Thursday, March 29, 2012

Some of my recent work

Over the past few years things have been busy:

A number of my other contributions can be found below.

Regards,

Phil

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Five environmental impacts of electronic communications


Below is a brief look at some key environmental impacts over the life cycle of computers and their various accessories, with the objective of introducing some of the environmental challenges that the ICT industry faces, especially given the perception that replacing paper and print with digital communication is "better" for the environment (1). The following information is based on a brochure produced by NewPage (2) supplemented by other references.
Overview of the life cycle
1. Raw material extraction
Computers contain several non-renewable natural resources extracted from the earth and processed, often requiring a significant amount of resources and energy. These include sand (to make glass for screens), oil (used for plastics), and several metals used in wiring and circuitry. The type of metals depend on the age of the components and can include lead, gold, iron, aluminum, zinc, nickel, tin, magnesium, silver, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and others. Some of these are becoming increasingly scarce and sometimes their supply chain leads to operations with questionable social and environmental issues. For example, coltan is a rare metal that contains tantalum, a key component of electronic circuitry in computers, smart phones and e-readers. The global tantalum capacitor market is worth about $2 billion annually. Based on an article by the Globe and Mail (3), a significant amount of coltan is mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo and helping finance a civil war.
2. Material manufacturing
After extraction and processing, raw materials are then used in the production of other raw materials for the computer's components. A publication by the United Nations University (4) has estimated that the manufacture of a computer and monitor weighing 53 lbs (24 kg) requires 10 times the amount of fossil fuels (over 530 lbs or 240 kg), 50 lbs (23 kg) of chemicals and 3300 lbs (1497 kg) of water. For an automobile or refrigerator, for example, the weight of fossil fuels used for production is roughly equal to their weights.
3. Computer and accessory manufacturing, packaging and transport
Compnent materials are then made into parts such as hard drives, screens and plastic housings. More often than not, these parts are shipped elsewhere for assembly into the finished computer. The computer or accessories are then packaged, usually in plastics and cardboard for protection during transit.
Packaged computers and their accessories are shipped all over the world, many travelling large distances from where they were manufactured. This influences the carbon footprint of the product, with truck transport contributing the most and rail or ship the least (per kg or lb of product).
4. Use
The volume of data being generated, transmitted and stored as a result of Internet use has exploded, and Web server farms or data centers have grown with it. Each facility draws a significant amount of power to run and cool the thousands of computers it takes to keep up with 24-hour-a-day fast-growing demand. It is estimated that the production and running of the ICT sector equates to 2% of global GHG emissions, similar to the airline industry, and this is expected to double by 2020 (5). As an example, every year 62 trillion spam emails are sent, contributing greenhouse gases equivalent to two billion gallons of gasoline, or enough to drive a car around the globe 1.6 million times (6).
5. End of Life
