The Griffin

CARBON FOOTPRINT OF A MAGAZINE COULD NEAR ZERO

text: Jane Garner
photos: Herman, BBC, Ilpo Musto

Now the issue is carbon footprint, the next race will be between the environmental advantages of printed and e-media.

The magazine industry is acutely aware of its effect on the environment and has been for decades. Early concerns about bleaching gave way to certified sourcing and today carbon footprint is being measured at every level.

In the UK, the PPA is the first industry trade body to create a carbon footprint calculator, made available free to its members. And nobody could be more delighted than PPA Chairman Peter Phippen.

Phippen is also Managing Director of BBC Magazines and a Director of the international trade body FIPP. He got together with BBC Worldwide’s Head of Ethical Sourcing and Environmental Policy, David Halford, to discuss the biggest issues – and dispel a few myths – for The Griffin.

Phippen has a remarkable ambition for magazines – zero carbon footprint!

“It is conceivable we could get to a point where the carbon footprint of producing a magazine is close to zero. There’s no reason why the paper industry should not aspire to that – it’s not an industry that is using a product that is inherently carbon generating. The base product, trees, is as renewable as you can get.”

Then he adds with a wry smile: “It’s everything you do after that that screws it up a bit!”

But this is not Phippen’s only surprising comment. He also insists the recycling argument is a red herring and says the battle brewing over paper versus internet is equally misleading.

Peter Phippen, MD of BBC Magazines and a Director of FIPP, believes a near-zero carbon footprint for magazine production might become possible.

Huge demand for information on carbon footprint

“What all the carbon footprint work is showing, through the PPA in the UK, and by Time Inc and others globally, is that the largest part of the footprint is to do with manufacturing pulp and paper. The proportion of the complete cradle-to-grave footprint is in the region of 50–60%. And of that by far the majority is related to energy,” says Phippen.

The second largest element of the ‘footprint’ is printing, at around 25%, followed by finishing and distribution.

“The single biggest factor going forward when considering the footprint of magazine production is the source of energy used in manufacturing. That could be coal fired power or from a renewable source, so the measurement for each magazine can be different, depending on where we source our paper,” Phippen continues.

“That is something peculiar to magazines, the variable, that paper manufacturers must grapple with. UPM is producing paper in different countries so there is a mix of energy sources. But UPM is also making efforts and investments with biomass energy production.

“It isn’t just about government or consumers asking for information. It’s supermarkets and contract publishing clients asking about carbon footprint. There is huge demand for this information and it’s only going to grow,” says Phippen.

“There is an important consumer debate and a myth. Many consumers have a feeling that cutting down trees is a bad thing. Don’t print – save trees… People don’t distinguish between rainforests and well-managed young-growth forests.

“It is doubly important if you are involved in the paper products industry to get a front foot on the environment, to do the right things and explain yourself, to make the case about why this is a highly sustainable industry. But the public have absorbed only half the story.”

This brings him to certification, which helps reinforce the message: “The view at BBC Magazines and the environmental NGOs is that the best certification scheme is FSC. That is not saying PEFC is not reliable but it does not yet have the full support of the NGOs so it makes the story to the consumer much harder.”

BBC Worldwide Head of Ethical Sourcing and Environmental Policy, David Halford, is delighted the
UK magazine industry is already ahead of government recycling targets.

Even production of recycled paper uses energy

While Phippen and Halford would like to reinforce the responsible sourcing message, they would prefer less emphasis on recycling.

Phippen insists: “The whole recycling issue is a red herring! Unfortunately it will remain an issue. I’m certainly not knocking recycled paper but the implication that it is inherently preferable to paper from virgin fibre is misleading. The manufacturing of all paper – whatever the fibre source – requires energy and that is the bigger issue.”

Having said that, Halford stresses their support for the recycling of post-consumer waste – essential to minimising waste to land-fill.

“If you can re-use recovered paper as a raw material that is the first option. If the alternative is to ship it to the other side of the world or use it as a waste-to-energy ingredient, the choice is whichever has the lesser environmental impact. But recovered paper made from virgin fibre is needed for newsprint manufacturing because newsprint is nearly 100% recycled, and an input of nearly new fibre will always be needed to maintain newsprint quality. Magazines made from virgin fibre are essential as a raw material for that process.

“All our magazines carry logos reminding people to recycle. The industry target from the government is 70% by 2013, but the magazine industry already exceeded that with 72% in 2008. In addition, 100% of our unsolds are recycled.”

Halford also points out that the question of certified sourcing was raised 15 years ago, but it was only this year that BBC Magazines achieved its ambition to print every one of its magazines on FSC-certified paper.

One or two myths to be dispelled

Looking ahead to the next 15 years, Phippen raises the most likely Next Big Thing for the paper industry – the tricky question of paper versus the digital delivery of content.

“There is a potential debate in the minds of the public on the benefits from an environmental point of view of paper products versus digital products. We need to dispel one or two myths straight away. The myth that cutting down trees and distributing paper product is bad. And that consuming content on a website or an e-reader has a zero carbon footprint.

“In reality, the energy consumed by servers and people’s PCs is considerable. It’s not that one is bad and the other is better. With both the objective should be to reduce the consumption of carbon generating energy.”