Recycling Doesn’t Save Trees
By Peter Nowack on August 10th, 2010
Yep. That’s right. Recycling doesn’t save trees.
That’s the position of Roger Dziengelski, a Certified Forester and VP of Continuous Improvement and External Operations for Finch Paper, LLC in upstate New York.
Don’t take this the wrong way. Roger is a big fan of recycling – it saves landfill space (which is a finite resource) and correspondingly reduces the amount of methane generated by the decomposition of materials buried in landfills. (As you know, emissions of greenhouse gasses such as methane are tied to global climate change.) Recycling paper also allows society to make more complete use of the wood-fiber resource – paper fibers can be used repeatedly, until they finally wear out over time.
But recycling doesn’t save trees. At least not in commercial working forests, which is where our pulp and paper comes from. In a commercial forest, the same trees that are used to produce pulp and paper are also used to produce other commodities, such as lumber and veneer. Some parts of the same tree also can end up as firewood to heat rural homes or biomass to fuel steam boilers for industry and electrical generators.
True, recycling paper can reduce demand for some portion of the virgin tree fiber. But it doesn’t save tree a tree that is destined for many applications. Companies such as Finch Paper, LLC are committed to full use of the fiber resource. The same trees used by Finch for the virgin-fiber component of its paper also are used in everything from veneered cabinetry to landscape mulch. And the fact that the trees are used commercially is what generates revenue to the landowner sufficient to cover forest management costs and a treasure trove of state and federal taxes. Without revenues from commercial forestry, a great deal more land would be sold into the hands of real-estate and industrial developers, and would cease to function as viable forest ecosystems.
And that is precisely the point that Roger Dziengelski drove home to me and my fellow journalists and bloggers on our visit to Finch’s mill and forest in the Adirondacks. Our focus as consumers, printers, and paper specifiers (and the focus of wood, pulp, and paper companies as well) should not be on saving trees, but on saving viable forest ecosystems – areas of biologic diversity that provide habitat for a wide range of species, and deliver non-wood forest services such as cleaner air, purer water, recreational opportunity, and spiritual sanctuary.
I guess that’s what is meant by seeing the forest for the trees. What do you think?
13 Responses to “Recycling Doesn’t Save Trees”
By Pat Berger on Aug 10, 2010 | Reply
My family’s experience with the 3 farm’s woods (15 to 40 acres) is just exactly what Roger is saying. The woods are harvested every 10 to 20 years. All of the trimmings are used for the wood stove or mulched, virtually nothing is wasted.
There is wildlife habitat, hickory and walnuts, wild grapes and blackberries.
These woods have been in the family since the 1870′s. The old photo’s I have seen show bigger tree’s in the late 1890″s early 1900′s and other than that they look pretty much the same.
Paper recycling has had no effect on the operations of these 3 woods.
By Steve Mills on Aug 11, 2010 | Reply
Some good points but I know from visiting mills that I see truckloads of trimmed trees (not limbs) going into the mill chipping area.
I don’t doubt that other parts of the tree are being used used, (I burn wood for heat each season) but I can’t help thinking that the main purpose for that tree being cut was to chip, so I still believe recycling has reduced the number of trees being cut mainly for paper.
I make a living from the paper industry, so by no means am I criticizing it. In fact, I believe the industry is a much better steward that it gets credit. I just feel like recycling has had more of an impact on tree usage than it is being given credit for here.
By Joshua Martin on Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
I’m slightly surprised by this entry Peter, as it seems less sophisticated and shows less understanding of environmental solutions and the environmental movement than your usual analysis.
Why isn’t this categorized as opinion? Its reciting the view of one individual with a vested interest describing one local situation and supported by little in the way of data as a global concept. Clearly, its opinion. Is this your opinion as well Peter, there’s a lot that’s not in quotes?
This is a simplistic view of the complex industrial systems and supply chains that operate for the global pulp and paper industry. The whole world doesn’t work the way it does on Finch Paper lands. Even here, for example, in the southern U.S. where I am, pine plantations grow whole trees, clearcut, and chip them up whole, and I watch miles of traincars full of these woodchips roll through town everyweek.
Yes, of course, we will continue to need fresh fiber, and not just rely on recycling exclusively. The environmental movement knows this, that’s why FSC exists and so much attention has been paid to this.
And, yes, ok, the market demand for wood products, in theory, and if the market only consumes wood harvested responsibly, in some cases, but not all, is an incentive for landowners to keep land in forestry and avoid conversion to other purposes. Can we move on and accept finally that we all agree on this, or at least aren’t too far off?
But beating the drum consistently against recycling puts one pretty far out on the fringe and defies the evidence.
I did not have the opportunity to the tour of the woods in upstate NY, but I trust they were lovely and that the business model, special efforts, and FSC certification that Finch Paper has taken the effort to employ does provide a progressive example of modern, balanced forestry. Finch Paper and Roger Dziengelski should be commended for their advancements of this type of responsibility. It stands on its own, and there’s no need to go negative.
But it doesn’t change the reality that our overconsumption of paper is driving industrial forestry for short term corporate profit in many places in the world, and that part of the solution is reducing the”over-demand” on our forests, and that can be achieved in part by recycling.
