More huffing and puffing over carbon debate

Following James Cryer’s commentary last week on carbon calculators, Paul Nieuwhof Printing Industries general manager for Western Australia and national environment manager and Hagop Tchamkertenian Printing Industries national manager for policy and government affairs offer their thoughts on the matter.

In response to James Cryer’s piece, James like many other people could be forgiven for viewing the various carbon calculators around the place with cynicism. There are plenty of them out there, but they are certainly not a precise science and they probably don’t need to be anyway. There are clearly defined boundaries of where scope one, two and three emissions are measured and in time everything we use will come with a disclosure of the carbon footprint. 
 
The debate at the moment is enough to do anyone’s head in and especially printers who get the diatribe about printing using paper which destroys trees and takes away the planets lungs. Time will catch up with all those who currently downplay the significance of the carbon footprint issue. If the world continues being concerned with the level of carbon in the atmosphere, then there will be a cost associated with such emissions in everything we produce, sell and purchase.
 
What we would say to James is that the world’s scientific community overwhelmingly acknowledges the rise in Green House Gases (GHGs) and that it is related to human activity. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the major GHG being emitted by human activity and it also serves as the unit of measurement. There is consensus that too much CO2 and other GHGs are polluting our thin atmosphere and whether we like it or not they constitute another form of pollution.  If the debate is one of, is CO2 the guilty party, well we have to take the word of the scientific community on that unless we are convinced that they are all part of some global conspiracy.  The same scientists would tell us that standing around the Fukushima nuclear plant would not be a good idea at the moment and who would argue with that. 
 
CO2 emissions are measured in parts per million and we have no doubt that scientists can measure the CO2 emissions from a tonne of coal when it is burnt. If we think the scientists can’t measure the parts per million in the atmosphere of this weightless gas then one can only wonder how we ever landed men on the moon or developed the silicon chip not to mention our advances in medicine.    
 
We know how much CO2 (roughly) it takes to produce 1kWh of grid energy, 1MJ of propane/butane, 1L of petrol and 1L of diesel. We are not measuring emissions, but the use of energy which is measurable and can be converted to CO2 equivalent.
 
Is there a difference between the emissions of various printers? Our guess would be if you removed the best and the worst from the sample then probably not. With the introduction of a carbon tax we suspect that more of them will be looking to reduce their emission through efficiencies and other means. But in the absence of a calculator, what are we proposing to use when we are obliged to identify our carbon footprint?
 
In regards to pursuing the CO2 footprint over the supply chain, there are already clear parameters as mentioned earlier in the various scope one, two and three emissions.  What many people in the paper and printing industries would feel somewhat aggrieved by is the fact that the carbon counter starts when the chainsaw hits the bark and there is no recognition of the carbon captured by the massive and increasing plantations feeding the paper industry. The term used is “additionally” and if we could change that then we’re sure we’d all be happier as an industry. 
 
What’s to be done next?
The first crucial step of any business is to mitigate its carbon emissions by becoming more efficient and reducing its energy use. With the Federal Government proposing to introduce a price on carbon from 1 July 2012 in the form of the proposed carbon tax, businesses will have a financial incentive to reduce their overall carbon footprint. Offsets are a second best option, in that what you can’t reduce, you aim to offset. The voluntary offset market has been under the microscope and it has not been as successful as one would have hoped. At one end of the spectrum it is highly politicised, and at the other end highly commercialised. Research into the voluntary carbon offset market a few years ago showed that administration costs can vary from between 5% to 35% and the cost per tonne of CO2 from $13 to $35. 
 
James is right in that there are aspects that a carbon calculator won’t pick up and he cites the example of junk mail.  Whilst we would acknowledge that there are some issues with junk mail and litter, that part of the industry has implemented measures to reduce the problem. Advertisers wouldn’t continue using this form of printed material if it didn’t deliver the results for them. In the end, it may have a relatively small CO2 footprint too. If people don’t want it, they can show their preferences by placing appropriate notices on the mail box, and if they do want to receive it, then it is like newspapers, mostly placed back into recycling.
 
A recently released life cycle assessment of the contribution of newspapers, magazines, photo books, books, and advertising leaflets to the climate impacts of consumption by Finnish households shows a small impact of approximately 1%. The biggest climate impacts of consumption by Finnish households were attributable to housing (28%), food products (16%), and transport (13%).

Tony Duncan’s survey indicated customers don’t value environmental performance over price. Yes James, no surprises here and that would pretty much go for most things people buy.  But with the expectations of triple bottom line reporting there is a requirement for printers to demonstrate their sustainable practices to government purchasers and large corporates. The twist is that none of these major buyers of print want to see a shift in the price point but are all very quick to tell their own customers of the need to bear cost increases when they see fit. Frustrating, but what can you do?
 
Carbon neutrality could well be a fad. That is why Printing Industries is helping the industry with initiatives like Sustainable Green Print to help industry members understand and reduce their carbon footprint. Also, a lot of the directly attributed carbon in the printing plant comes from electricity usage. And we all know that a carbon tax will increase these prices. Understanding the details of this issue now will help printing businesses put long term carbon reduction strategies in place to help mitigate these cost increases.
 
Carbon measurement is unlikely to go away. If approached as a waste reduction strategy printing businesses will not only save money but also will be able to report the emissions they control to meet future reporting requirements. Government policy focus is on carbon and carbon reporting forms the foundation for benchmarking and reduction targets. While the printing industry continues to work successfully to address a large number of other environmental issues, these often tend to be industry specific. As an industry we can choose to ignore these facts and hope the problem goes away or we can start on a journey of understanding how carbon affects our business and what measures we can take to reduce its effect. To understand we need to be able to measure, as this provides us with the necessary benchmarks for ongoing improvements.