Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

Summary: So let's see if Doc has this right: we actually need more trees cut down for use in paper in order to keep them from being cut down by real-estate developers? Actually, I do get it – managed forests are better than no forest at all. Of course, Peter's right about that. But in the end, less dependency on wood-pulp products is probably a good thing, even if in the short term we make that dependency much more efficient. I'm all for both, and to the degree that we can make trees a truly renewable resource, all the better.

Doc's got his eyes pretty wide open when it comes to claims about the environment made by anyone, let alone a paper company. But I did find interesting a blog entry over at Going Green. Peter Nowach, the author, tries to make the case that most commercial-forest trees would be cut down anyway to be used in a variety of other ways, even if some of the tree didn't go to making wood pulp for paper. Peter got his insight during a recent visit to a Finch Paper mill.

But recycling doesn't save trees. At least not in commercial working forests, which is where our pulp and paper comes from. In a commercial forest, the same trees that are used to produce pulp and paper are also used to produce other commodities, such as lumber and veneer. Some parts of the same tree also can end up as firewood to heat rural homes or biomass to fuel steam boilers for industry and electrical generators.

True, recycling paper can reduce demand for some portion of the virgin tree fiber. But it doesn't save a tree that is destined for many applications. Companies such as Finch Paper, LLC are committed to full use of the fiber resource. The same trees used by Finch for the virgin-fiber component of its paper also are used in everything from veneered cabinetry to landscape mulch. And the fact that the trees are used commercially is what generates revenue to the landowner sufficient to cover forest management costs and a treasure trove of state and federal taxes.

Without revenues from commercial forestry, a great deal more land would be sold into the hands of real-estate and industrial developers, and would cease to function as viable forest ecosystems.

So let's see if Doc has this right: we actually need more trees cut down for use in paper in order to keep them from being cut down by real-estate developers? Actually, I do get it – managed forests are better than no forest at all. Of course, Peter's right about that. But in the end, less dependency on wood-pulp products is probably a good thing, even if in the short term we make that dependency much more efficient. I'm all for both, and to the degree that we can make trees a truly renewable resource, all the better.

Topic: Networking

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

50 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

    ...there are more trees in the United States now, than any other time in history...

    When did the forest regain its 'virginity'? How?

    When did the mean and dangerous 'jungle' become a warm and fluffy "rain forest"

    Remember all those UN emails around global warming?

    Remember Mt. St. Helens?
    GregWalters
    • According to whom?

      @GregWalters What's your source for historical numbers of trees?

      I remember Mt. St. Helen's. What of it?
      ConquerorBeans
    • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

      @GregWalters Thank you and good luck. <a href="http://www.classicchanelbags.org/chanel-shoulder-bag-c-6.html">chanel shoulder bags</a> <a href="http://www.classicchanelbags.org/chanel-tote-bag-c-10.html">chanel tote bags</a> <a href="http://www.classicchanelbags.org/classic-chanel-wallet-c-8.html">chanel wallets</a>
      3shao
  • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

    I couldn't find data on whether there are more or fewer trees in the U.S. today than in the past. I did find out that 85% to 95% (depending on if you count Alaska) of the original virgin forest cover has been destroyed--so if we have more trees now that we ever did, that must be counting every single decorative shrub.

    Recycling save trees by reducing the demand for pulp from trees that are cut down. Some wood fiber comes from sawing trees into lumber, and from bits not good enough for lumber. However, when that's used up they start grinding up perfectly good lumber to make paper. That's the bit that recycling saves.
    Mandolinface
    • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

      The information about there being more trees in the US today, than in the past, can be found in National Geographic's Historical Atlas of the United States. I'm sure there are other books and publications where you can find the information, but that's one. The US went on a tree planting binge, starting in the 30s, peaking in the late 80s (we're talking >3 million acres, annually, in the late 80s), and continuing today. While most of the original virgin forest is gone, it has been replaced, and there are trees, now, in places where there were none 100 years ago.
      reagan0
  • fact check

    Only a few species are used for lumber: Doug fir, yellow pine, coast redwood, some hardwoods. Only a few species are used for paper: Scotch pine, balsam, and fast growing hybrids of those. Lumber species are chosen for high lignin and long fibers, which are the opposite of what you want in pulpwood. Perhaps a boutique paper mill like Finch uses the same species for both, as implied in the picture, but the big boys don't do it that way.

