Over at Dead Tree Edition, our friend Mr. Tree (if that is his name) makes a good point that we often overlook when we talk about the sustainability of paper: it’s not just the cutting of trees and the preservation of forests. Sure, trees can be cut down, and then replanted and grown again, but often what happens in between is the greater problem—that is, paper mills that pollute waterways, spew out greenhouse gases, and produce other toxic sludge. Several news reports in the past week alone identify several former paper mills (most of them disused) that may be candidates for Superfund cleanup, and one active mill in Pennsylvania had a power outage which ended up spewing contaminated water into a local creek. Commenter Papyrus, of the Environmental Paper Network, adds another good point:

I do take issue with the assertion that any pulp mills are operating “nearly carbon-neutral.” Pulp mills use so much energy, that even the ones with a majority of their energy from biofuels still emit large amounts of ghg's from fossil fuels. Additionally, the claim that bioenergy is carbon-neutral automatically, fails to consider the latest science which clearly erodes that theory and shifts the burden of proof on that idealistic assumption to the mills.

The EPA is also, for the first time in 17 years, reviewing its Clean Air Act standard for kraft pulp mills. Many of today’s paper companies have done a very good job of cleaning up their act, but to be truly considered “green” we need to look at all the components of the papermaking process, lest we miss the forest for the...well, you know.