The US Environmental Protection Agency and numerous working groups have made the clear case that our society can reap multiple and significant benefits from recycling, and sowing the seeds of doubt and confusion on this seems to only be carried out by those with a vested financial interest in a different reality.
By Peter Nowack on Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
Joshua — thanks for joining in the dialog — stimulating discussion is what this posting is all about. Hope to hear from others on this important topic.
By Pat Berger on Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
Perceptions and views seem to depend wether your in looking out or out looking in. I have found that actual physical involvement gives a different twist on perceptions of any activity.
Being involved with a few small woods and I perceived that paper recycling has no effect on these small woods.
Now when I go to the printing side I see that paper recycling has a humongous positive effect.
Those who have some finances involved would look at it differently. The woods is like a bank account that pays interest every year and you cash out a portion every 15 years like a long term CD.
A naturalist views the tree harvesting as destroying the picturest scenery.
Same group of trees just different views.
By Lisa Bickford on Aug 17, 2010 | Reply
A little off-topic, but an importnat quote none-the-less: Forestry is the most sustainable of all the primary industries that provide us with energy and materials. To address climate change we must use more wood, not less. Using wood sends a signal to the marketplace to grow more trees. ~ Dr. Patrick Moore, Co-founder, Greenpeace
By David Podmayersky on Aug 17, 2010 | Reply
Folks why do we insist on this sort of rhetoric! There is so much work to be done.
While recycling may not save a specific tree, it is absolutely the wise use of natural resources. Keep in mind lumber can also be recycled, paper can be recycled and down-cycled many times, and plenty of bio-mass can be gathered from the residue of detritus from food grade crops. All this relives pressure on the natural forests and creates more opportunity to preserve the natural world. Some areas of the world do use certain tree corps with paper as the primary target, perhaps cutting down old growth rain forests to accomplish it.
Much of anthropogenic activity today is systematically destroying the natural world, I suggest we all team up and tackle this.
Of course this is my opinion, we need some new scientifically rigorous LCA’s, more science to drive our decisions.
Ultimately responsible forestry and healthy industry will do much to protect our trees.
More value in the sustainable living forest than in the dead corpses.
By Tein Atkerson on Aug 17, 2010 | Reply
I find the tone of this piece alarming. There are many ways for the pulp and paper industry to do well by the environment, and everyone stands to benefit by encouraging producers to pursue all routes simultaneously.
I think most of us reading this blog agree that paper needs to be produced in the most environmentally responsible way possible. Sustainable forestry is one path toward achieving that, and it seems Finch Paper does it well. Yet, just as important as sustainable forestry is paper recycling. Like Finch, a Chicago-area manufacturer of recycled paper also aims to produce paper in an environmentally responsible way, only it’s approaching production from the recycling side: http://www.futuremarkpaper.com
An EPA analysis from 2006 showed waste paper made up more than 30 percent of U.S. landfills — more than any other material. Clearly, improving our paper recovery rates by supporting the recycling industry is a key way to reducing the amount going to landfills. It also reduces our need for wood pulp and allows that wood to be diverted toward other uses, as Finch points out. Nevertheless, if we need less wood pulp for paper, we reduce the burden on our forests. By any measure, recycling is a good thing.
It does the entire paper industry a disservice when we spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about other environmental alternatives. The many conscientious companies in the paper industry are all pursuing the same goals: to lower the impact of paper production and to leave a cleaner world for future generations. Instead of confusing the marketplace with our bickering over what approach is more green, we should accept every approach contributes to our shared goals in different yet equally important ways.
By Roger Dziengeleski on Aug 18, 2010 | Reply
Just a clarification; Peter accurately portrays our position on recycling by saying that “roger (and Finch) are big fans of recycling”. He also closes his posting with the message that it is about saving the forest, not the trees. The USFS estimates that 6,000 acres of forest land are converted to other uses every day. There has been a net gain of forest acres nationally, however, as a result of marginal agricultural lands being converted to forest. This trend is due to change shortly as the demand for food will slow and stop the conversion of marginal agricultural lands back to forests. Development and other land uses will then decrease forest acres annually. This is the key statistic in terms of resource management and selfishly, as a user of sustainably managed raw materials from the forest, we want to see forest acres grow; decline. We also want every product that comes from the forest to be used wisely by society and reduced, reused and recycled to the maximum extent. Lets see the forest for the trees.
Roger
Roger
By Joshua Martin on Aug 19, 2010 | Reply
Ms. Bickford,
I respectfully disagree that the quote you provide is useful. The source is not credible. See: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/greenpeace-statement-on-patric/
I agree with the comment which said that this individual and their rhetoric is divisive and not helpful, when foresters, conservationists and other stakeholders actually agree on many, many aspects of this and need to have a fact based conversation to find solutions and balance.
By GermanG on Nov 15, 2010 | Reply
Here is another thought. Does anyone think paper companies will continue to grow and manage trees on their private land if we reduce the need for virgin pulp? Imagine the irony of recycling causing the sale of private forest lands, possibly to developers.
By Don Carli on Apr 13, 2011 | Reply
See: “CAN A PAPER MILL SAVE A FOREST?
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/panoramaexcerpts/7panorama.html
By suzanna on May 1, 2011 | Reply
Oh Don. When will they ever learn?