to change may be another deterrent to TCF bleaching. Totally chlorine free recycled paper is called processed chlorine free (PCF) because chlorine was probably used to bleach the original paper from which the recycled paper is made. The bleaching process and associated environmental consequences are independent of whether or not the paper contains recycled fiber. However, many brands of 100% post-consumer recycled paper available today are designed to attract environmentally-aware consumers, so they are often ECF or PCF certified. It is easier to find chlorine free paper which also contains some recycled fiber than it is to find chlorine free virgin paper.


Pulping & air pollution
Pulping is necessary for the production of both virgin and recycled paper. Virgin pulp is made from wood chips while post-consumer pulp is made from wastepaper. Recycled fiber is de-inked to remove ink and other contaminants such as adhesives by floatation, filtering, washing, and other means (Dorris, 2000). The paper making process involves drying the pulp, pressing, and rolling it into a paper sheet. The paper is then shipped off to be cut and printed on according to the specifications of the final product.

Pulp is produced mechanically by a physical grinding of the material or through a chemical breakdown. Hazardous air pollutants can result from digesting wood chips for virgin paper or from the chemical pulping process. Some of the main pollutants are sulfur compounds which can cause adverse health effects and produce a strong rotten egg smell, particulate matter which can trigger respiratory problems like asthma, and volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) which cause smog and health problems (Kovacs, 2000). All of these air pollutants are regulated in the United States, Canada, and a few other large pulp-producing countries. Equipment such as scrubbers and other technology is used at some mills to reduce the levels of these chemicals released into the environment. Some environmentalists and community activists would like to see emissions close to zero. However, many scientists working for the paper industry believe current emission levels are low enough to avoid serious harm, causing only a bothersome smell (Kovacs, 2000). The level of certain types of air pollution produced depends on the pulping procedure used. However, recycled paper production creates less particulate matter pollution when compared to virgin paper; some sources estimate a 36% or higher reduction (Alliance for Environmental Innovation and Business for Social Responsibility, 2000; Dillavou, 2001). According to one study on the pulping and de-inking process to be used at the BCPC, a recycled paper mill can be designed to reduce hazardous air pollution to levels much lower than regulation. In this case, the BCPC was designed to emit an estimated 99.46% less sulfur oxides, 98.56% less VOC’s, and 99.12% less particulate matter compared to a virgin paper mill (Hershkowitz, 2002). Despite likely air quality and public health advantages, the financial cost of reducing these pollutants could be high. Most facilities choose to find a balance of the most benefits for the lowest price. For conventional paper mills, this means passing regulation and not investing in new equipment or other high cost additions that would be necessary to reduce emissions even slightly further. Mills can contest proposed future regulations on the grounds that the cost of compliance could be detrimental.


Water use
Virgin paper mills use a tremendous amount of water which is tainted by the production process and released back into the environment. In the United States, the virgin pulp and paper industry uses more water than any other industrial process (Hershkowitz, 2002). Recycled paper facilities use less water than most virgin paper mills (Alliance for Environmental Innovation and Business for Social Responsibility, 2000; Dillavou, 2001). The majority of virgin newsprint mills, for example, use 10,000 gallons of water per ton of paper manufactured. Newer mills that have been built within the last 8-10 years are more efficient and use about 4,000-5,000 gallons per ton. Recycled newsprint mills often use under 4,000 gallons per ton of material (Hershkowitz, 2002).

There is a worldwide shortage of fresh, drinkable water suitable for human consumption, yet many industrial processes use potable water for cooling machinery or washing. In paper production water is also used for pulping and then extracted when the final product is created. Many aspects of the paper production process could use gray water or water that has been cleaned in a sewage treatment plant instead of potable water (Hershkowitz, 2002). Normally, water that is used once goes through a sewage treatment plant and is discharged into waterways. If it were used again for an industrial purpose before being discarded, this would reduce the amount of uncontaminated water used. Reclaimed wastewater is already used for industrial and commercial applications in some parts of the world such as regions in Africa and the Middle East (Hershkowitz, 2002). However, most existing paper mills, especially those aimed at virgin paper production, are not located near sewage treatment plants. In theory, though, new recycled paper mills should be built close to cities, the wastepaper source, and cities should have the infrastructure for treating wastewater nearby as well. So the idea of situating a paper mill near the two is feasible for a facility producing recycled paper.


