Shrink: Paper Efficiency Project PEP Talk Paper v Digital

1
Shrink Paper Efficiency ProjectPEP TalkPaper v
Digital
shrinkpaper.org

• Mandy Haggith - hag_at_environmentalpaper.eu
• Michael Sturges - michael.sturges_at_innventia.com
• Meredith Walsh - Meredith.Walsh_at_uk.penguingroup.co
  m

2
European Environmental Paper Network
3
Common Vision

• The Environmental Paper Networks in Europe and
  North America (gt 100 NGOs) have a shared Vision
  for Transforming the Pulp and Paper Industry
• Reduce consumption
• Reduce reliance on virgin forest fibre
• Ensure social responsibility
• Source fibre responsibly
• Ensure clean production

4
We want to protect this
5
from becoming this
6
and minimise this.
7
Main impacts of paper-making

• Climate Change
• Forest Destruction
• Energy Use
• Waste
• Water Use
• Pollution
• Plantations
• Illegal Logging
• Human Rights Abuses

8
The shrink project 2 (2012-13)

• 60 UK organisations being assessed and urged to
  take action on paper efficiency, 10 each of
• Supermarkets
• Catalogue retailers
• Financial firms
• Utilities (gas, phone etc)
• Governmental bodies
• Universities
• The scorecard will be published in July 2013
• New website, more paper saving case studies
• Motivational seminars and PEP talks
• Packaging (5 June)
• Paper Vapour (climate change), 9 July, London

9
Paper v digital some starting points

• Global annual sector CO2e emissions (from Climate
  for Ideas)
• paper - 2500 MTonnes (8 of global emissions)
• IT - 860MTonnes (2.7 of global emissions)
• The Climate Group estimates digital applications
  could replace up to 25 of paper consumption.
• That could produce really substantial carbon
  emission reductions.

10
Paper v Digital some questions

• Do we compare global impacts of the paper and IT
  industries, or marginal impacts, product by
  product?
• Do we compare impacts of use, or include impacts
  of manufacture and disposal as well (full life
  cycle assessment?)
• What is included in the life cycle assessment of
  products? Carbon footprint only? Or all
  environmental and social impacts?
• Is enough known about the impacts of new
  technologies (e.g. rare metals and handling of
  e-waste)?
• How to handle threshold effects? (e.g. the claim
  that lt5000 pages, paper is better, gt 5000 pages,
  digital is better)
• How to handle multi-functionality of electronic
  tools?

11
Understanding the footprint of digital content
experiences from the UK magazine sector

• Michael Sturges, Innventia Edge

10
12
PPAs carbon journey

• 2001 Balanced Reading mass balance of the UK
  magazine publishing supply chain (Phase 0)
• 2008 Magazine sector carbon footprint (Phase 1)
• 2009 Magazine Carbon calculator (Phase 2)
• 2011 Updating the carbon calculator data (Phase
  3)
• 2012-13 Moving the calculator online, extending
  the scope, reporting to government (Phase 4)
• 2012-13 Carbon footprint of digital media
  (Phase 5)
• 2013 Embedding carbon footprinting in the
  industry and reporting to government (Phase 6)

11
13
Potential sources of GHG from digital publishing
12
Source Innventia Edge 2011
14
What did we learn from the existing research and
our own case studies?

• Some words of caution
• There are few studies and only one of these
  evaluates the carbon footprint of these
  technologies from the perspective of a magazine
  publisher
• Data and assumptions in different studies are
  often contradictory or lack transparency
• Boundaries and methodologies are highly
  influential
• Some studies lack rigour but achieve influence
• The displacement relationship between
  e-publishing and traditional publishing is
  unclear
• There is only limited data on the carbon impact
  of reading devices

13
15
What did we learn from the existing research and
our own case studies?

• Nonetheless, we still begin to get some insights
• Data and knowledge is improving all the time and
  this can change results and conclusions
• Data centre impacts may be small when allocated
  across many activities
• The carbon impact of the supporting distribution
  network (Internet and access networks) should not
  be forgotten
• User devices are a significant part of the
  digital footprint
• Powering the devices
• Manufacturing the devices
• User behaviour has a significant influence on the
  overall footprint of digital content
• Publishers can take decisions which help the
  user minimise their footprint

14
16
Crude estimate of the footprint for alternative
channels for delivering content
15
Source Innventia Edge 2011
17
Paper and DigitalWhat do we know?

• Meredith Walsh
• Penguin Group UK
• May 2013

18
Why did Penguin want to calculate their CO2
footprint?

• Penguin publish trade mono and colour books
• We manage the impact on biodiversity and
  landrights via certification and other tools
• We want to manage carbon impacts
• We need knowledge to do this
• Goal is to know paper and digital product
  footprints
• We will make both products and want to manage the
  impacts of both
• There is also the increasing possibility of
  legislation that will require us to know the
  carbon footprint of our supply chain

19
Bookcarbon.com

• Through the UK Publishers Association a group of
  UK publishers created Bookcarbon.com
• Invenntia built this tool
• It calculates
• Monoprint carbon footprints
• Titles printed in the UK
• Cradle to Grave

20
Paper and Digital Comparison

• Manufacturing and creation footprint
• Manufacturing and creation PLUS Apples estimate
  of the CO2 produced over the life of an iPad
• http//images.apple.com/euro/environment/reports/d
  ocs/iPad_Retina_PER_oct2012.pdf
• http//www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/buyi
  ngbookswithoutamazon/environment.aspx

21
What have we learnt?Book Production

• Where the main CO2 impacts lie when we print a
  book
• For Penguin its mostly in the paper, as most of
  our titles are over a certain number of pages
  and we can manage this impact
• Whether or not a mill is integrated and what it
  uses for energy make a big difference to the
  carbon impact
• Using the WRI scopes we have lowered our impact

22
What would we like to know more about?Digital
supply chain and product use

• More knowledge would provide more insights with
  which to manage our impacts
• Questions wed like to answer
• How do customers use devices? How long do they
  read for, do they read to finish an article or do
  they have a screen tolerance time?
• What kind of product is used on what devices?
• Can products be designed to be low storage and
  low use?
• What methodology should be used for comparing
  single function devices or products to
  multifunction devices?
• What are the other environmental impacts of the
  digital supply chain, particularly for the
  extraction of minerals? Mineral extraction as a
  driver of deforestation?
• As products change how should our communication
  with customers change?

23
(No Transcript)
24
What have we learnt?Digital production

• We can measure the CO2 generation of content
  creation for a digital product
• There is limited publicly available data on the
  CO2 footprint of reading devices, but what there
  is we can use to begin the paper and digital
  comparison
• Using the WRI scopes moving to digital products
  lowers our carbon and forest impacts
• We see that there are additional impacts across
  the full length of the digital supply chain
• We can engage our customers and offer advice on
  end of life for both paper and digital
• Opportunities to recycle books and devices
• Repairing devices
• Reusing books

25
Thank you
26
Thanks for listening and for caring about your
impact on the environment! More information
on paper versus digital herehttp//shrinkpaper.o
rg/toolkit/paper-versus-digital/The
environmental paper calculator is here
http//c.environmentalpaper.org/home Were
happy to answer any questions you may have.