Paper Manufacturer Launches "Print More" Campaign

innocent_white_lamb writes "Domtar, a major North American paper manufacturer, has launched an advertising campaign to encourage people to print more documents on paper. Domtar CEO John Williams opposes campaigns by other companies asking employees to be responsible with what they print. 'Young people really are not printers. When was the last time your children demanded a printer?' Mr. Williams said ... 'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.' The industry expects that, absent this campaign, paper demand will decrease by 4% annually. Williams's comments did not go down well in some environmental circles."

Comments

wait, what?

[thepike]

FTA:

'We've got to do some work about having them believe and feel that printing isn't a sort of environmental negative.'

But it is an environmental negative.

Re:wait, what?

[odsock]

Most likely using less of almost anything is an environmental positive. Consider the footprint of harvest, transport, disposal. Plus it costs the user more to print than to read on screen, so it's bad business to print when you don't need to. Sure, it's not like they are making paper out of old growth forest. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing to waste paper.

Re:wait, what?

[dudpixel]

hmmm I'll revisit your argument when the number of trees chopped down due to paper manufacturing drops below the number of new trees planted 5 years ago (ie. that are now reaching maturity - its no use going on new trees planted if those trees never grow to fully replace the trees that were chopped down).

Re:wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

They might be whackos, but you're a beefknob.

Sure, trees grow in dirt. That's TREES. Not paper. There are few steps involved before you get your fucking paper. First you have to cut the damn trees down. That takes energy from chainsaws or specialized tree-cutting machinery. Then you have to remove the branches. Then you have to gather the things up (did you know trees are fucking heavy?). Then you have to put them on a truck. Then you have to haul the motherfuckers to some huge-ass factory somewhere (did I mention trees are fucking heavy?). Then you've got to turn them into pulp 'n shit. THEN you've got to package the fucking paper. Then you've got to haul THAT shit to some warehouse, where it sits around wasting space in an air conditioned facility (don't want that paper getting moldy!). Then you've got to ship the fucking paper AGAIN to some store somewhere. And then some chump has to get in their SUV, drive 20 miles to their favorite store to pick up one item (that'd be the paper), and then drive the fuck home.

For some paper.

And THEN they print out a picture of the goatsex guy for him to autograph. They get their trophy signature, but later their mom makes them throw it out. So it ends up in the trash, along with millions of tons of other worthless paper, that gets hauled in yet another fucking truck, where it ends up in a landfill (no recycling here, 'cause you're all about carbon sequestration or some such shit!).

After all that energy's been spent, how much do you think your precious carbon sequestration really counts?

Like I said. BEEF. KNOB.

Re:wait, what?

[davester666]

> And those processing chemicals are recycled as much as possible too.

There are 3 R's. And they have a specific order, as in, what is best for the environment.

1 Reduce
2 Reuse
3 Recycle

Recycle is literally 1 step up from pouring it down the drain.

Arguing that we don't need to bother reducing because some of what is used get's recycled is, well, asinine.

Re:wait, what?

[Qzukk]

Have we lost the ability to grow trees?

Have you tried to buy a nice piece of wood lately? The answer to your question is "yes" but it has nothing to do with environmentalists, it's because the timber industry replaces the good forests they cut down with crappy fast-growing trees that produce knotty lumber because it's cheaper and faster that way.

Re:wait, what?

[timmarhy]

"that produce knotty lumber" I went down to the hardware store last week and there was a huge array of hard and softwoods, they even had structural pine with 100% knot free money back guarantee. all of it was sourced from managed timber plantations - thats HOW they get the wood knot free ffs.... by stripping the branches off early.

Re:wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know the difference between an ecosystem and a mono-crop? Dumtar claims to plant a tree for every one they harvest, but there's no mention of clear cutting or the overall effects of managing what used to be a forest as if it is nothing more than a pulp farm.

Perhaps there's an alternative.... maybe they should try brain farming. If they could genetically modify gray matter and its network to the same standards of homogeneity, the pablum coming out of the mouths of people like Mr. Williams might just sound intelligent.

Re:wait, what?

[davester666]

> Certainly, wasting paper is a waste. But if you're not wasting it, it isn't a waste to use it.

But that's exactly what the executive is trying to get people to do. He's saying that young people AREN'T printing enough stuff out.

So, either young people aren't effectively communicating, and he's suggesting that they can do this by printing stuff out [he's trying to help them, and only incidentally helping himself], or they are effectively communicating, only without using paper, and he's suggesting that they switch from non-paper media [such as email, wiki's, etc] to paper media [ie, his suggestion is entirely self-serving].

Re:wait, what?

[mellon]

Five years ago? Are you kidding? It takes trees more like 40 years to grow to anything resembling maturity, and if you see a tree that looks old, it _is_ old--that gnarled old maple tree out in front that they had to cut down was at least 100 years old, and probably more like 200. In five years you have a sapling, not a tree.

Re:wait, what?

[Miseph]

Step 1 is still "reduce", as in use less, as in do precisely the opposite of what these paper vendors are suggesting.

Are people honestly arguing that we should use more paper because the people who stand to financially benefit from using more paper said so? Have we gotten to be that stupid? The reduction in paper usage has come from a lot of places, and the "environmentalist" movement might be the loudest, but absolutely is not the most important. There are immediate and obvious economic benefits to printing less, benefits which actually grow geometrically with the size of the organization in question... I'd suggest that the single largest sector of reduction has been from large companies streamlining their processes to replace paper with electrons, the latter is monumentally cheaper and more efficient to store (especially since it would likely be stored electronically anyway, effectively making it a sunk cost), transport, produce, reproduce, track, edit, distribute and dispose of.

