GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Archives] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[GreenYes] Re: Calculate enviro. savings from green printing

Does this not to some degree depend upon what is meant by "green

Near me - in Kent, UK - Aylesford Newsprint ships in large freight
trucks of glossy magazine paper from Germany, as well as all over
the UK. This has environmental costs (we are taking big trucks
here) that I suspect are rarely factored in by Aylesord's bosses and
publicists. The paper is then treated with bleaches / solvents to
remove the (hardly non-toxic already) inks, using of course much water
too. They have arrangements to burn waste offsite, since acting as
one of several promoters for the llington incinerator build, so they no
longer use the small onsite incinerator (or use it less?). This at
might ensure higher temp burn and more reliably, but is hardly "green".

They then of course process the pulp and later ptint it up with news
paper inks for the Kent Messenger, and I assume sell on stocks to
other print shops.

As I see it, the footprint for these guys is as bad as many that make
paper 'fresh'.

They are not acting locally, or refusing much stock, and seem happy
enough to use the River Medway as an overflow, the local water table
as a dump (Allington is for sure in the same catchment), do nothing
to limit distance traveled by their wastes... They are HUGE and act
as a Euro-regional centre.

"Green" isn't in it.

I don't know how many other plants operate on these scales and with
these stocks. I think a "how green is it" question can't be answered
in a global stock-answer way for all plants, but merely on a per site

My assumption is that many plants are doing good, or trying to. But
Aylseford? No way. BTW, the New Scientist here did a piece on
the costs of recycling paper that used Alyesford as one of its main
illustrations. This acted, at the time Bjorn Lomborg was in the media
a lot, to enhance the "business as usual" lobby by tacitly undermining
gren ideas and ideals. Can't say I think the author necessarily had
that intent (or the NS editors), and I certainly don't agree with
all is always rosy in the garden (hence the above), but still, the
damaged the image of green printing here whether few or many plants
deserved to be tarred with that brush.


Ann Schneider wrote:

A local environmental newsletter included the following in formation
about the benefits to the environment made by their choice of paper and
ink. I was wondering if someone has developed some formula or
"calculator" like the envir.footprint website, where a newletter editor
could type in the specifics on paper and ink and get the number of trees
saved, etc.

Any suggestions on existing formulas or website that could do this would
be very helpful. I understand that e-news has additional benefits but
for now I just want info on paper newsletters and not a discussion of one
form of media over another.


Ann Schneider
Sierra Club

--- copied from either LCV or Planning & Conservation League newlsetter

By Printing the Californai Update with begetable-based inks on
100%post-consumer recycled paper amdw with windmill energy, we saved:

169 trees
7,951 lbs. of landfill *
15,656 lbs of greenhouse gas emissions
71,864 gallons of water
119,836,400 BTUs of energy

includes the graphic for FSC
Recycled supporting responsible use of forest products

and the chasing arrows with 100% in the center

(*Bad language really it would have to be converted to volumn and then it
would be saved this much space in the landfill)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GreenYes" group.
To post to this group, send email to GreenYes@no.address
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to GreenYes-unsubscribe@no.address
For more options, visit this group at

[GreenYes Archives] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]