Based on the U.S. EPA, the U.S. is discarding older electronic products faster than ever due to the short life-span of electronics (7,8). In 2005, 26 to 37 million computers became obsolete. In 2007 about 1.5 to 1.8 million tons were primarily disposed in landfills and only 18% of e-waste was recycled. A total of 61% were exported for remanufacture or refurbishment.
Some of the constituents, such as lead, nickel, cadmium, and mercury, could pose risks to human health or the environment if mismanaged at their end-of-life. The U.S. EPA strongly supports keeping used electronics out of landfills to recover materials and reduce the environmental impacts and energy demands from mining and manufacturing (8). For example:
  • Recycling 1 million laptops saves the same amount of electricity used by 3,657 US homes in a year.
  • One metric ton of circuit boards can contain 40 to 800 times the concentrations of gold ore mined in the US and 30-40 times the concentration of copper ore mined in the US.
One concern is that large amounts of e-waste are sent to China, India and Kenya where workers may be unprotected and exposed to hazardous materials like mercury and lead in the process of burning electronics in search of copper and aluminum to resell. Greenpeace USA, the Basel Action Network (BAN) and The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition currently lead campaigns focused on e-waste issues (9,10,11).
Opportunities
Buying from a company that is making efforts to be sustainable is a good start. For example, the electronic tools used to produce this blog were made by Acer, NEC and Hewlett-Packard. All three companies have thorough sustainability programs outlined on their web sites, showing engagement with the key environmental and social issues (12,13,14). Anyone interested in "green" electronics should also be aware of the EPEAT Registry for Green Electronics (15). In addition, consider turning off your computer at night and weekends, donating old computers and recycling your electronics.
All manufacturing sectors have challenging environmental issues and are working to improve the situation. Paper, print and e-media will co-exist for many years to come. They all have either negative or positive environmental, social and economic impacts that can be continuously improved. Given the fact that forest products have such unique environmental features (renewable, recyclable, carbon capture and storage, supporting sustainable forest management), perhaps there are unique partnership opportunities with the ICT sector, especially in the area of sustainable product design. Server farms could easily be powered by renewable biomass from sustainably managed forests. With emerging research on nano-cellulose, wood-plastic composites, and bio-diesel, perhaps the forest products from my woodlot will also one day be valued, not only for pulp and timber, but for biochemicals extracted from woody biomass to make renewable plastic and bio-diesel fuel used in computer manufacturing.
References
  1. http://www.payitgreen.org/
  1. http://edliveshere.com/content/balance/25/introduction/
  2. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/smartphones-blood-stains-at-our-fingertips/article1825207/ -
  3. http://www.it-environment.org/compenv.html
  4. Arnfalk, P. 2010. Analyzing the ICT - Paper Interplay and its Environmental Implications
  5. http://www.mcafee.com/us/resources/reports/rp-carbonfootprint2009.pdf
  6. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/fact7-08.pdf
  7. http://www.epa.gov/wastes/conserve/materials/ecycling/faq.htm#general
  8. http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/toxics/hi-tech-highly-toxic/
  9. http://www.ban.org/
  10. http://svtc.org/our-work
  11. http://www.acer-group.com/public/Sustainability/sustainability01.htm
  12. http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/
  13. http://www.nec.co.jp/csr/en/
  14. http://www.epeat.net/default.aspx

