Improving Energy Efficiency is Key

AF&PA’s Better Practices, Better Planet 2020 purchased energy efficiency goal is a great example of a sustainability goal that furthers all three pillars of sustainability: economic, social, and environmental. Using energy more efficiently reduces companies’ overall energy costs, thereby improving profitability; frees up resources for other more productive investments in mills and communities; and, reduces environmental impacts.  It also complements our goal to reduce water use in AF&PA member mills by 12 percent, as reducing water use has the added benefit of reducing mills’ energy consumption.

On average, AF&PA members meet about two thirds of their energy demand from self-generated renewable biomass. Striving for the most efficient energy consumption is important to companies small and large because our industry remains energy intensive.

Our members have improved their purchased energy efficiency by 8.1 percent, making solid progress on their way to achieving the 10 percent Better Practices improvement goal by 2020.

An important way our members improve their energy efficiency is through the combined heat and power (CHP) generation process, which efficiently produces electricity and steam used in manufacturing.  In 2014, 97.64 percent of the electricity the industry generated was through CHP.  The forest products industry produced 33 percent of the CHP electricity generated by manufacturing sectors; only the chemical industry produced more.

Improving energy efficiency will remain key as mills continue to consider their energy choices and strategies in light of upcoming environmental requirements and changing cost scenarios and fuel availability. As energy efficiency is a core element of mill sustainability, we are confident we will reach our energy efficiency goal.
http://afandpa.org/media/blog/bloga/2016/08/05/improving-energy-efficiency-is-key

Related Posts

Two Sides North America Debunks Environmental Myths in Opinion Piece on OPI News Hub

On August 16, OPI published on its opinion page a piece titled “The Sustainable Argument for Going Paperless” in which an executive from DocuWare, a document management and workflow software company, asserted with no factual evidence that electronic communication and document management are more environmentally sustainable than using paper. Among other claims, he wrote: “Reducing paper usage offers significant environmental benefits, such as leaving a lighter environmental footprint by conserving forests. Forest loss harms wildlife and increases soil erosion. Meanwhile, paper production, which also relies on chemicals and water – emits greenhouse gas emissions.” Is going digital really more environmentally sustainable than using paper? Your readers were recently warned (“The sustainable argument for going paperless,” August 16, Benedikt Dischinger) that there is a “Code Red for Humanity” caused by human-caused climate change, and that one response to this legitimate threat to the future of humankind is…use less paper. What Mr. Dischinger wants us to believe is that we should toss overboard the only form of communication rooted in a truly circular paper industry that relies on biobased energy, an infinitely renewable resource and some of the highest recycling rates in favor of more electronic communication, which is rooted in an industry that scours the planet for finite rare earths and other diminishing resources, relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels to meet its increasingly greedy demands for energy, and features embarrassing recycling rates.

Climate Change and the Rise in Wildfires: A Look at Best CSR Practices in Fire Management

Among the myriad ways climate change is impacting the planet, one of the most visible is the rise in forest fires across the globe. Without a doubt, fire seasons in the U.S. and many other countries across the world are becoming longer and more severe – with human activity bearing responsibility in both the short and long term. According to a study from researchers at the University of Idaho and Columbia University, since 1979 climate change has been responsible for more than half of the dryness of forests in the western U.S. and the increased length of the region’s fire season. Additionally, research from scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Massachusetts Amherst found that humans are responsible for starting 84 percent of wildfires in the U.S., which has in turn tripled the length of wildfire season. This creates a perfect storm - sometimes the most innocent of fires, such as camp fires, due to dryness of the land, can quickly spread with devastating consequences. This case is not isolated to the U.S. On the other side of the world, Indonesia is currently preparing for the start of the 2017 fire season, with the devastation drought and the infamous 2015 fires at the forefront of everyone’s minds. According to the World Bank, more than 2.6 million hectares of forest, peat and other Indonesian land burned in 2015 and the fires cost the country’s economy $16 billion. It was reported that much of these fires were a result of illegal land clearing, which combined with El Niño created the elements for these devastating results. click Read More below for more of the story

Why Circularity Is Key for Sustainability Practices

According to McKinsey, the pandemic accelerated the shift to e-commerce by as much as ten years, completely altering consumer and industry trends in a matter of months. While a lot of businesses benefited from reaching new and larger audiences online, supply chains were left to figure out how to adapt based on increased consumer demand for packaging. Meanwhile, consumers have been increasingly paying closer attention to the sustainability practices of companies and brands. More than half of U.S. consumers are highly concerned about the environmental impact of packaging. Companies, then, are challenged to find cost-effective and sustainable packaging at speed and scale. But embracing sustainability in the supply chain isn’t as simple as switching out your current packaging for a perceived “eco-friendly” alternative. Before anything else, companies must define what sustainable means. Consider paper packaging — it’s commonly accepted as an environmentally friendlier option, but it requires access to forests. In this case, companies would be forced to weigh the benefits of paper packaging with limited supplies and the environmental costs of acquiring it. much more at source
Back To Top
×Close search
Search