|
Life Cycle Analysis A number of life cycle analyses (LCAs) have been published comparing the environmental impact of waste paper recycling and incineration. Some conclude that recycled papers have a less harmful impact. Others conclude the opposite. The International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) looked at a number of LCAs and in its 1996 report "Towards a sustainable paper cycle" found that: "Most of the studies support the view that recycling and incineration are environmentally preferable to landfill. There is less agreement on whether recycling is preferable to incineration. Critical factors are the nature of the pulp and paper making process, the level of technology at all stages of the life cycle and the energy structures of the countries under study." Arguments against recycling One of the arguments is that incineration generates energy which is carbon dioxide neutral. This is because the trees logged for paper are replaced with new trees which suck up the same amount of carbon dioxide as is emitted when the paper is burnt. It is argued that using waste paper to generate energy reduces carbon dioxide emissions as otherwise the energy would have to be generated from burning fossil fuels such as coal and gas in conventional power stations. Another argument against recycling is that large amounts of energy are used in transporting the waste to recycling mills and that this and the recycling process itself cause pollution. The certification of virgin pulp mills to ISO 14001 and EMAS and the introduction of new technologies for producing wood pulp on the other hand have reduced pollution. It is also claimed that programmes for sustainable forest management are helping to conserve forests and that a fall in demand for virgin paper would depress profits and result in falling standards in forestry management and owners allowing plantations to die off. Is virgin paper environmentally preferable? The problem with these arguments is that they do not give full weight to global differences in the nature of the pulp and paper making process, the level of technology and, in particular, forest management practices. They tend to highlight the worse cases for recycled paper and the best for virgin paper. Forest management It is a contradiction to claim that paper is coming from sustainably managed plantations and then to argue that without proper husbandry some will die off. Forests flourished for millions of years before the advent of man and the fossil fuels that derived from them and which today are contributing to global warming are a testament to their success and ability to act as carbon sinks. Todayıs industrial plantations in comparison can contain as little as a quarter of the above ground biomass of the vegetation of the old growth forests they replaced. Market value is however necessary to give the forest products industry an incentive to embrace sustainable management practices such as ³ecological landscape planning². That is, preserving old growth and dead trees and setting aside woodland bordering watercourses and other valuable areas as nature zones. Buyers can do their bit by specifying that any virgin fibre in the paper products they order must come from forests or plantations which have been validated as sustainably managed. The danger is not that demand for virgin paper will fall, but that it will in the longer term outstrip supply due to the predicted rise in demand for wood and paper products in developing countries such as India where the average paper usage per person is currently just 3 kilograms compared with 208 kgs in the UK. Nearly 35% of the world's paper-making fibre comes from recycled fibre, ie. some 85 million tonnes a year. This is equivalent to some one billion trees if we accept the widely quoted estimate that it takes 12 to 17 trees to make a tonne of paper. One thing is for sure. Without recycled fibre there would be increased pressure to maximise the amount of virgin fibre produced - possibly encouraging less scrupulous companies to convert more old growth forests into intensively managed secondary forests or plantations. These often rely on heavy petrochemical applications and can damage soil fertility, deplete groundwater levels and endanger plant and animal species. Need for virgin fibre There will always be a demand for virgin fibre. It is an essential ingredient of some types of paper and board because of the specifications required. It is also necessary for the recycling process itself as waste fibre cannot be recycled indefinitely. Some say it can be recycled five times. Others say nine or ten times. But all agree that each time fibre is recycled it loses its length which can interfere with bonding and impact on sheet strength. This is why earlier recycled papers were dusty, increased the wear on printing machines and had poor runnability. Quality Today, quality is not an issue with recycled papers from modern mills containing a high percentage of post consumer waste and competing on price and quality with virgin papers. Recycled papers can be suitable for demanding print and finishing processes, for laser and colour inkjet and for pre-printing and corporate stationery. There is also scope for further improvements by, for example, using agri-pulp such as hemp fibre (which is longer than wood fibre) and can therefore be used to improve strength and recyclability. Energy use About 28% to 70% less energy is required to produce recycled paper than virgin paper. But the forest products industry claims that most of energy used for producing virgin fibre normally comes from burning by-products of timber processing such as bark, wood waste and spent liquor. Whereas, energy used to make recycled paper is usually derived from fossil fuel. The position is not clear. The forest products industry has yet to show how much of its total energy needs are met globally from biofuels and, according to supporters of recycling, it tends to exclude from its analysis the fuel used in drilling, seeding, harvesting and transport of timber to the pulp mills and the pulp to distribution points. Furthermore, some recycling plants offset fossil fuel use by burning wastes, eg. 20% of the UKıs Aylesford Newsprint Millıs energy needs are met through burning waste. Research continues into the subject of energy needs with, for example, DETR and the Forestry Commission (with industry support) undertaking a life cycle analysis (LCA) of forestry and the industrial processes. Early indications are that the energy and environmental burdens of growing, harvesting and delivery of trees are low in Great Britain. Transport It is claimed that transporting used materials over large distances to recycling plants and then distributing the recovered materials can undermine the benefits of recycling. But waste is also transported to landfill sites or incinerators; and raw materials extracted and transported to processing plants and to consumers - often over vast distances. Only 10% of the UK is forested with the result that it needs to import 60% of its paper requirements from places such as Scandinavia or British Columbia. UK Paper's recycling plant at Kemsley in Kent on the other hand is about 50 miles from the heart of London - one of the world's biggest "urban forests". It provides not only a source of waste fibre to produce recycled paper but also a market for the finished product. This does not mean that recycling is always the best practicable environmental option for dealing with used paper. Regard