The pulp, paper and print industry is one of the lowest contributing industrial sectors to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at only 1% of emissions worldwide,[1] but consumers don’t know it.
A recent consumer survey commissioned by Two Sides showed a disconnect between consumer perceptions and the facts about the industry’s impact on global GHG emissions.[2] The survey showed that 29% of Americans believe that paper production is a major contributor to global GHG emissions. However, the U.S. pulp and paper sector is one of the lowest emitters of GHG emissions among major U.S. industrial sectors at 1.2% of total U.S. industrial GHG emissions (Figure 1).[3]
Figure 1: U.S. industrial greenhouse gas emissions in 2017 (million metric tons of CO2e)(3)
One of the reasons for the relatively low GHG emissions of the forest products industry is its use of renewable fuels. For example, bioenergy use by paper and wood product mills in the U.S. prevents the emission of 181 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents, by merely using waste wood from manufacturing operations. This practice produces the same reduction in GHG emissions as removing about 35 million cars from the road.[4]
In Canada, the forest products industry has made great strides to reduce GHG emissions in production, by cutting the use of coal and cutting oil use by over 90% since the year 2000.[5] In fact, 57% of the industry’s energy use in 2015 was generated by bioenergy.[6]
Forest products also play a key role in global carbon sequestration (absorption) and the mitigation of GHG emissions. As they grow, trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere and they release oxygen, allowing us to breathe and sustain life on the planet. By managing our forests sustainably for the long-term, we can ensure that they continue to provide economic, social and environmental benefits, including climate change mitigation. For example, forests in Canada removed 150-160 million tonnes of CO2e from the atmosphere annually (between 2005 and 2016).[7]
A recent scientific paper has shown that the regeneration of forests through sustainable practices in the paper industry may lead to more carbon sequestration. Globally, younger forests (those growing for less than 140 years) store 1.17-1.66 billion metric tons of carbon per year while old-growth forests sequester 950 million-1.11 billion metric tons.[8]
Forest products like paper continue storing carbon even as a finished product and beyond their life in the forest. It is only if paper is landfilled, burned or left to decay that it begins to release CO2 again. In 2016, forests and wood products in the U.S. captured and stored roughly 10% of all carbon dioxide equivalents emitted by the U.S.[17]
But then why do people assume that going digital is greener? The “hidden” life cycle of our massive electronic infra-structure may be one reason. The fact is that many of us don’t think much about what goes into the manufacture and operation of our computers, smartphones, the energy needed to operate server farms, store massive amounts of digital information, and send emails. It is significant, but largely out of sight and out of mind.
The digital revolution is having a growing impact globally. Let’s explore a few key facts.
The energy consumption required for digital technologies is increasing by 9% each year.[13] In fact, the share of digital technology in global GHG emissions could reach 8% by 2025, i.e. the current share of car emissions.[14] [15] [16]. This is roughly 8 times the current share of the pulp, paper and print industries.
The ICT industry and infrastructure still rely heavily on fossil fuels and although it seems harmless to send an email, the world’s emails generate close to 300 million tonnes of CO2, equivalent to the CO2 emissions of over 63 million cars.[17]
This growing environmental impact of “going digital” is not going unnoticed by consumers who were specifically asked to rank several materials and products based on how environmentally-friendly they are (Figure 2). Wood and paper ranked at the top and electronics and plastics at the bottom (i.e. having the most environmental impact).
FSC issued a series of normative instruments to implement measures related to FSC certificates in Russia and Belarus to disable sourcing material from these countries. To further support measures issued and queries around them, FSC has published two additional Advice Notes and the corresponding derogation as follows: ADVICE-20-011-14 Verification audits for material sold but not dispatched prior to suspension: FSC-DER-2022-002 Use of material purchased but not dispatched from Russia before suspension of supplier; ADVICE-20-005-01 Waiving of AAF for certificates in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine; FSC has further decided to also waive the AAF for all certificates in Ukraine as of Q2/2022, regardless of their certification status.
Kimberly-Clark announced that it received a 2021 Climate Leadership Award for 'Goal Achievement in Greenhouse Gas Management' from the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and The Climate Registry. The national award recognizes companies that set and achieve aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals."We are honored to receive this prestigious award for reducing greenhouse gas emissions across our operations, especially since we were recognized for 'Excellence in Greenhouse Gas Management & Goal Setting' as part of the Climate Leadership Awards in 2018," said Juan Marin, Global Energy and Climate Leader at Kimberly-Clark. "Our work to minimize the carbon footprint of our brands and businesses and do our part in the fight against climate change is part of how we deliver our purpose to provide better care for a better world."
This framework applies to: *Organizations who have violated the Policy for Association, version 2 and wish to become associated with FSC. *Organizations who have been disassociated from FSC and wish to become eligible for re-association. *Organizations who wish to gain forest management certification for land that was converted between 1 December 1994 and 31 December 2020.
Some of the key features of the Remedy Framework are: *Two types of requirements to ensure that site level harms are addressed, as well as system level transformations are made (by corporate groups who wish to associate with FSC) to prevent recurrence. *Identification of stakeholders and rightsholders. *Inclusive and participatory dialogue processes leading to agreements on remedy actions. *Best practice justifications of selected remedy actions. *Key roles in the remedy process for independent, third-party, and/or expert involvement. *The proper application of Right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). *Development of grievance mechanisms compliant with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.