Paper has a head start – the public ought to know


When made responsibly, it's difficult to find a more sustainable product than paper due to its unique features:
  • It is the most recycled product in the world.
  • It is based on a renewable resource - trees that can be managed responsibly to retain the environmental, social and economic benefits of forests.
  • It is produced using a high percentage of renewable biomass energy.
  • It can be re-used for many other applications.
  • It is relaxing to read, and simple to use.
  • It is more effective for learning and literacy.
Look around you. How many products have these environmental and social features? Most are based on non-renewable materials, have much lower recycling rates.
But yet we are bombarded with slogans like "Go paperless - Go Green", "Paper kills trees", and other negative and misleading messages regarding paper and print. At a recent NHL hockey game I attended with my son I even saw an ad (on the big suspended screen) claiming that the use of recycled content tissue paper is saving forests and "nature". It essentially told 20,000 people that "using wood to make paper is bad"!
Beware the Seven Sins of Greenwash
As a starting point we should agree that all products have an environmental impact over their life-cycles and all products should be manufactured in the most sustainable way possible. With that in mind, less consumption is better for the planet, especially given dwindling resources and rising populations. However, communicating the environmental benefits and disadvantages of products needs to be done with the product life-cycle in mind, and it should not mislead people. It needs to be factual, verifiable and not exaggerated (as per environmental marketing guidelines) (1). Claiming that a product is "better for the environment" due to one feature only (i.e. recycled fiber), is considered one of the Seven Sins of Greenwashing (2).
The sustainable use of recycled fiber to make paper products is good practice. However, by making recycled a "gold" standard and talking about "saving trees" we are doing our industry a disfavor. Here are some key points again regarding recycled fiber use in paper (3):
  • Recycled fiber is based on wood fiber. Without the use of wood, recycled disappears.
  • Recycled fiber breaks down after 4-6 times of recycling, it becomes waste.
  • A minimum of 40% wood fiber is needed to make the global fiber cycle work.
  • Without wood, the production of paper ceases in a time period between 6 and 18 months depending on the paper grade, including toilet paper.
  • Over 80% of recovered paper in the world is used for carton and paperboard, only 6% in printing and writing grades.
The message people need to get is that the world needs a sustainable fiber cycle made up of well-managed forests and recycled paper. We need both to make all the various paper and board products used today. In fact, they will both continue to be the main source of fiber for papermaking for the next two decades and beyond (4). We need to keep our working forests and we need to manage them responsibly, or else they will eventually be replaced by shopping malls and highways because there is no incentive for landowners to keep them. Forest conservation today only covers 12% of the global forests (5). In other words, sustainable forest management and developing incentives to keep our forests is critical for our environment. Replacing forest products with products made from non-renewable materials that involve more intrusive land uses to extract (mining, oil extraction) is perhaps not a more sustainable choice over the long term.
Paper already has a head start
In the past two years, the positive messaging regarding the sustainability of paper and print has gained momentum. Two sides (http://www.twosides.info/), a non-profit focused on telling the positive environmental story of paper and print has had good success and is present in 12 European countries and working on a start-up in the US. One of their success stories has been a campaign to convince major corporations against using misleading environmental messaging related to e-billing (i.e. the go paperless - go green message). The web site is worth a visit to view myths and facts about paper and print, as well as many case studies and resources for download.
Both Domtar (www.paperbecause.com) and International Paper (http://www.internationalpaper.com/apps/gopaper/index.html) have launched initiatives to promote the sustainable features of paper and make the connection between paper and well-managed forests. Here are a list of some other publications and web sites on this topic:
The tide may be slowly turning on the perception of paper and print. A stronger international voice led by organizations like Two Sides may be a logical next step, given that paper and print is everywhere and touches almost every person on the planet. This type of global network would strengthen the credibility, expertise and reach of a positive message.
In the end, it's not a question of paper vs other products (i.e. e-media, plastic) but rather a combination of products, produced in a way that continuously reduces overall impacts on the planet and meet our society's needs. However, paper does have a head-start on many other products due to its unique environmental features.
References
  1. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides980427.htm,http://www.csreurope.org/pages/en/sustainablemarketing_guide.html
  2. http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/
  3. Metafore. 2006. The Fibre Cycle Technical Document. Summary Report, March 2006. 14 p.
  4. Pöyry 2009. World Fibre Outlook up to 2025, 2009 edition, Volume 1, Executive Report (Confidential Report).
  5. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/fra2010/en/

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Paper Environmental Scorecards and Declarations

Many corporate paper buyers have developed environmental policies or guidelines for paper procurement which typically involve evaluating the environmental performance and social responsibility of their paper suppliers, or the environmental footprint of the paper grades they purchase.  The most commonly used product declarations and scorecards appear to be the following:

Ø  Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT) (1)
Ø  Paper Profile (2)
Ø  WWF – Check your Paper (3)
Ø  PREPS – Publishers Database for Responsible Environmental Paper Sourcing (4)

Based on several discussions over the years and recent interviews, it is clear that none of these voluntary systems are dominating the global marketplace, and none of them are recognized as an industry standard.  Many companies still develop their own environmental and social responsibility surveys to gather the information required from paper suppliers. 

A look at the history of these tools and some of their pros and cons may shed more light on opportunities for improvement.   For additional information on this topic, publications by WBCSD (5) and NCASI (6) are recommended.

Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT)

EPAT was developed by a non-profit sustainability organization (GreenBlue), in collaboration with several North American paper buyers and suppliers.   EPAT is based on the following seven desired outcomes for environmentally preferable paper:

1. Efficient use and conservation of raw materials
2. Minimization of waste
3. Conservation of natural systems
4. Clean production
5. Community and human well-being
6. Credible verification and reporting
7. Economic viability

Each one of these outcomes is measured by a series of associated performance indicators that include supply chain information.  EPAT is a web-based tool (https://www.epat.org) for member companies only.  Suppliers can enter data online and then give specific buyers access to the data.    Tom Pollock from GreenBlue explained that “EPAT reports on 20 key performance indicators across the life cycle of paper products and is designed specifically to not have emphasis on any single indicator. Because it is data-driven, EPAT relies on specific mill data and up-to-date industry benchmarking information to generate results. Companies can weight indicators according to their goals and purchasing realities, but there are also default weight sets for certain paper types, which some companies choose to utilize as a guide to create their weight sets.”    EPAT is currently the most comprehensive of all the scorecards and declarations in its coverage of environmental and social responsibility indicators. 

Most major pulp and paper producers in North America are signed up to EPAT, as well as several large corporate paper buyers such as Time Inc., J.C. Penney, Hearst Corporation, Bank of America, REI, Best Buy, Sears, Staples Inc., Starbucks Coffee Company, Transcontinental, FedEx Office, and Best Buy.  Laura Thompson, Director of Technical Marketing and Sustainable Development at Sappi Fine Paper North America explains: “The various scorecards are good informational tools but none of them capture the whole life cycle of paper.  Sappi currently supports the EPAT tool because we believe it is the most comprehensive resource available. Furthermore, EPAT does not build in a bias toward recycled fiber usage or FSC-only certification but rather it acknowledges all of the major forestry certification programs.  That said, customer inquiries and custom-made surveys are still the most common method of reporting our data to customers.”

The use of EPAT by J.C. Penney illustrates how scorecards can influence purchasing decisions.   Kim Nagele, Senior Buyer for J.C. Penney, states:  “We like the EPAT because it is fact based.  We have participated in the program since its early days and have done internal studies to become familiar with the scorecard and also decide how to weigh the various indicators.  We use a weight set based on a balanced approach that focuses on measured performance indicators instead of giving preference to certain fiber types.  EPAT scores now make up a fixed percentage of our total paper purchasing scorecard.  So, good environmental performance can definitely pay off for our suppliers.”

Pros

·        Thorough in its coverage of indicators and categories.
·        Mostly data driven.
·        Used by several large corporations in North America.

Cons

·        Weighting can be changed by the user and this influences scores.
·        There are some subjective indicators that can influence scoring.
·        Requires training related to its use and the environmental aspects of the paper supply chain.
·        Its use is restricted to North America.

Paper Profile

Paper Profile is a voluntary product declaration that covers relevant environmental aspects related to pulp and paper production including product composition and emissions, wood procurement and environmental management as average data within a specific reporting period.  It was developed by European paper producers and current participating companies are Arctic Paper, Burgo Group, Clairefontaine, Grycksbo Paper, Holmen Paper, International Paper, LECTA, Lenzing Papier, Mondi AG, M-real, Myllykoski, Norske Skog, Papierfabrik Scheufelen, Portucel Soporcel, Sappi, SCA Forest Products, Stora Enso, UPM and VIDA Paper.

Paper producing companies can apply for membership with Paper Profile and there are some costs.  Collecting and compiling the information for the Paper Profile is based on standardized calculation guidelines that are based on life-cycle inventory.  For example, reported environmental loading always includes loading from purchased pulp, in addition to mill site loading.  The paper profile only reports data and does not provide any system for ranking or scoring suppliers.  For more see:  http://www.paperprofile.com/index.html

“In Europe, the Paper Profile is popular and is used by many pulp and paper companies” says Sami Lundgren, Director of Environmental Services at UPM-Kymmene.  He adds “UPM is currently using the WWF Check Your Paper tool, EPAT and Paper Profile to satisfy customer demands. But the Paper Profile is the one we have used most widely over the past decade. In 2008, UPM was the first company to add a Carbon Profile (showing a paper grades carbon footprint) to the environmental information package available to customers. Recently, we have created a similar environmental information package for the pulp we sell to the market.”

