In an interesting example of how most things environmental are not as simple as you might think, the seemingly straightforward matter of promoting less paper use is attracting some strong, and legitimate, blowback.  We have all seen messages on emails, utility bills, marketing mail, and other communications urging us to “go paperless.”  Generally, the reason given for setting aside paper in favor of (usually) electronic forms of communication is to help protect the environment.  The facts in favor of this argument have been difficult to pin down, however.  In our own past work, we have examined the life cycle environmental aspects of both written and electronic communications to see whether one or the other produces more greenhouse gases and other pollutants, consumes more energy, and so on.  The answer, unsatisfying as it may be, is it depends, and the case in favor of shifting to electronic communication from traditional paper-based methods is not the slam-dunk that you may think it is.

Unsurprisingly, those involved in the paper value chain have not been pleased by the attacks on their product, and have recently begun to fight back.  Two Sides, an organization that represents these interests, has launched a campaign to get large corporate entities to forswear the use of messages in their correspondence that suggest that paper is an environmentally inferior means of communication, and it is generating noteworthy results.

According to a recent news release, 65 companies across North America have removed what Two Sides characterizes as inaccurate anti-paper claims.  Two Sides has accomplished this feat by presenting the following points:

• Print on paper originates from a renewable resource, trees grown in responsibly managed North American forests.
• Paper is the most recycled commodity with a recovery rate of over 65% in North America.
• North America grows twice as much wood as we harvest each year, and forest volume has increased by nearly 50 percent over the last six decades.
• Unsubstantiated environmental marketing claims like “go paperless, go green” are damaging to the North American economy and threaten millions of jobs.

 

This argument might just be another in the continuing series of arguments around two different sets of “facts” if not for an important piece of the environmental policy landscape:  The Green Guides issued by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  FTC regulates advertising claims under authority provided by the Congress many decades ago.  FTC’s goal in establishing its rules is to prevent consumers from being exposed to advertising that is misleading.  Given the growth of environmentally-related products and services in the U.S. economy over the past 20 years or so, and the confusion in the marketplace over the validity of some of claims of environmental benefits that they generate, FTC decided to issue guidance to clarify what claims it considers legitimate and what could be viewed as misleading.  The most recent version of this guidance (i.e., the Green Guides) was issued in 2012 following several years of study and extensive public input.  The Green Guides make clear that

• Marketers should not make broad, unqualified general environmental benefit claims like ‘green’ or ‘eco-friendly.’ Broad claims are difficult to substantiate, if not impossible.
• Marketers should qualify general claims with specific environmental benefits. Qualifications for any claim should be clear, prominent, and specific.

 

Click here for a concise summary of the provisions of the Green Guides.

So in this case, an existing industry that is being actively disrupted by new technology is fighting back with facts, with support from rules designed to provide arguments and counter-arguments supported by data rather than mere supposition, and is achieving some noteworthy success in rolling back what appeared to be a rising and unstoppable tide.  That this industry is using the environmental and broader sustainability attributes of its products is especially interesting.  As our understanding of the full life cycle implications of the products and services that we use every day grows, I suspect that there will be many more examples in which the conventional wisdom and the obvious answer prove to be wrong.