Conclusions
Although some sources dispute the environmental benefits of recycling, mostly around energy issues, I agree with the sentiments of most of the environmentally-minded public. Given the alarming rate at which the world population is consuming natural resources and that many methods of waste disposal cause adverse aesthetic, environmental, and health effects, reprocessing would-be trash through recycling seems like the start of a solution. Production procedures that minimize pollution emissions should also be supported by consumers, industry, and the government despite slightly higher costs. If these processes which are now considered alternative or eco-focused become commonplace, the price will likely go down due to the laws of a market economy. All sustainable systems, such as healthy, natural ecosystems, use some form of recycling, in which matter flows in a circular, not linear, pattern. Technology has advanced to the point where 100% post-consumer waste, 100% processed chlorine free, recycled paper can be made to look as white and spotless as virgin paper. I do not doubt that if the time, money, and energy were invested in expanding all types of recycling and recycled products, any current drawbacks could be overcome. In principle, with all aspects of the process considered, recycling seems like the logical choice.


What is the Best Route Toward Making Change?

There are three main hurdles to buying recycled products: availability, price, and performance. All three are related to demand. Technology exists to create high quality recycled paper, but this does not mean all paper is of a high quality. However, the higher the demand, the faster technology moves to accommodate this demand (Leroux, 1999). Since recycled paper is cheaper to make, price is also mainly driven by demand. However, a product cannot be easily demanded if it is not available on the shelves of stores, in catalogs, or from a distributor that is under contract with a certain company or organization.


The government
In October 1993, Executive Order 12873 was created under the Clinton Administration requiring all federal government agencies to purchase copy paper with a minimum of 20% post-consumer content (Dillavou, 2001). The order was updated in March 1996 with Executive Order 13101 which increased the required minimum post-consumer content to 30% (Heumann, 1996; Heumann, 1998b). Since the federal government purchases large amounts of copy paper, these executive orders were meant to directly reduce the use of virgin fiber and to boost the recycled paper market. However, compliance did not come easily. The 1993 order stated a goal of full compliance by January 1994, but by the end of 1997 only 39% of copy paper purchases by federal agencies contained the minimum post-consumer content (Heumann 1998a). In an effort to increase compliance the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) which supplies most of the paper for federal agencies, set a price preference for compliant paper. Although compliant paper purchasing increased, it still was not being purchased by all agencies. In 1998, GSA reported that it would start selling only compliant paper, making it the standard paper sold to all agencies (Heumann 1998b). Although the government is the largest single consumer of copy paper, government purchasing does not represent a large enough portion of the paper market to have a big impact on the paper industry (Heumann 1998b). Over 90% of copy paper is still virgin fiber paper (O’Connell, 2000). While the government has suggested that corporations and other organizations use 30% or higher pcw paper and has conducted studies to show that 30% pcw paper performs just as well as virgin, there are no federal regulations mandating recycled content paper purchasing. According to a pulp buyer at Sappi Fine Paper Company, the Clinton administration had announced it would mandate a 30% pcw minimum which stimulated nationwide investment in recycling mills. However, an amendment was added requiring the minimum only if it was a cost-effective choice, causing investors to pull out of the development of paper recycling facilities (Visit to Sappi Fine Paper Co., 2002).


The industry & the market
Heavy pressure from paper industry lobbyists has prevented potential recycled paper government regulations from becoming law (Hershkowitz, 2002). While our government is made up of elected officials, corporate campaign financing and personal connections between governmental officials and corporate leaders bring a lot of power to wealthy organizations (Currinder, 1998). Significantly increasing the post-consumer content in most of the copy paper being produced might mean changing contracts, business relations, and policies at paper manufacturing facilities. The government helps the industries to which they are tied such as the paper industry, and the paper industry helps the industries to which they are tied such as the timber industry. While an increase in recycled content paper manufacturing is feasible, I have noticed that humanity is generally resistant to change unless there is a strong motivating force behind it. If government regulations created a minimum recycled content in all copy paper sold, this would create a demand forcing the paper industry to produce more recycled content paper. If recycled paper was given shelf space equal to that of virgin paper and sold at the same price, which would initially have to be fixed by the government, recycled paper purchasing might increase. However, it might not increase enough to drive demand to the point where recycled paper could be sold at a competitive price and given equal shelf space without help from regulations. This is due to a general resistance to change and lack of education.