must be paid to local circumstances and transport is an important consideration. Here the challenge is to look at ways of reducing its environmental impact by improving the infrastructure which exists for providing mills with recycled feedstock. This will help to reduce road transport and the associated pollution and congestion. Processing According to Waste Watch - who are part funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions - recycled paper produces fewer polluting emissions to air and water than virgin paper. Most of the pollution comes from the de-inking process which produces an effluent with slightly higher levels of suspended solids (TSS) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) than effluent produced from virgin pulp. But it has a lower chemical oxygen demand (COD) and lower chlorinated organic compounds. The significant reduction in the use of heavy metals used in inks and pigments has also meant a drop in their levels in waste water and waste sludge from recycling plants. Cleaner technologies The introduction of cleaner technologies is helping to make industry less polluting - including recycling mills. For example, UK Paperıs waste paper plant at Kemsley in Kent has low and efficient energy usage, minimal water consumption and effluent, negligible emissions to air and an environmental management system certified to ISO 14001. The sludge made up of short fibres, fillers, inks and other residues is turned into a soil conditioner for local farmers. Incineration Waste to energy plants are generally considered economically and environmentally viable where: · suitable landfill sites are scarce and expensive; · a large amount of waste is generated from a relatively small area; · they displace old power stations burning dirtier fuels like coal; and · they are large enough to maximise economies of scale and able to maximise energy efficiency by generating both heat and power, whilst minimising pollution. There is however opposition to incineration plants from environmental groups on grounds of pollution and the waste of resources. Friends of the Earth, for example, argue that waste to energy plants can encourage waste production rather than reduction This is because a constant supply of waste must be guaranteed over a long period if the operator is to obtain a good return on the investment. This can hamper waste reduction and recycling measures which help to curb demands for raw materials. The problem is that waste minimisation can never remove waste altogether and so incineration remains an option along with recycling, composting, bio-digestion and landfill - the least preferred option - for dealing with the waste we produce. However, as the Governmentıs recent consultation paper ³Less waste more value² makes clear, incineration with energy recovery should not be undertaken without consideration first being given to composting and recycling for dealing with waste in an environmentally sound way. The consultation paper calls for a more integrated approach to waste management. Is the solution for the waste to energy industry to engage in more pre-sorting and, at times when waste paper prices are high, to sell it to recycling mills and burn it only when prices are so low that it puts recycling collection schemes in jeopardy ? This might help to bring some stability to the market. Otherwise there is a danger that an expansion in incineration will reduce the availability of recycled fibre for paper making so exaggerating price rises at times when virgin fibre is in short supply. High prices may stimulate the production of fibre from other sources such as agri-pulp to meet the demand and speed up the introduction of new technologies for saving paper such as digital duplex printers and electronic filing systems. But probably not before more damage is done to old growth forests in places where environmental standards are low. Waste paper Another significant argument for buying recycled paper is that it creates a market for our waste paper which we would otherwise have to pay the local authority or a waste management company to take away for incineration or landfill. The UK currently recycles about 40% of the amount of paper we use, ie. some 4.5 million tonnes of fibre a year. The pity is that much waste paper is not recycled because of the lack of efficient collection systems. This is largely the result of fluctuations in the price of paper which, when at its lowest, can make the collection of waste paper uneconomical. Nevertheless, two thirds of the UK paper industry uses recovered paper and many sectors rely heavily on it. Interestingly, the UKıs largest pulp and paper mill at Shotton in North Wales uses recycled fibre, wood produced sustainably in private and Government owned forests and chips from UK sawmills to produce paper with a 60% recycled fibre content. Leadding by example Large paper users such as Government departments can help to stimulate further investment in recycled paper mills and the establishment of collection systems by entering long term contracts for the supply of recycled paper containing a high percentage of post consumer waste. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions recently let contracts for the supply of recycled paper which other Government departments are free to use. The bids received for supplying recycled paper were comparable or cheaper than those for virgin paper exploding the myth that recycled paper always costs more. The requirement to use recycled paper extends to all the Department's publications which, unless there are special requirements, must be printed on recycled paper containing as much post-consumer waste as practicable. In addition, and in accordance with the Government's "Green Claims Code", the publication should bear an environmental claim along the lines of: "This document is printed on paper comprising some 80% post- consumer waste, 10% agri-pulp and 10% totally chlorine free pulp from sustainably managed trees." Conclusion Progressive companies within the forests products industry deserve recognition for cleaning up their act and for managing their forests more sustainably. The industry should not however consider recycling as a threat as there will continue to be a need for virgin fibre. It should also recognise that recycling waste paper can reduce the pressure to harvest more from nature than can be recreated without harming levels of fertility and biodiversity. Incineration with energy recovery is an option. But it should not be undertaken without consideration first being given to the possibilities of composting and recycling. The best strategy is to · reduce waste by using resources more efficiently, and while recognising that this cannot be an absolute guide to the best solution in all circumstances · reuse wherever possible, · recycle whatever has value, · compost putrescibles, · recover value from that which cannot be recycled or composted (energy from incineration) including the residues (ashes) and then to · dispose of the residue to landfill. The Government is committed to a substantial increase in the role recycling plays in the UK country and to the development of end markets for the recycled materials. It sees recycling as critical to the task of making the management of our waste more environmentally acceptable. So next time someone tries to persuade you against buying recycled paper - stand firm. As the American ice hockey coach Fred Shero put it: "an oak tree is just another nut that held its ground".
|
