Don Carli, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Communication, and Conference Chairperson of the upcoming SustainCommWorld Green Media Show provides insight into FSC certification and sustainable communication. Carli comments were initially left for the Rowling Says No To Non-FSC Paper post.

Authors, artists, actors and others often take positions and endorse labels or tactics that seek to address environmental issues with the best of intentions, as I am sure was the case with J.K. Rowling. But all too often these positions are taken without consideration of the entire product lifecycle or the economic, environmental and social aspects and impacts associated with a product. Nonetheless, Kudos to J.K Rowling for challenging the status quo and stimulating discussion.

While FSC has been successful in driving adoption of Chain of Custody certification by printers and distributors of paper in the US, they have significantly fewer acres of forest certified around the world compared to PEFC.

Speaking at the BWPA/Hawkins Wright Symposium 2007 during Pulp Week Sten Holmberg president of Europe’s largest market pulp producer, Södra Cell, warned of the dangers of a monopoly forest certification market, where FSC is seen as the only truly environmental choice when it comes to certified pulp and paper. “The amount of FSC pulp on the market remains limited with only around five percent of global softwood market pulp currently FSC certified. Largely due to pressure by some organizations, it’s ‘FSC or bust’ as far as many retailers and publishers are concerned.” Holmberg went on to point out that Södra Cell produces FSC-certified pulp, as well as PEFC pulp. But, he said, “the growing recognition of the FSC logo on products has less to do with its environmental superiority over PEFC and more to do with the fact that FSC has been much better marketed than PEFC.”

Publishers in the US are likely to be confronted with a tight supply of FSC certified products during the next few years as the growing worldwide demand for paper coupled with a weak US dollar has made it far less attractive for foreign paper manufacturers to sell their products in the US.

While FSC has developed brand recognition among paper buyers and specifiers, and FSC derives credibility support from endorsement by major environmental nonprofit groups, the fact remains that in many cases limited availability of FSC fiber may result in having to choose between PEFC certified paper and uncertified paper. In addition, while sustainable fiber sourcing is an important aspect of sustainable media supply chains it is not the only aspect that needs to be considered.

The conservation of intact forests, the prevention of illegal logging, the sustainable management of the thousands of small family owned woodlands that provide fiber to the paper industry, and the certification of chains of custody are important tactics that help to preserve biodiversity, as well as the security of the fiber supply that our economy and literate communities depend on. However, specification of FSC certified paper in and of itself does not qualify a book or any other printed product to be considered sustainable.

Our print and digital media purchasing decisions need to take a broader set of considerations into account than the adoption of a single certification. The papermaking and printing industries represent over 5% of the US manufacturing economy and their economic, environmental and social sustainability plays a critical role in virtually all regions of the United States. We need to make our decisions with attention to their economic, environmental and social and impacts.

The energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and eutrophication impacts associated with papermaking and paper delivery logostics are extremely significant, but they are not taken into account by FSC fiber certification or FSC chain of custody certification. Neither are the impacts associated with printing, the logistics associated distribution of the books, or the fate of the unsold copies that fail to sell through at retail. FSC certification does not encompass many of the other lifecycle impacts that publishers, authors consumers and other stakeholders should be taking into account.

We are in the early days of an awakening among consumers and among print and digital media professionals about the challenges and opportunities associated with sustainability and climate change. As a result there is a great deal of confusion and great need to sort out the linkages between intention and action as well as a need to strike a balance between and among the roles of business, government and individuals in meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same when it comes to our media choices.

With regard to eBooks, one must consider the resource extraction, energy use and toxic impacts associated with electronics manufacturing as well as the energy use and e-waste that result from their use and disposal. E-waste remains a major global issue. See: http://www.ban.org/

As for the issue of carbon footprints, before worrying about who should pay for the carbon footprint of all books each of us should first concern ourselves with asking what the carbon footprint of each book that we use or buy is. If the producers of “Walkers Crisps” potato chips in the UK include a carbon footprint analysis on each of the millions of bags of chips they produce, then it is a reasonable to expect that the publishers of every book produced in the world could do so as well. See: http://www.walkerscarbonfootprint.co.uk

It is also essential that we demand standardization and transparency in the methods employed to calculate carbon footprints. When it comes to the measures required to reduce carbon footprints or to determine the credibility of carbon offsets, it is essential that we challenge our legislators to develop regulatory frameworks that are fair, practical to implement and vigorously enforced. Ask your senator, your congressman, and the candidates seeking your votes in 2008 where they stand with regard to standards for the reporting of carbon footprints as well as which of the numerous pieces of legislation addressing carbon taxes and cap and trade regulations currently before the house and senate they support.

According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities “If lawmakers capture the necessary revenue and make wise choices among competing claims in designing climate-change policy, they can achieve the economic and environmental benefits from reducing greenhouse-gas emissions while addressing the impact of higher prices on low-income consumers and other legitimate new claims on available resources. If, however, lawmakers give away too many emissions rights to existing emitters, as some of the bills currently pending in Congress would do, they will fail to capture sufficient resources to meet these needs, while conferring windfall profits on energy companies and other emitters. This latter course would risk large increases in deficits and debt (already on course to reach unsustainable levels in future decades), increases in poverty, and a further widening of the gap between rich and poor.)”

A few useful resources on this issue include:

In the end, all of us will pay if each of us does not seek the carbon footprint and environmental lifecycle “backstory” associated with the media, communication and information technology products that we design, produce, buy, use, share and dispose of. Taken together the supply chains that print and digital media depend on are prodigious consumers of petrochemicals and fossil fuel energy and significant emitters of greenhouse gases and producers of major waste streams. Collectively media supply chains employ more that 2 million people in the US and generate more than $1 Trillion Dollars in economic activity, but unfortunately little has been done to accurately assess and communicate the full scope of media’s impact in terms of metrics associated with greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, water quality, air quality or other measures relevant to the quality of of our lives or the sustainability of the ecosystems which we all share and depend upon.

It is important to remember that our ability to ask questions, to read, to communicate and to reason are what define us as a species. Our failure to do so in response to the issues of climate change and sustainability define the legacy of humankind. Our future depends on many factors, but it is certain that if the stewards of the print and digital media supply chains that we depend on do not strive toward and achieve sustainability soon then all of the magic and wonder that books and literacy have created in our lives will be lost.

If you are interested in seeing a sustainable future for print and digital media… ask questions, get involved, don’t accept the status quo and don’t expect that endorsement of any single certification or green label will suffice.