If given the choice between virgin fiber paper and recycled content paper at the same price, environmentally-aware consumers might choose recycled, but others might assume that recycled paper is of a lower quality. If a 30% pcw minimum standard were mandated for paper purchases at all organizations, not just government agencies, the result might mimic what happened with Executive Order 13101. Recycled paper purchasing would increase, especially if it were sold at a fixed price, but recycled paper would still be less popular than virgin and full compliance might never be achieved. If recycled content products were given a high enough priority to actually spur legislation, they would have to be the only choice, just like GSA had to make the decision to sell only executive order complaint paper to get a large number of government agencies to buy it. Banning the sale of virgin paper would be an extreme measure and some may view this as contrary to the American ideals of free choice and a capitalist economy. However, if recycled and virgin paper are identical in appearance, performance, and price, the switch would not make much difference. Perhaps a more realistic approach would be to provide incentives to buying recycled content paper. The government could grant subsidies to organizations that buy paper with a high recycled content or the price of recycled paper could be capped by the government at a price lower than standard virgin paper. A more economical way for the government to provide monetary incentives would be to tax virgin paper, making recycled paper less expensive by comparison. Using a mechanism like this to make recycled paper cheaper than virgin would be a true test of consumers’ devotion to habitually purchasing familiar products. Any type of government control over free markets in the name of the environment will not come without heavy pressure from voters, consumers, environmental activists, and environmental organizations. Many activists currently work to motivate the government to take a stand for recycled products. Some of the popular strategies are helping pro-environment candidates get elected into office, organizing call-ins and letter writing campaigns to show support for certain bills, and personally lobbying officials to vote a certain way on pending legislation.

I visited the Sappi Fine Paper company in Westbrook Maine and read pulp and paper marketing materials given to me by employees of the industry to get an idea of how recycled content paper is viewed. The industry respects government regulations such as the restrictions on chemical air pollution and particulate matter emissions (Kovacs, 2000). Much attention is giving to addressing these issues, but it seems as though the requirements are seen as a hassle or a burden. I assume fines for not meeting regulations are the driving force behind compliance. The production of recycled content paper, however, is driven by consumer appeal. At the Westbrook mill I was told that the government cannot regulate recycled content, it can only try to influence the market through purchasing. I was also told that government purchasing does not actually have a very big influence on the paper market (Visit to Sappi Fine Paper Co., 2002).


Environmental Labeling
The industry is aware of consumers’ desire for environmentally-sound products. Although recycled products are not inherently more expensive in terms of the production process, a higher price tag can be justified because recycled products are not the industry standard. They can be sold as a “specialty” product. Of course, if recycled products were the standard, this would not be the case. Some companies produce paper with a marginal recycled content to take advantage of the opportunity to charge more for the product. But, most companies are not willing to add this recycled content to all their papers or heavily market a 100% pcw paper because most consumers are not looking for this “specialty” product. Recycled products sold at a higher price and often harder to find, attract only “specialty” consumers, those that are hyper-environmentally aware. Unlike other environmentally preferable products such as organic food or non-toxic cleaners, recycled products don’t provide any personal and direct benefit to the consumer.

Some governments and even corporations try to promote the purchasing of recycled products through public education and pro-recycling advertising (Rabasca, 1995). While this is beneficial and does help to boost the use of recycled products, perhaps the money and effort would be better spent making these products less expensive and more available, which would in turn help to drive the production of high quality products. The labeling of environmentally sensitive products as something different and new may be partially responsible for the public’s apprehension to switch from their reliable and familiar products without recycled content. Conventional companies heavily label and boast about their environmentally preferable products in a way which is often deceptive to the consumer. Products labeled as “100% recycled” with a large recycling symbol on the front of the package, might only contain 30% post-consumer content, which is what most people think of when they hear the word “recycled.” The product name of Hampshire College’s current copy paper is “Domtar Recycled.” The 30% post-consumer content is stated in large print on the packaging, and the ream wrapping has designs on the inside with a message to save paper by using it to wrap presents. Ironically, the labeling of the 100% post-consumer content, 100% processed chlorine free paper, “Badger Envirographic” is much more conservative. Paper industry representatives can lobby for legislation in their favor; they can also market specific types of paper to the public. In this way they can control both regulations and consumer appeal. A company that does not comply with enough regulations can be shut down and a company that cannot accommodate consumer demand will also go out of business. However, it seems that the public has a closer connection to corporations than it does to the government and the industry is more interested in satisfying its customers than in satisfying the government. Consumers and retailers engage in direct interaction, while the government can only try to intervene in the seemingly self-sufficient market process. Maybe this is why many environmental organizations and activists have turned to advocating for environmental change directly from corporations and industries instead of through government regulations.


