Tag: EarthTalk

Paper Production, Q&A With EarthTalk

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

You don’t hear much anymore about the cutting of our forests to make paper. Has this destructive practice just moved overseas where we don’t have to confront it, or have increases in recycling in recent years made paper production less destructive?
– J. W., Greenville, SC

It’s true that saving paper (and in turn saving trees) used to be a big discussion topic at home, school and office, but these days you don’t hear much about it. This is likely because paper recycling has become ubiquitous; most of us are now well-versed in how to sort recyclable paper from other “waste.”

According to the American Paper and Forest Association (AF&PA), upwards of two-thirds of all paper consumed in the U.S. was recovered for recycling in 2018. What this means is that a lot of the paper we use now gets made with recycled materials that don’t cause more logging and deforestation.

A big player in this march forward has been the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international non-profit that sets standards on forest products and then certifies and labels those that meet the standards as eco-friendly. Another major factor has been the establishment of guidelines set forth and agreed to by 200 governmental and other entities in 2014’s New York Declaration of Forests (NYDP), an international agreement to “end natural forest loss” by 2030.

Despite this progress, deforestation for paper still continues unabated in Indonesia and other parts of the developing world where government oversight is non-existent and profit incentives are too great for illegal loggers to ignore. Some 10 percent of global deforestation (a major driver of climate change) is due to logging for wood products including paper, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

UCS reports that clearing tropical forests and replacing them with mono-cultural plantations of so-called “fastwood” trees like acacia, partly to make virgin paper, accounts for more deforestation across Indonesia than more infamous environmental bogeymen like palm oil production and coal mining. “This is particularly harmful because about a quarter of fastwood plantations were cleared on carbon-rich peat soils,” reports UCS, “adding significantly to global warming pollution.”

The forests of Indonesia are still falling to feed the world’s demand for paper products. Credit: Tom Fisk, Pexels

Beyond recycled paper itself, there are some promising alternatives to wood pulp as a feedstock for paper production. Some well-known alt-paper feedstocks include fiber crops like bamboo, kenaf, hemp, flax and jute, agricultural scraps such as sugarcane bagasse, corn husks or straw, and textiles left-over in the production of fabrics and rope. A newer entrant in the green paper alternatives playing field is calcium carbonate—literally rock dust—which is made by pulverizing construction waste and fusing it together with plastic before compressing it with massive rollers into its final paper-thin form.

What about, you might ask, the rapidly-growing digital age we find ourselves in now? Isn’t that saving trees? Yes, but consider the electricity load of all the computers, tablets and phones, as well as the server farms and network switching facilities that keep your e-mail inbox full and your Facebook feed full of new content. They’re largely powered by coal and other fossil fuels. Our addiction to digital information might just be taking a larger toll on the planet than if we still got our information the old-fashioned way—from actual books, magazines, newspapers and printed reports.

CONTACTS: AF&PA; UCS; FSC; New York Declaration of Forests.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

Factory Butte Lawsuits, Q&A With EarthTalk

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

What is the controversy over the Factory Butte landmark in Utah that has environmental groups filing lawsuits?
–M. Jensen, Taos, NM

The kerfuffle over Factory Butte, a 6,300-foot peak in Wayne County, Utah about 25 miles east of Capitol Reef National Park, stems from the on-again, off-again nature of federal rules about whether Off-Road Vehicles (ORVs) should be allowed to roam the 5,400 acres of wild desert surrounding it.

Environmentalists would like to see the 5,400 acres of desert wildlands surrounding iconic Factory Butte in central Utah permanently protected from off-road vehicles and mechanized transport of any kind. Credit: David Kingham, FlickrCC

Named by white settlers in the mid-19th century who thought its almost-architectural stature resembled a Provo, Utah woolen mill, Factory Butte is the latest flashpoint in a long timeline of disputes over what constitutes fair and proper use of federally managed desert wildlands in Utah and across the Southwest.

Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bear’s Ears have been in the news lately given efforts by the Trump administration to ease restrictions on development, but Factory Butte has remained out of the spotlight since a George W. Bush-era ruling to close it to ORVs given potential risks to fragile desert soils and endangered species. But in May 2019, after some 12 years of protection, Trump’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) opened up the desert around Factory Butte to ORVs once again despite protests.

“The agency’s decision ensures that one of Utah’s most recognizable landscapes will be defaced and damaged for years to come,” reports the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), a Salt Lake City-based conservation group leading the fight to keep ORVs out of fragile desert wildlands. “Contrary to popular myth, these tracks don’t simply disappear after the next rain!”

