Satellites protect four million football fields worth of endangered forests

“When we began the last revision of our Sustainable Forest Management Standard, we noticed how much the Chilean society and the forestry sector had developed during these years,” he explains. “This meant that the expectations regarding the use of natural resources had achieved much higher levels that needed to be properly addressed. Many different stakeholders with different points of view participated in the discussion of the requirements.” “Although the Certfor standard addressed the main issues of the day, sustainable development is a continuous process. New social, environmental demands arise over time. This implies that the standards must evolve, too, to address those new issues.”

A recent article in The New York Times, (“Maine Will Make Companies Pay for Recycling. Here’s How It Works.” 7/21/21) explored Maine’s dramatic new recycling law. But it also missed the point on paper recycling. In a letter to the editor, AF&PA responded to set the record straight: Telling readers the U.S. “recycling rate for plastics and paper products” is 32 percent is like telling them the average elevation of Denver and Death Valley is about half a mile. It may be technically true, but it clouds over more than it reveals. Whatever is true of plastic, the fact is that for all paper, the recycling rate was 66 percent in 2020. The recycling rate for paper-based packaging specifically—like cardboard boxes and corrugated containers—was a whopping 89 percent. In fact, more paper is recycled by weight from municipal waste streams than plastic, glass, steel and aluminum combined. In the context of a story about proposals in several jurisdictions that would turn our current recycling system on its head, these distinctions matter a great deal. Extended producer responsibility programs would disrupt the most effective recycling streams in the interest of improving the least effective, while imposing large new costs on producers who are already being responsible by investing capital to innovate and use a highly renewable and recyclable material—paper.

In 1990, the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Report concluded that human-caused climate change would soon become evident but could not yet confirm that it was happening. The latest findings unequivocally state that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, land and sea, and that the changes across the climate system are unprecedented. With this and many other warnings ringing in their ears, world leaders are heading to Glasgow, Scotland for COP26. This UN summit on climate change has been described as ‘seminal’ and ‘humanity’s last chance’ because without immediate action, it’s going to get much worse. "Every COP over the last decade has been described as the ‘one that's going to change the world’. Unfortunately, we’ve heard a lot of talk about targets, but not a huge amount of action. I’m hoping for the best but won’t be surprised if we don’t make that much progress,” admits Paula Owen, CEO and founder of the sustainability agency Green Gumption. Despite the general pessimism, progress and action are critical, with the latest IPCC report being described as a “code red” for humanity by UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “It’s a good description of the situation, but it would have been better said a decade ago,” opines global climatological expert Jim NR Dale.