Corporate Campaigning
Modern activists do not simply boycott a corporation by refusing to buy from a company that sells only virgin fiber paper, for example. Corporations and the global industries to which they are tied are so big, it is difficult to financially affect a company’s bottom line by promoting a boycott alone. Many activist organizations have now been formed for the sole purpose of attacking specific corporations using through protests, boycotts, letter writing, and by targeting the corporation’s investors and shareholders. These corporate campaigns are often focused on creating a public bad reputation around the company’s logo (Klein, 1999). The idea is that a company cannot measure or predict the negative consequences of being associated with a destructive social or environmental practice. A successful corporate campaign will cause the company to change its policies through fear that their name, and thus all their advertising and self-promotion, will be subverted in the minds of an unknown and growing number of consumers and investors.

There have been several successful corporate campaigns. Most notable in my experience were the campaign to get Home Depot to stop selling old growth lumber and the campaign against Staples to increase the amount of recycled content in their office paper and phase out endangered forest products. Some other famous successes are The Gap going sweatshop free, Frito-Lay and Gerber Baby ending their use of genetically engineered products, and the promotion of tuna production with dolphin safe nets (Email from Smith, 1/6/03). According to Sharon Smith, a grassroots organizer for Rainforest Action Network, the ultimate goal of an environmental corporate campaign is permanent environmental protection in the form of legislation or an industry standard (Email from Smith, 1/6/03). The Paper Campaign targeted Staples because they are the biggest office supply store and the paper they buy affects the market demand. After many protests, cancelled college contracts, letters, and phone calls to the CEO, the company met the demands of activists and among other things increased the recycled content of the paper they sold. Since the end goal of the campaign is to change the way the paper industry operates, the new targets are now the second and third biggest office supply stores, Office Max and Office Depot. The hope is that after one corporation in the industry meets the demands of activists, other corporations in the same industry will follow suit and accommodate the demands immediately to avoid a campaign aimed at their name. This was the case when Home Depot’s competitor, Lowe’s, released a new wood procurement policy in anticipation of becoming a campaign target (Morse, 2003).

There are many unsuccessful aspects of corporate campaigning as well. While campaigns may be effective at sabotaging a corporate name, the company is not always intimidated. Even if a campaign is successful at changing a particular policy, this does not change the corporate agenda or the mentality of the CEO and other decision makers. If a company heeds the demands of an activist group, this does not necessarily mean that future policies will not be equally destructive as the ones that stimulated protests, especially after the company is out of the public eye. The flaw is essentially with the system of governance, free markets, and finance that are motivating corporate decisions. Naturally a targeted corporation claims that it has been unfairly singled out and that the company is indeed very environmentally responsible. The following example was written before Rainforest Action Network helped win the campaign against Boise. Yet, it still serves as a good example of a particular point:
Rainforest Action Network says, “[Boise is] the largest logger of U.S. public lands and one of the country’s largest loggers of old growth forests. Boise was the lead plaintiff in a successful lawsuit to prevent implementation of the U.S. Roadless Area Conservation Policy…the most popular federal policymaking decision in U.S. history…[supported by] more than 1.5 million Americans” (Rainforest Action Network, Boise Briefing Paper, 2002).
Boise says, “On public lands, we operate in strict compliance with the numerous environmental requirements that regulate harvests. In 2002, Boise derived less than 1% of its wood supply from old-growth forests. Boise is one of more than 40 organizations that have taken legal action against the roadless rule [which] sets aside…national forestlands from responsible management, thereby significantly increasing the forest health crisis and greatly raising the risk of catastrophic wildfires. [There were] approximately 1.1 million public comments on the [rule], about 97% were postcards and form letters, the result of orchestrated campaigns” (Email from Zehr, 1/24/03; Email from bcweb@bc.com, 4/17/03; Norris, 2002)

Activists and the public must decide who to trust. There is not much outright contradiction between these two statements; they are just drastically different ways of seeing the same situation. For example, the requirements for public land harvests are not as stringent as many environmentalists would like; and for a company as large as Boise, less than 1% of their wood supply could be from old growth forests while they could still be the top old growth logger and still log a lot of old growth land.