“Faced with public pressure and well-documented damage to the natural resource values of the areas around Factory Butte, the BLM disallowed ORV use in the area in 2006,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental non-profit working with SUWA in suing the BLM over the move in hopes of getting it overturned. “BLM indicated in its environmental impact analysis that the area around Factory Butte should remain permanently closed to unrestricted cross-country travel.”

Furthermore, environmental advocates are incensed as to how BLM re-opened the Factory Butte desert to ORVs—that is, without any new environmental reviews of feasibility, and in secrecy without soliciting or considering public comments. “By failing to update earlier environmental analyses, the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to, at the very least, conduct a supplemental environmental analysis to account for the significant changes that have occurred in the Factory Butte area over the past decade, including the significant changes being wrought by the climate crisis,” says NRDC.

This violation of NEPA is a central tenet of the lawsuit the two non-profits are jointly filing against the Trump administration for opening up the area to ORVs once again. “Unrestricted ORV use in this area is simply incompatible with its fragility. Those who hope to appreciate its awe-inspiring beauty would instead confront a vast web of tire ruts carved into the desert,” adds NRDC. “And the area faces a potential loss of its highly vulnerable desert species. We hope our lawsuit once again demonstrates these facts and brings renewed protection of this iconic western landscape.”

CONTACTS: Factory Butte Recreation Area (BLM); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA); Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.

“One-for-One” Charitable Space, Q&A with EarthTalk

/ activist360 / Leave a comment

Are any companies in the “one-for-one” charitable space pioneered by shoe maker TOMS focusing specifically on environmental sustainability?
–Becky B., Los Angeles, CA

TOMS may have been the first company to implement a “one-for-one” model, whereby it matches customer purchases with donations of free shoes to those in need in developing countries. But dozens of other businesses are now following suit with their own so-called “in-kind aid” programs. And yes indeed, several are focused on improving environmental conditions one way or another.

To wit, Brooklyn-based MPOWERD makes and sells solar powered task lights and other related off-grid gear—and donates another of each item sold to someone in need through partnerships with 650 “on-the-ground” non-profits in one of six developing countries. The company’s mission is to distribute clean energy options that provide a more economical and environmentally friendly approach to everyday tasks, whether users are in New York City or the Andes mountains. MPOWERED is a Certified B Corporation, meaning it pledges to use the power of business to build a more inclusive and sustainable economy and to operate in an ethical and environmentally responsible manner. Maybe it’s finally time to order some solar-powered string lights for that patio you’ve been ignoring?

Brooklyn-based MPOWERD makes and sells solar powered task lights and other related off-grid gear—and donates another of each item sold to someone in need through partnerships with 650 “on-the-ground” non-profits in one of six developing countries.

Another eco-friendly business in the “one-for-one” sector is LifeStraw, which makes pocket-sized water filters that remove 99.99 percent of waterborne bacteria so users can stay hydrated and healthy even if there’s no clean water source around. While LifeStraws are great for backpackers or others who choose to go off-grid on adventures, they are also handy—and potentially life-saving—in developing countries, where the company donates one filter for every actual customer purchase. In many cases, LifeStraw partners directly with schools in remote areas of developing countries to ensure that students can focus on their studies instead of worrying about where their next sip of water might come from—and whether or not it will make them sick.

While these one-for-one programs look good from a public relations standpoint and often actually really benefit those in need, critics wonder if the companies behind them could have a bigger impact through alternative models of charitable giving. “Handing out aid in kind gives plenty to worry about,” reports The Economist. “It could suck life from local markets, and foster a culture of aid-dependency.” Another criticism of the model is that handing out goods instead of cash runs the risk of spending money on things people don’t need and won’t use.

Even TOMS itself seems to be shying away from the in-kind donation model it pioneered in favor of making direct contributions to worthwhile charities. The company recently started channeling some of the profits from its new line of coffee to non-profits like Water for People, which provides sustainable, community-owned water systems (and safe drinking water as a result) to impoverished communities in seven developing countries. These donations are not tied directly to sales and represent a new direction for TOMS charitable giving.

While it may have its issues, the “one-for-one” model remains a great sell to consumers who like to know just how their purchasing power is being harnessed for the betterment of humanity and the planet.

CONTACTS: TOMS; MPOWERD; LifeStraw; Certified B Corporation.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. Send questions to: question@earthtalk.org.