The USPS has seen declines in business for most of the same reasons... it's just cheaper to send a file across the internet than it is to send a physical piece of paper with the same information.

Re:wait, what?

[Abcd1234]

last i checked paper was made from the waste from milling timber from sustainably managed forests as well as recycled sources.

Yes, right. That's the only input to paper manufacture. Timber.

No large volumes of energy produced from primarily non-renewable resources.
Or large volumes of harsh chemicals.
Or large volumes of water.

And the only output is nice, clean paper.

No gaseous carbon, nitrous, or sulphur dioxide.
No water pollution.

And, of course, there is absolutely no paper, anywhere, being manufactured from old-growth trees or anything like that. It's totally sustainable and awesome! Really!

Re:wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except nobody cuts gnarled old maple trees down to make paper. For one, such a beautiful wood like that is far too valuable to be used for paper, and it'll surely go into making some piece of fancy furniture, part of a musical instrument, or veneer to back up less costly materials--for a piece of slightly less fancy furniture, etc.

It's a bit disingenuous, or more than quite a bit naive to suggest that 100+ year old hardwoods are sent to paper mills.

A lot of (most of, these days) the trees used for paper production, are in fact rather quickly growing pine/fir trees, which are grown by tree farmers. Five years results in a product just about perfect for this purpose. Also, the fiber bearing remnants of timber farming--which use the same kind of trees (grown for a bit longer)--are also quite useful for making paper (as well as chipboard and other macro-grained products). Nothing goes to waste at an industrial tree farming operation.

Re:wait, what?

[Aqualung812]

for a dollar less a foot than it was a year ago.

While it has nothing to do with your main point about knot-free wood, the price drop has more to do with the high inventory of building supplies after a year of almost no building going on.

Pulp paper should die!

[Anonymous Coward]

If ANYONE in power had balls and brains, we'd be using hemp paper instead of wood-based pulp paper. That is all.

The continued government assisted prop-up of industries unwilling to evolve with technology, or environmental social concerns, is why we have half the problems we do. Why must this behavior persist?

Re:Pulp paper should die!

[Animats]

hemp paper...

Hemp paper is available, but it's more far more expensive than paper from wood pulp. ($46.50 per ream for ordinary 24 pound bond!) Kenaf is more promising. Mitsubishi makes kenaf paper for sale in Japan.

(Somehow, the hemp enthusiasts never seem to be very interested in other long-fibre plants, like kenaf, abaca, sisal, or jute. Or even bagasse and straw, which are agricultural wastes which can be recycled. Wonder why.)

Re:+5 Funny

[poopdeville]

It's not an environmental "negative". They plant three times as many trees as they harvest. Paper is a truly renewable resource, especially since it is recyclable, in many different ways.

Printing pages pointlessly is a negative, because you waste energy in the paper production, for no good reason. And you waste your own money. But using paper "responsibly" -- for things you want to keep hard copies of -- is entirely appropriate, and not wasteful.

Re:+5 Funny

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But he is bound by law to do the most he can to improve sales and shareholder value, regardless of the environmental cost, social need or greater economic benefit.

In what jurisdiction? Cite, please.

How 'bout this?

[0xdeadbeef]

Paper: it's what books were made of before DRM.

Re:Paper and Environment

[rtfa-troll]

Environmentalism is not like Palinism. It's science based not cult based. In science, a large amount of progress is had by conflicting ideas. Someone has a theory, they test this against the evidence. In a "science based" activity like medicine, you take the best guess you can based on the evidence available. This inevitably would lead to occasional changes in viewpoint. The suprising thing about environmentalism is how few of these have happened and how much the "anti-environmentalists" have to struggle to make it seem there has. "The environmentalists used to say there would be a global winter"; oh, no they didn't; but they used to say the world was cooling; oh no they didn't; but there was once an article by an environmentalist saying there might be cooling...

It's like the oil company lobbyists "there is no global warming"; okay "there is global warming, but it's not caused by humans"; okay "the global warming is caused by humans but it's within the normal limits"; okay, "the global warming is exceptional but it's for the good"; okay "the global warming is bad, but not using petrol would be worse"; okay "the global warming will be deadly but we'll be able to find a solution"; okay "we haven't found a solution, but we have lots of lobbyists, money and lawyers".

Re:Dead Forests...

[adolf]

It's a managed forest plainly and openly maintained as a source of lumber, not a managed recreational nature preserve.

Repeat that, over and over, until you get it.

[sarcasm]In other news, I was shocked at the absolute lack of biodiversity the last time I walked through a wheat field. Imagine it: A huge field, hundreds of acres, where they've managed to grow almost nothing but wheat! What a waste.[/sarcasm]

If printing itself didn't suck...

[SharpFang]

The shit printer manufacturers put us through. Smaller ink cartridges, no refill, timed killswitch, DRM, "need ink to scan" and the shit of "cheap printer, expensive cartridges" they put us through. People see it and avoid it. They realize a page printed in the home printer is about $0.50, so a booklet of 50 pages will be $25. I have no qualms printing 100 pages at $0.03 per page on my old laser printer. But I see how people wince when an ink printer spits out a full-color test page at a wrong press of a button. And endless problems - drying up ink, printers failing and so on.

Take a step back towards printers with reasonable cost per page, and the paper sales will increase...