Conclusions
I have sided with the activists for a few main reasons. In general, the environment is the disadvantaged. High levels of unnecessary consumption in the developed world have driven corporations to exploit natural resources not only for a profit, but also to meet the demands of the market. It makes sense to advocate changes that will aid environmental protection, no matter how small the percentage of old growth being logged or how strict the requirements for logging on public lands, as long as these changes do not violate some larger human rights or environmental issue. Also, most environmental activist organizations are non-profit, non-governmental, and run in part by volunteers. While it is easy to see how profits and business relations could motivate the actions and statements of corporations, there is less money to be made by working in environmental organizing. Many activists get arrested or put their personal safety in jeopardy to support their cause. I have never seen a business man go to such lengths, probably because it is not necessary. Environmentally responsible policy changes rarely threaten the vitality of a corporation. In pursuit of equality, I tend to support the less powerful.


How Much Recycled Content is Good Enough?

In February 2003, I attended my second Western Massachusetts Recycled Products Showcase which was held at Hampshire College. The showcase is a chance for purchasers from state agencies to learn more about recycled products, which they are encouraged to buy through the state contract. But, most of the products being promoted contained no more than 10-30% post-consumer content. Many of the state agency representatives at the showcase seemed uneducated about the existence of 100% post-consumer products and many of the vendors were pitching their products as 100% recycled. A purchaser inexperienced in buying recycled products might not know the importance of the percentage of post-consumer content. The deceptive advertising and the mainstream culture of virgin products, make a product with a low post-consumer content seem like the environmentally sound choice. Perhaps this is a sign that recycled products have truly not been integrated into standard purchasing. This is proof that there is a desperate need to eliminate the production and sale of virgin material products for which there is an equally comparable recycled content product. At this particular event for 2003, Jeffrey Hollender, the president and founder of Seventh Generation cleaning products delivered the keynote speech. It was clear that he was promoting products that were many steps more environmentally beneficial than the eco-labeled product from a conventional company or a product that contains some post-consumer content because it is economically advantageous for the company.

If a high quality product with a high post-consumer content is capable of being produced, as is the case with many products including paper, plastics, glass, and metals, these products need to be popularized. At the 2003 showcase, there was a representative from Staples Inc., the company that has very recently started offering products with a high post-consumer content due to pressures from a corporate campaign. The vice chairman of Staples has said the company encourages consumers to buy recycled content paper (Pereira and Chipello, 2002). At the showcase however, the products were still mostly 10-30% pcw, and although Staples now offers a brand of 100% pcw paper, only one ream of 50% pcw paper was on display.


The 100% pcw recycled paper campaign at Hampshire
Some activists fight for the increased purchasing of paper with any amount of recycled content. Here at Hampshire, we already systematically purchase 30% pcw paper. In the year 2000, I started a campaign to help popularize 100% pcw paper through the purchasing power of Hampshire College. Given Hampshire’s proud reputation as a place for innovation and change, I thought the college should lead by example and increase the post-consumer content of copy paper beyond that of conventional recycled products standards. I researched the feasibility of the project in terms of price, runnability, different brands, and local distributors. I started working with both outside environmental groups and student volunteers. For two years I had meetings with the appropriate administration and my idea was well received, but a new purchasing policy was never developed. The steps toward creating the policy were clearly outlined and quite simple, but the administration seemed hesitant to actually move forward with a change. The resistance to change that I noticed within the Hampshire College system appears to mimic that of government agencies, the paper industry, paper products vendors, and even some typical consumers. Hopefully, as environmentally sound products become more commonplace, the adjustments required to use and purchase these products and the level of resistance to these shifts, will lessen.

