On Monday, January 29, 2007, at 03:08PM, "Alfredo Nava-Tudela" <anavatudela@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >From this I concluded two things. First, that for the >paper industry to incorporate recyclable paper into >their industrial processes, it must mean that it is >economically attractive to them, i.e., they must be >better off by recycling paper than by using just fresh >pulp from trees. Ah, but this may be a logical fallacy. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing, but paper manufacturers manufacture recycled paper because there is a consumer demand for it. Also note that several governments have created an artificial demand by subsidizing or providing a monetary bonus for purchasing recycled paper. For example, Conservatree developed the first recycled-content copier paper by convincing Simpson Paper Company it could win the State of California's multi-million dollar copier paper contract by taking advantage of the 5% price preference for recycled paper. (See http://www.conservatree.com/paper/Choose/Custom.shtml) >Second, that as long as the paper industry produces >-with current technology- all the gamut of paper >products that it manufactures, there will be a need >for trees to be turned into pulp for paper >manufacturing. That is, you can't get away with just >recycling paper. And this may be the saving grace for "conventional" thoughts on paper recycling. While manufacturers will produce recycled paper so long as there is a demand (see above), they will also try to reduce their costs so long as they are producing recycled paper. This means that they will constantly be trying to make recycled paper cheaper than they do now, as long as there remains a demand for it. So the best way to contribute to that end is to be part of the consumer demand for recycled paper. That is, when you buy paper, only buy recycled paper. (Yes, I realize, that's a step that most everyone here probably already does.) >Hence, it is economically valuable to recycle paper, >but the more paper we use, the more trees will be >consumed too. That is, it is good to recycle paper, >but not because we recycle paper we should feel free >to be frugal about paper consumption. That is, from >the sustainable point of view, we are better off >recycling paper, and whatever paper we use, we should >try to maximize its use, say by writting on both >sides, and giving paper different uses before >recycling it. I wish that the U.S. waste management industry did what they do in Germany. There all customers pay for their trash by volume (actually, I think it is actually by weight, but whatever, the idea is the same), so buying products that produce more trash costs consumers more. Moreover, they have laws that require retailers to take as their own trash any extraneous packaging for products they sell, so retailers have economic pressure to only stock products that reduce trash. As someone on here mentioned "Reduce" is the first and foremost part of "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." >The other fact that I want to point out is what one >can learn at the Baltimore Aquarium regarding tropical >forests. There is a very sobering billboard at the >aquarium that shows the amount of tropical forests in >the planet as a function of time, and what one notices >is a steady decrease in the planetary tropical forest >resources. The aquarium also makes an extrapolation of >how we will, as a species, eliminate all tropical >forests by the end of this century at the rate at >which we are currently exploiting the tropical >forests. Not a pretty sight. Can you guess one of the >industries that uses trees from the tropics? Right, >the paper industry. So, there is an inverse relation >between paper production and tropical forests. The >more paper we consume, the less tropical forests we >have. So this should tell you that you should find out where your paper comes from before you buy it, and then only buy from a company that adds only domestically farmed pulp to their recyclables to make your paper. It's always best to *tell* the company that you're NOT buying from why you aren't, as well. >From here, I conclude that if we didn't recycle paper, >the paper industry would have to substitute recyclable >paper as part of its raw materials by fresh tree pulp >on top of the fresh tree pulp that it already consumes >in order for it to meet the market demand. This >further accelerates the depletion of tropical forests >which brings its corresponding impact on global >warming, etc. Also, it would be good to find out at >what rate we can consume paper so that we can give the >tropical forests enough time to recover. Yes, assuming consumers continue to support those producers that make their paper from those tropical trees. >You draw your own conclusions as to whether or not it >is a good idea to recycle paper. Thanks for adding to the discussion. I'm curious if Andy's stated position holds steady. Care to share, Andy? Topher