Pros

·        Factual, only based on measured indicators.
·        Includes environmental loading from purchased pulp – an important element in the footprint of paper.
·        Can be expanded by suppliers to include other data (ex: carbon footprint).

Cons

·        Some key indicators are missing such as water use or effluent flow.
·        Requires technical understanding of the indicators presented.
·        Data calculations (i.e. LCI) are time-consuming.
·        Used mainly by European producers.

World Wildlife Fund (WWF) – Check Your Paper

Check Your Paper (CYP) is an updated version of the previously launched WWF Paper Scorecard and it is presented as an on-line paper rating scheme where paper producers, merchants and other distributors can input data, and pulp and paper buyers can search for products in the following categories: uncoated, coated, newsprint, tissue, packaging, specialty and pulp.  The database is open and transparent to the public and can be accessed at http://checkyourpaper.panda.org/

CYP focuses on a limited number of major impacts including: 1) forest impacts through wood harvesting, 2) greenhouse gas emissions, 3) water pollutants, and 4) wastes.  Each impact is allocated a maximum of either 10 or 20 points, adding up to a maximum potential 100 points.  The total rating is shown as a percentage figure and according to WWF this illustrates the total environmental impact of the product. 

Forty points are given to the fibre sourcing category and sixty points are given to environmental indicators from the mill sites, such as emissions to air, water and solid waste to landfill.  To earn maximum points on fibre sourcing, a paper product must contain high proportions of post-consumer recyled fibre and/or virgin fibre originating from FSC certified forests.  PEFC and its associated schemes (ex: SFI, CSA, other National Standards) meet WWF’s criteria for legality but not for certification and controlled sources.  So, paper without recycled content and certified under those schemes can score 10% at best in the fiber sourcing category. 

A scoring system that favours certain raw materials like recovered paper and FSC certified wood fibre may be limiting the use of CYP in the marketplace since many grades still contain virgin wood fiber and the certification system covering the most global forest area is PEFC and its affiliated standards (see www.pefc.org).  A brief review of some grades posted on WWF’s CYP web site showed the following:

·        Light-weight coated paper:  4 companies listed and a total of 12 paper grades.  The companies are SCA, UPM, Leipa and Steinbeis.
·        Uncoated woodfree paper:  5 companies and 20 paper grades (Mondi, M-real, Arjowiggins Graphic, Steinbeis, Lenzig Papier)
·        Pulp:  Sodra Cell AB was listed with 7 pulp grades.

Pros

·        Environmental data based on EU Eco-labelling scheme for paper.
·        User-friendly and simple scoring system.
·        Open and transparent.
·        The data for papers listed on the website is third-party audited and WWF strongly encourages independent third-party auditing.

Cons

·        Key indicators missing, like water use or effluent flow, air emissions like sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides, and particulates.
·        Rating is biased towards the use of FSC and recycled fiber.

Publishers’ Database for Responsible Environmental Paper Sourcing (PREPS)

PREPS is a joint initiative from nineteen leading publishers and includes a database of technical specifications and details of the pulps and forest sources for several paper grades. 

PREPS was developed and is managed by Acona, a UK CSR management consultancy.  Neil Everett, senior partner at Acona explains “PREPS was developed as a result of some of our key customers in the publishing industry needing more information related to forest sources of their purchased paper.  We developed the system to engage with mills and printers in order to collect relevant data that can be used by publishers in decision making.  The initiative is driven by the members who decide how they are going to use the information to influence purchasing decisions.  It includes information on forest sources and certification as well as quality indicators like basis weight, opacity, and brightness.  The database can be searched for key criteria and it now houses between 4,500 and 5,000 paper grades.”