Eventually, the group of students with whom I was working put pressure on the administration through a series of actions. A banner was hung on campus during a dinner for prospective students, over 900 signatures were collected on a petition, a local newspaper was contacted to write an article about the situation, and support was solicited from respected members of the community such as the school President, Treasurer, Dean of Faculty, Dean of Students, and Trustees. I cannot determine which, if any, of these actions prompted the purchasing officer and other relevant administrators to take the prospective policy more seriously, but meetings became more frequent, more people became involved in the project such as representatives from Ikon which runs Hampshire College Duplications, and discussions became as detailed as they would need to be to genuinely implement a new purchasing policy. I wrote up an ideal policy and sent it to the purchasing officer. I asked her several times to revise it or approve it. I was told that there was a concern about the performance of the 100% pcw paper. Although, I did not see it as crucial to getting the policy passed, I decided to conduct a study of the paper’s performance as part of my senior thesis. Many times throughout the 2002/2003 academic year, I had thought we were only weeks away from a policy. So, although I still felt we were close, I started to give up my leadership role to younger student activists because I predicted the campaign would have to continue after I graduated. When the study, which showed no problems with performance, was completed and sent to the purchaser, I had the other student activists call her repeatedly to check the status of the new policy. On April 17th 2003, she announced she would begin purchasing 100% pcw paper beginning July 1st 2003. I warned the other students that they may still need to fight to see the new policy actually implemented. However, we had been formally informed that we had our policy.


Conclusions
In retrospect, I am surprised at the tactics that seemed to work best to bring about change. When I first heard about protests, letter writing, and petitioning, I did not think they were effective strategies. They seemed like primitive ways to get the attention of the business world. I thought that meetings and negotiations would work best because these are the processes used inside corporations and institutions. I figured a business person would not respect grassroots operations. The idea of getting Hampshire to switch to 100% pcw paper was what initially got me involved in activism. Through this campaign I met others with similar goals and started networking with organizations. Since my first year in college, I have seen my associates win more than one campaign using grassroots tactics. Each time, I am still amazed that it worked. I wonder whether or not it is coincidental that we got the policy only after we started doing more than just having meetings.

The Hampshire paper campaign was very similar to a corporate campaign. In both, the change that activists try to impose is often the decision of only one person. At Hampshire, this is the purchasing officer. At a corporation, it is usually the CEO. The important aspect of our process at Hampshire is that we started with meetings and only used actions when we felt we were not moving forward. I don’t believe grassroots actions work unless there is constant communication between someone representing the activists and the person who will ultimately make the decision. Yet, it seems odd that the goal of the campaign was in fact to convince one person to take a certain action. If a different person had held the purchasing position, the campaign could have gone very differently. In turn, if someone else takes over the position, there is no guarantee that the policy won’t be changed. Since a position of power cannot permanently be held by one person, all campaign victories are just as unstable. This can work for or against an environmental cause.

Despite the idea that all new environmentally responsible policies and practices may be temporary, the work of activists achieves something by educating people and increasing awareness about both the environment and the potential power of environmental campaigns. The paper campaign at Hampshire made many students, faculty, and staff more conscious of campus paper use, recycled paper, and the environmental impacts of the paper industry. While gathering petition signatures student volunteers and I spent several weeks tabling on campus and going door to door. Students who were unaware of the issue received information in fact sheets and through discussions with campus activists, those that had questions usually got answers, and those that wanted to get involved starting helping the campaign. We gave away stickers to everyone we talked to and now these stickers seem to be everywhere on campus. They unexpectedly serve as a visual reminder of how many people we have reached through the campaign. Our cause which was previously unknown, is now very familiar to much of the Hampshire community.


Closing

For every issue involving the inter-relationship between the environment, industry, society, and the economy there is an unending amount of explanation, rationalization, and justification on all sides. I have tried to take into consideration the logic of many viewpoints concerning what is ultimately the way modern society interacts with the environment. I have found myself advocating for environmental protection by asking consumers to trace the lifecycle of common commodities in the developed world, which inevitably influence the state of the natural world. But change does not come easily. My own opinions are also resistant to change. Hopefully through experience, education, and recognition of the importance in differing perspectives my efforts and actions will contribute to the original intention, a sustainable solution.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alliance for Environmental Innovation and Business for Social Responsibility. Make That Recycled: A Buyer’s Guide to Recycled Coated Freesheet Paper. [updated June 2000; cited 19 March 2003]. www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/517_coatedfreesheet.pdf

Bcweb@bc.com. “Response from Boise.” Email to Vanessa Gravenstine. 17 April 2003.

Berry, Richard. “Pulp Bleaching.” Market Pulp Producers Association, Paprican. “Pulp Tech 2000” information binder from Pulp and Paper Technology and Marketing Course. June 5-8, 2000.

