Should an environmentalist buy paper?

[miniboes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZN6QuAdxLI

In this video, the argument is made that if we consume more wood/wood products, more trees will be planted. The presence of trees is, of course, awesome. This makes sense to me, and clearly the majority of deforestation is the result of making space for crops and livestock, not for paper production. But does this really mean buying paper is good for the environment? Should one be looking for trademarks like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)? Apparently an FSC trademarked forest region is chopped down and then given 30 years to recover. It seems to me that's a very sustainable practice.

https://fsc.org

[Red]

Well, most things are becoming more computerized, but that contributes to global warming..

[miniboes]

Well, most things are becoming more computerized, but that contributes to global warming..

I personally don't see that as a large problem as long as we're moving towards sustainable energy (in which I include nuclear energy).

I still use paper for studying since I remember better when I write things down. I can also use my whiteboard for this, but I generally prefer paper.

[Red]

Well, most things are becoming more computerized, but that contributes to global warming..

I personally don't see that as a large problem as long as we're moving towards sustainable energy (in which I include nuclear energy).

Yeah I guess you're right. If I am not mistaken, currently, technological global warming only contributes about .04%. That's not even close to the amount of pollution given off by factory farms and automobiles.

I still use paper for studying since I remember better when I write things down. I can also use my whiteboard for this, but I generally prefer paper.

Yes, it has been proven that writing things down helps you remember it better, which can be an excellent study bonus. I guess if you wanna cut down, I recommend buying only when necessary, buying notebooks instead of paper for notes/class work/home work, and try using the entire paper to it's maximum capacity, or just plant more trees like what the video said.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's a pretty well made video, and makes some good points, but it also misses quite a bit (possibly intentionally). It's a good question, though!

The issue with paper is not so much its source from sustainable wood, but the immense amount of energy intensive processing that goes into grinding, bleaching, and pressing, and drying it into paper as well as the decomposition when it is thrown away (into methane). I'm not sure what the carbon footprint of that looks like.

Wood itself, as a raw material (or lightly processed) for building is probably much better.

That said, there's no need to freak out about a little paper use, but at least make sure you recycle it or store it.

In this video, the argument is made that if we consume more wood/wood products, more trees will be planted. The presence of trees is, of course, awesome.

More trees cut down and planted, and it's possible forestry companies would invest in new land and plant trees where there had been none. Trees capture carbon. I'm not sure if they capture more carbon than is released in processing something like paper, though. In the case of wood houses, they probably do since it's actually sequestered in the structure for quite a while. It's a good question.

This makes sense to me, and clearly the majority of deforestation is the result of making space for crops and livestock, not for paper production.

Correct. It mostly comes down to animal agriculture. Green peace is terrible on that front; they want to stop people using paper, but don't blink at people scarfing down unlimited quantities of meat.
I appreciate the criticism that guy was able to make in the video about environmentalists, although it would have been nice to see a little wag of the finger at wasteful animal agriculture.

But does this really mean buying paper is good for the environment? Should one be looking for trademarks like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council)? Apparently an FSC trademarked forest region is chopped down and then given 30 years to recover. It seems to me that's a very sustainable practice.

If you can find a mark indicating sustainable forestry, that's good. I think most wood products are, though.

That doesn't guarantee that the energy input into making the paper is less polluting than the trees needed to make it captured though.
Also, when you throw that paper away, it's not clear what happens to it in a landfill: there's a lot of methane production that goes on there, and any organic product is a potential source.
http://www.paperrecyclingcoalition.com/ ... l-warming/

1. Paper recycling prevents methane emissions from landfills.
First, when paper is not recycled, 80% of it ends up in landfills. Decomposition of the paper in landfills produces methane, a greenhouse gas with 21 times the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide (CO2). U.S. EPA has identified landfills as the single largest source of methane emissions in the U.S., and the decomposition of paper is the largest contributor to the methane being generated.
If paper is recycled, it doesn’t end up in the waste stream, headed for a landfill where it will degrade and generate methane. Simply put, the less paper landfilled, the less methane emitted.

[miniboes]

Thanks brimstone, that's very informative. I had no idea thrown away paper produces methane. The emmissions in procdssing the wood are indeed overlooked. I recycle most of my paper use, and don't throw away my study notes at all in case I need to look something up in the future.

I wouldn't expect Prager University's videos to criticize animal agriculture. From what I've seen the videos are very right-wing and religious.

[brimstoneSalad]

I wouldn't expect Prager University's videos to criticize animal agriculture. From what I've seen the videos are very right-wing and religious.

It's a shame the conservatives are the only ones capable of being sensible on nuclear power, but then they're wrong on the other important environmental issues, while with the liberals it's the other way around.

[miniboes]

I wouldn't expect Prager University's videos to criticize animal agriculture. From what I've seen the videos are very right-wing and religious.

It's a shame the conservatives are the only ones capable of being sensible on nuclear power, but then they're wrong on the other important environmental issues, while with the liberals it's the other way around.

Exactly. The choice is still quite easy for me though; i'd rather have people that care about the environment and use suboptimal measures than people that are fine sticking to coal, oil and gas.

[brimstoneSalad]

Exactly. The choice is still quite easy for me though; i'd rather have people that care about the environment and use suboptimal measures than people that are fine sticking to coal, oil and gas.

You could say the same comparing radical Islam and libertarianism, though.

Would we rather have people who care about morality, using suboptimal measures due to ignorance and delusion (radical Islam), or people who don't care at all and just want everybody to be left alone (libertarians)?

It's possible for suboptimal approaches to actually become counter productive.

Conservatives may accidentally be better for the environment by supporting nuclear, since it's going to be more cost effective than coal and oil -- level the playing field, and it's what companies are going to choose anyway, out of economic prudence.