    Cannabis sativa (hemp) yields four times as much paper pulp as any tree species, and unlike a tree crop it fixes its own nitrogen. Why's it illegal in the US? Because William Randolph Hearst owned a pulp wood forest and a few newspapers, and a few congresscritters, and his wood-paper couldn't compete on the merits with hemp-paper, which was the industry standard at the time. Maybe it's time to undo Hearst's corruption and re-legalize the best plant for making paper and textiles.
    cls@...
    • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

      @cls@...
      Also, Heart's fortune should be seized by the US government for his treasonous action to US citizens & industry alike.
      maxtheitpro
      • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

        @maxtheitpro If that is the case, Germany should seize the fortunes of George Soros.
        dealer27
    • Re: fact check

      @cls@... Well, long fibers is actually desirable in paper.

      But I agree with your other points. It would be more sustainable to legalize hemp (and there are many other varieties) than recycling alone. Both are laudable goals. The paper quality would certainly be better.
      Get-Smart
    • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

      @cls@... In certain places you can get a license to grow hemp for utilities (paper, rope, clothing). It's not simple and having to have enough security to keep out the druggies is prohibitive. But generally the main hurdle is small minded paper-shufflers who don't like looking at the whole law, just the little bit they have power over and that is Their Personal Universe to command.
      mist42nz
    • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

      @cls@... If Hemp was legalized some politician would lose his campaign donations from the industry. Politicians would claim if paper was made from hemp that kids would start smoking their note book paper; and they are only concerned about the children.
      dealer27
  • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

    isn't "virgin pulp" another way of saying "sustainable"?
    dalspartan
    • Sustainable vs. recycled

      @dalspartan No, they are different. In this context, "virgin" means first-use and "sustainable" means easily replaced. Not quite opposite, but virgin implies something that wasn't used before. Recycled is the opposite of virgin, but sustainable doesn't necessarily mean recycled.
      Get-Smart
  • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

    oh? course i can see that but my <a href="http://esolapelicula.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/">knoledge </a>of the paper industry and its working are very new to me and i do understand that your<a href="http://abimago.com/index.php?title=Main_Page/"> lecture</a> is giving a process of how valuable paper but all in all this is new ground to me
    Elainejnk410
  • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

    But recycling paper DOES slow the clogging of our landfills.
    lbatt@...
    • landfills

      good point less landfills full sooner
      mattsweb2005@...
  • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

    No matter how we look at it, cutting down trees to make books is still more green than using an ereader of any variety. There are many toxic industrial chemicals in those electronic gadgets, and most of the rare earth materials we use to make them come from China. At least books can be recycled easily. Recycling gadgets tends to cost more than the value of the pieces one gets from it, and there are health hazards when working with the pieces.
    MadWhiteHatter
    • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

      @MadWhiteHatter The pulp and paper industry is one of the greatest producers of dioxin?one of the most toxic chemicals known. It doesn't break down in the environment and concentrates as it moves up the food chain. It causes infertility, impaired development, immune suppression, and cancer. The EPA has estimated that people eating contaminated fish caught downstream from chlorine-bleaching pulp mills bear cancer risks as high as 1 in 50. In British Columbia, fisheries all along the coast have been closed due to effluent from pulp mills.
      mlou's bones
    • How many pages in an e-reader?

      @MadWhiteHatter -- The advantage of an e-reader is that the toxins and rare earths in a single e-reader are balanced against all the paper in all the books that are not bought by the person using the e-reader.

      I still don't like them, but for other reasons.
      ConquerorBeans
    • RE: Does Recycled Paper Really Save Trees?

      @MadWhiteHatter My Sony Reader can hold 1000+ books internally, way more using an SD card. If a million eReaders can hold 1000 books each, those are many millions of pages not requiring any sort of wood grown, harvested, processed, printed and/or disposed of. If textbooks were on a tablet instead of printed, how many more trees are available to absorb CO2?
      EasierPC