Bystrom, S. and L. Lonnstedt. “The economic and environmental impact of paper recycling.” Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology. v.27, Special Issue 1997, p. S193-S211.

Charlesworth, Donald. “Paper power.” New Scientist. v.157, 3 January 1998, p. 47.

Currinder, Marian. “Two-fisted giving: Big donors using leadership PACs for end-runs around contribution limits.” Capital Eye. v.5, no.5, 15 September 1998, p.4-5.

Dillavou, Tyler. Pomona College. Paper Procurement Policy, Pomona College, 2001. [updated 2001; cited 9 November 2002]. www.public-policy.pomona.edu/research/Tyler-Paper%20Procurement%20Policy.html

Dorris, Gilles M. “Deinking.” Market Pulp Producers Association, Paprican. “Pulp Tech 2000” information binder from Pulp and Paper Technology and Marketing Course. June 5-8, 2000.

ForestEthics. Paper Campaign Facts: Mass Paper Production Threatens Our Forests. [updated 2002; cited 20 January 2003]. www.forestethics.org/paper/facts.html

Hershkowitz, Allen. Bronx Ecology: Blueprint for a New Environmentalism. Island Press, Washington: 2002.

Heumann, Jenny M. “Clinton signs revised recycled content requirements for office paper.” Waste Age. v.27, May 1996, p. 22, 26.

Heumann, Jenny M. “Executive Order 12873: Can the government mandate buying recycled?” Waste Age. v.29, no.5, May 1998a, p. 190-198.

Heumann, Jenny M. “New executive order promotes markets.” Waste Age. v.29, no.11, November 1998b, p. 6.

Klein, Naomi. No Logo. Picador USA, New York: 1999.

Kovacs, Tibor. “Environmental Issues.” Market Pulp Producers Association, Paprican. “Pulp Tech 2000” information binder from Pulp and Paper Technology and Marketing Course. June 5-8, 2000.

Leroux, Kivi. “A close look at copier paper.” Waste Age. v.30, no.7, July 1999, p. 78.

Lohmann, Larry and Simon Wallace-Pannell and Donald Simpson. “Not for burning.” New Scientist. v.156, 13 December 1997, p. 55-56.

Morse, Dan. “Home Depot is expected to deliver report on timber: Nation’s largest wood retailer is reviewing progress on using sustainable timber sources.” The Wall Street Journal. January 2, 2003. email sent to Vanessa Gravenstine from Martin Stephen. “[treefreecampus] Home Depot Report.” 2 January 2003.

New Leaf Paper. Paper and the Environment. [updated 1998; cited 14 February 2003]. www.newleafpaper.com/ecopaper.html

Norris, Ann. Rainforest Action Network. Letter from Boise. [updated 2002; cited 31 March 2003]
www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/old_growth/boise_response.html

O’Connell, Kim A. “How to increase recycled paper purchasing.” Waste Age. v.31, no.12, December 2000, p.9-10.

Pearce, Fred. “Burn me.” New Scientist. v.156, 22 November 1997, p. 30-34.

Pereira, Joseph and Christopher J. Chipello. “Staples recycled-content goal for paper items triples to 30%.” The Wall Street Journal. 13 November 2002, p. B4.

Rabasca, Lisa. “Corporate American urges consumers to buy recycled.” Waste Age. v.26, April 1995, p.204-206.

Rainforest Action Network. Boise Briefing Paper. [updated 2002; cited 31 March 2003]. www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/old_growth/boise_briefing.html

Sierra Club. Examples of Positive Effects of State Purchasing of Recycled Content Products. [updated 31 July 2002; cited 21 March 2003]. http://minnesota.sierraclub.org/ggi_energy_savings_from_paper.htm

Smith, Sharon. “FW: ISO books/papers on effectiveness of corporate campaigning.” Email to Vanessa Gravenstine. 6 January 2003.

US Environmental Protection Agency. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks. [updated 24 June 2002; cited 21 March 2003]. www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/ghg/ghg.htm

Visit to Sappi Fine Paper Co., Westbrook Maine mill, 7 December 2002.

Zehr, Karl. “[treefreecampus] Boise response letter to roadless suit.” Email to Vanessa Gravenstine. 24 January 2003.