Clearing the air - magazine article

What's the worst thing that could happen to an environmentalist? No, this isn't the latest joke being put about by tree loggers and coal miners. This is serious. What is the worst possible outcome for somebody who puts the environment first?

Surely the worst thing that could happen is that after all the dire warnings, the doomsday scenarios, the cajoling and encouragement, the threats and pleading, after all that effort, the world just shrugs its shoulders and goes back to business as usual, resulting in an
environmental cataclysm; the polar icecaps melt, fertile land turns to dust, the oceans boil, storms and tempests rage throughout the land. Wouldn't that be just terrible? To make all those predictions and then have them turn out to be true.

On the other hand, the best thing that could happen is to be totally and utterly wrong. Much better to discover that the threat of impending doom is in fact way off the money, not even close. Global warming? Nah. Loss of biodiversity? Nothing. Contamination of air, land and sea? No big deal. What could be better than to realise that no matter what we may fear and dread, no matter what we do, everything in the end turns out rosy.
Beautiful.

At it's most extreme, this is the paradox of environmentalism: that in order to win the argument – to be able to say 'Look, we told you so' - it is necessary to lose the battle. Lose the argument and, sure, it's a bit embarrassing but surely that's better than
witnessing the Apocalypse?

The challenge for environmentalism though is to do both – to win both the argument and the battle; to convince hearts and minds, change behaviour and save the planet even if it means that, by doing so, none of the doomsday predictions will come true. In fact we will never know if indeed they would have come true if we hadn't all switched to solar energy and recycled water. We'll just have to take it on faith that they would have happened because nobody really wants to take the risk that they won't happen if we continue on the way we have been for the past few hundred years.

Look who's not talking


Environmentalism is full of such paradoxes and conundrums. It's what makes it such a prickly subject on all sides, to the degree that many would prefer not to talk about it at all, even if they are doing what might be considered the right thing for the environment. It's
all become just a little too difficult – even for the Greens themselves who declined the opportunity to discuss Green policies and the printing industry for this issue of our magazine.

Uncertainty breeds fearfulness and a bunker mentality. Scientists can gather the data and make extrapolations, report on what has happened and what, as a consequence, is likely to happen but, in the end, no-one knows what will come to pass when all the variables are played out. This is particularly true of a system as complex and unmanageable as the
environment and it applies not only to the 'do nothing' scenario but also to the 'do something' scenario.

Sometimes measures that are introduced with the best of all intentions can have unpredictable and unintended results We see this with reports about initiatives that have been launched to address specific problems – or perhaps just to cash in on consumer
sentiment – that end up simply adding to the problem, a phenomenon that ranges from plastic shopping bags to hybrid vehicles. How do you compare, for instance, produce grown in Australia and New Zealand and exported by ship compared to food grown in
hothouses in Europe or by using intensive farming techniques?

This is not a simple question and yet, not surprisingly, it hasn't stopped businesses or politicians from cashing in on the idea in order to exploit green concern. The dressing up of online annual reporting and e-statements as an environmental initiative rather than a cost-cutting measure is another example. Issues such as these are not just theoretical questions for the printing industry – there is always somebody willing and able to use a bit of misinformation to grab market share – but they highlight the need for constant vigilance in the battle between claim and counter-claim, between coming clean or being 'greenwashed'.

Just join the dots


But really, who has the time or resources to do that? Separating fact from fiction, truth from hype is beyond the means of most business owners who probably have a thousand other more pressing concerns. Among all the names that are flung about concerning
environmental action or inaction – sceptic, hardliner, realist or fanatic – perhaps the most appropriate one for the majority of people is 'muddler'. We muddle through, trying to do the best we can. No sane person sets out to deliberately destroy the world in which they
live and most reasonable people, once alerted to their harmful activities, will do their best to ameliorate the effects; the problem, as always, is just knowing what to do. This is happening now and there is no obstacle to anybody doing likewise.

In the 90s, the big issue for the printing industry was VOC emissions, and while it hasn't gone away entirely, there's no doubt that the industry has moved well away from the worst excesses of chemical usage. In all areas – fount solutions, blanket and roller washes, plate processing, even solvent-based inkjet inks – there is now no reason why printing should not be a cleaner activity. It's not hard – just talk to the suppliers.