PREPS currently benefits from the support of key global publishers such as Egmont, Cambridge University Press, Hachette, Harper Collins, McGraw-Hill, Oxford University Press, Reed Elsevier, Scholastic, Wiley-Blackwell, and others.  There are different levels of membership and associated fees which are outlined in the process manual found on the PREPS web site (http://prepsgroup.com/home.php).

Papers are awarded a grading of 1 to 5 stars based on a system developed by Egmont UK and Acona Ltd.  The grading system currently focuses only on fiber sourcing and does not include other elements of the life-cycle of paper.  However, improvements are underway to gather supplier data on water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.  PREPS gives preference to FSC certified fiber and recycled fiber as proof of responsible fiber sourcing, and only awards 3 out of 5 stars to papers certified using other third-party forest certifications schemes such as PEFC and its national affiliates.

Pros:

·        Simple scoring system.
·        Supported by several large publishing companies.
·        Covers several paper grades and several regions of the world.

Cons:

·        Rating is biased towards FSC and recycled fiber.
·        Missing important environmental indicators that make up the environmental footprint of paper.

Summary

Each of the above systems has, to some extent, been designed to meet the needs of their creators.  This can be seen by the selection of environmental indicators, and the way indicators are weighted to score or rate paper grades.  Out of the four systems reviewed, the most objective one is the Paper Profile which is based on measurable data and life-cycle inventory calculations.  This approach avoids the controversy related to weighting environmental indicators.  A similar approach was also used years ago by CPPA (now FPAC) in developing the Environmental Profile Data Sheet (EPDS).  Michael Bradley, Sustainability Director at Canfor Pulp who has been involved with a number of industry LCA studies explains: “The system that most followed a true life-cycle inventory approach was the EPDS.  Canfor Pulp still uses a modified EPDS to report environmental data to the marketplace.  It includes all the key data indicators, there is no weighting, it is product specific and it is independently audited.  The downside of the EPDS is that it requires a significant amount of time to gather the data and make the calculations.  None of the other scorecards or systems used today match the level of rigour that EPDS has.”(7)

These various viewpoints and preferences may explain why the uptake of these systems has been inconsistent.  The following features may increase the likelihood that some tools become used more widely:

·        Ensuring that key environmental indicators in the life-cycle of paper are included.
·        Avoiding bias towards certain fiber types used as raw materials.
·        Focusing on measurable data and life-cycle-inventory, instead of subjective indicators.
·        Offering a low cost and user-friendly system, including time required to complete.
·        Requiring mandatory third-party verification of the scorecard or declaration.
·        Getting endorsement from environmental organizations.

If weighting is to be included, LCA specialists would claim that it should be fixed (not open to modification by users) and developed using a multi-stakeholder panel of experts in life-cycle-assessment, environmental impact assessment and environmental management in the forest products industry (8).  This approach ensures credibility and also avoids “greenwashing” as explained by Terrachoice:  “The Sin of the Hidden Trade-off is committed by suggesting a product is “green” based on a single environmental attribute (the recycled content of paper, for example) or an unreasonably narrow set of attributes (recycled content and chlorine free bleaching) without attention to other important, or perhaps more important, environmental issues (such as energy, global warming, water, and forestry impacts of paper). Such claims are not usually false, but are used to paint a “greener” picture of the product than a more complete environmental analysis would support.”(9)

References

1.     https://www.epat.org
2.     http://www.paperprofile.com
6.     National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI).  2007.  Comparative Review of Environmental labelling programs.  Special report No. 07-06.  Research Triangle Park, N.C.  National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
8.     F. Cornejo, M. Janssen, C. Gauldreault, Rejean Samson, P.R. Stuart.  2005.  Using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a Tool to Enhance Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).  Department of Chemical Engineering, École Polytechnique – Montréal, (Québec).