{"id":6102,"date":"2011-02-02T13:38:05","date_gmt":"2011-02-02T21:38:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ietransfer.wpengine.com\/?p=6102"},"modified":"2011-02-02T13:38:05","modified_gmt":"2011-02-02T21:38:05","slug":"green-stats-cant-we-tell-them-without-the-agenda","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/inspiredeconomist.com\/articles\/green-stats-cant-we-tell-them-without-the-agenda\/","title":{"rendered":"Green Stats: Can’t We Tell Them Without the Agenda?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I just downloaded The State of the Paper Industry: Monitoring the Indicators of Environmental Performance<\/a>,<\/em> put out by the Steering Committee of the Environmental Paper Network<\/a>. On the surface, the numbers sound impressive and scary. The big bad paper industry needs to be reigned in for the good of the planet. Old growth forests are being ravaged, landfills are overflowing, and paper mills are desperate for recycled fiber to meet the demand.<\/p>\n

It’s the same old storyline. While I don’t doubt the individual data, the overall presentation, I believe, is misleading. At least in the Executive Summary, which is what most people will read, it mixes issues relevant to developing countries with those in industrialized nations; fails to make critical distinctions; and tells only a narrow (and therefore potentially misleading) section of the story. In fact, if you only read the executive summary, you’d think the paper industry everywhere, including the United States, was stuck in the 19th century.<\/p>\n

I care about the environment. I care out our forests. I care about global climate change, indigenous peoples, and issues facing our landfills. But by being so driven by their agenda, it felt \u2014 at least to me \u2014 that the writers were more interested in sensationalizing the issues than providing the kind of even-handed look at the situation that is helpful.<\/p>\n

I’ll give three examples:<\/p>\n

Old-growth and mature, second-growth natural forests store much larger amounts of carbon than newly planted stands and once logged, require decades to recover the original amount of carbon they contained.<\/em> Whether the tree grew in a mature forest or industrial tree plantation, climate change impacts multiply after it is harvested. <\/em><\/p>\n

To me, this is a misleading paragraph. By creating a context of old-growth forests but then eliminating the term thereafter (replacing it with simply “mature forests”), the paragraph makes it sound as if most of the fiber harvested for paper comes from old growth forests and environmentally destructive tree farms. While that may be the norm in some developing countries, in the United States, 56% of the forests are privately owned. Many of these are mixed-age commercial forests like the responsibly managed portions of New York’s fabulous Adirondacks. If we don’t protect them by allowing at least a portion to be commercially harvested, they risk being sold off to the nearest real estate developer. What good will they do the environment then?<\/p>\n

One in five acres of family-owned forestland is owned by someone at least 75 years old . . .\u00a0 and as [land] owners age, this land is being divided, sold and transferred at an alarming rate, often for urban development. The critical question we need to ask is: How can we help private landowners hold on to and sustainably manage these rich ecosystems that supply us with clean air and water? [1<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The pulp and paper industry is the fourth largest emitter of greenhouse gases among manufacturing industries, and contributes 9% of total manufacturing carbon dioxide emissions. The biggest greenhouse gas releases in pulp and paper manufacturing come from the energy production needed to power the pulp and paper mill.<\/em><\/p>\n

Again, this is an inflammatory statement that only tells a small part of the story.<\/p>\n