Similarly paper has always been a 'hot' topic and continues to be so but again, there is now no reason why the process of making paper, let alone putting ink on it, cannot be a sustainable, non-polluting activity. The know-how is there, examples can be found
throughout the industry and all it requires is the effort to search them out. The printing industry has come a long way in the past 20 years, thanks largely to
improvements in technology and the drive for greater efficiency. The bad old days truly are a thing of the past, and that's not a reason for complacency nor a plea for special treatment in the future but rather a reminder that change can take place for the better.

Cutting down on carbon


The next big issue on the horizon (and not that far away) is reducing carbon emissions in response to the problem of global warming. At some point in the not too distant future (if they are not doing so already) your customers may well start asking what you are doing
to cut your carbon footprint. Don't say you weren't warned; this issue has been around for a long time.

I wrote my first article about greenhouse gases 20 years ago. That is to say, I was writing about domestic appliances and the growing debate about the importance of taking energy consumption into account when comparing different types of fridges, washing machines and dishwashers. Back then, the focus was on annual running costs – how much more it
would cost per annum to run a particular appliance based on average use – and there were indeed significant differences between certain brands and models.

At the time, energy consumption still came fairly low on consumers' lists of priorities when making purchasing decisions - after price, performance and brand reliability – but there was a push to make comparative information more easily available so that people
could take it into account. It was also about this time that people (not just scientists or greenies) started to make the connection between power consumption and CO2 emissions, and the possible consequences for the environment.

Australia was in fact one of the first countries to introduce mandatory comparative labeling of domestic appliances. Fridges and freezers began in NSW and Victoria in 1986, followed by air conditioners (1987), dishwashers (1988), clothes dryers (1989) and
washing machines (1990). The scheme became national during the 90s and was overhauled towards the end of the decade to take account of the fact that appliances had indeed become a lot more efficient and were starting to score off the scale.

From a printing perspective, the introduction of mandatory labeling was a boon because just about the only cost associated with its introduction was the printing of the labels. Most appliance manufacturers already knew how much energy their products consumed and even made that information available in manuals etc, albeit in a form that made it hard to compare like with like.

Simple but effective


It was such a simple measure and yet over the years, the impact of energy labeling has been immense in terms of promoting reduced energy use. Since its introduction, the energy star system for domestic appliances has been adopted on a worldwide basis and in every country it has been shown to raise efficiency standards through competition. It has
been estimated that the average fridge today uses about a quarter of the electricity consumed by a fridge 30 years ago even though, today, the fridges are, on average, bigger and have more features. A report by the International Energy Association has calculated
that without the introduction of labels and associated minimum standards, electricity consumption in OECD countries in 2020 would be about 12 percent higher than is currently predicted, a saving worth billions of dollars and thousands of tonnes of CO2.

Now there are moves overseas to introduce carbon labeling on other products such as foodstuffs to tell consumers how much carbon has been generated by an item's production and distribution. Such a scheme is fraught with difficulties –in the UK, attempts to introduce carbon labeling have so far been limited to a single brand of plain chips – but with an agreed method for calculating emissions, it may provide a more
accurate measure of greenhouse gas emissions than, say, food miles.

If and when consumers do start to include energy efficiency in all their purchasing decisions, either through choice or necessity, then the ripple-on effects will be profound. That's when all manufacturing companies, including printers, will have to sit up and take notice – and become a lot more vocal about what they are doing.

When energy labels were first introduced, appliance manufacturers argued that it would have a negative effect on the local industry because they would be unable to compete with more efficient overseas-made brands and models. They were right; once consumers
started factoring in energy efficiency to their purchasing decisions, the more inefficient products were doomed, as were any manufacturers who were unable make efficient appliances or make them cheaply enough.

Does the local printing industry face the same future? There's no reason why it should and, indeed, there may be advantages in calculating a carbon input in comparison with other countries and other media (and a long way to go before we know either way).
Ultimately though, it will not be a question of who is clean but who can be clean most cost-effectively. Amidst all the 'green' confusion, the political jockeying on public policy and competing claims, that economic fact of life remains incontrovertible.

Got a view on this story? Drop us a line and let us know