Ten Words That Summarize What Happened to Publishing in 2014

OK, fellow publishing fans, you can’t be ready to face this new year without understanding what happened in 2014. Here are the 10 words (yes, “magazine media” and “native advertising” are single words) that summarize the year that just was, along with links that provide further information:

1) Quorum: Demonstrating its indifference to one of the nation’s largest employers, Congress failed to act on fix vacancies on the U.S. Postal Service’s Board of Governors, causing it to lose its quorum. It’s yet another example of USPS’s “Congressional oversight” turning into “Congressional overlooking,” except when there’s a chance to name post offices. And it's another reminder to publishers of magazines and daily newspapers that our primary means of distribution is still at risk.

Leaked Google document showed its preference for web sites
associated with print brands.

2) Penguin: As they watched their search-related web traffic soar, magazine and newspaper publishers came to realize that the evil empire of Google had now turned friendly. With its Penguin and Panda algorithm tweaks and other enhancements, the search giant increasingly referred people to credible web sites anchored by trustworthy print brands. Late in the year, Facebook also jumped onto the We Love Print Brands bandwagon.

3) Magazine media: Magazine people laughed at first at this new moniker for our industry. But now that a few magazines get a majority of their revenue from digital media and almost all have branched out into multiple non-magazine ventures, 2014 was the year the MPA-created term began to stick. We're not just magazine publishers any more, we tell anyone who will listen, but we're still having trouble figuring out exactly how to describe ourselves. That’s in stark contrast with daily newspaper publishers, who know exactly what they are: Screwed, unless they can find a patient billionaire to buy them.

Wholesaler's bankruptcy led to empty magazine racks.

4) Niche: Every month, it seemed, brought another web site that decided to delve into the magazine business, mostly with highly targeted publications. But the traditional consumer-magazine world of bloated circulation and egos continued shrinking, with stalwarts like Ladies Home Journal shutting down, others reducing their ratebase, and a major magazine newsstand distributor going belly up. A testament to the industry’s increased nichification: The number of U.S. magazines keeps growing, but the nation’s coated-paper industry finished the year with half the capacity it had just 11 years ago.

5) Antitrust: The U.S. Justice Department didn’t bat an eye when Quad/Graphics turned the large-publication printing market into a virtual duopoly by buying out Brown Printing. But it dithered for nearly the full year about the proposed merger of ailing paper makers Verso and NewPage, finally approving the deal on Dec. 31 -- but only after a major divestiture. These, after all, are the same antitrust geniuses who, deciding Amazon’s 90% share of the ebook market wasn’t big enough, went after Apple and major book publishers.

A destroyer of printed books and magazines? Nope.

6) Plateau: Even the enthusiasts who predicted a few years ago that ebooks would soon dominate the book scene finally started admitting in 2014 that ebook sales in the U.S. had reached a plateau, with a market share of less than 25%. Another supposedly disruptive force, digital magazines, also ran out of steam after achieving a much smaller share of the U.S. magazine market. The collapse of digital magazines is being aided by consumers’ shift from tablets to smartphones and abetted by Apple’s incompetence and indifference, as demonstrated by the woeful state of its Newsstand app.

7) Accountability: Advertisers began awakening to the reality that they were being duped by social-media marketing enthusiasts (“Let’s get everyone on Facebook to join the conversation about our toothpaste!”), content-marketing hucksters, and advertising impressions targeted at bots. Kraft even fired most of its advertising agencies, apparently deciding that targeting ads to people who Google “gang rape” is not the best strategy for selling “Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product" (Velveeta).

8) Measurement: With the rising emphasis on accountability came a growing interest in measurement. The advertising industry started pushing for new ways to measure how many people see a web ad, and for how long, after realizing that a majority of the advertising “impressions” served by ad networks were never visible to an actual human being. Meanwhile, the MPA moved the goalposts on the measures of magazines’ success, emphasizing growing web audiences and omitting the depressing news about trends in ad pages.

9) FutureMark: The closure of FutureMark Paper, which was the only North American manufacturer that made coated paper containing mostly recycled fiber, provided stark evidence of a troubling development: Publishers, and perhaps the public, seem to have lost interest in using environmentally friendly paper. Or perhaps they are having trouble distinguishing between “green” and “non-green” papers.

10) Native advertising: Pundits, editors, and marketers spent the entire year debating whether native advertising was a savior or sellout for publishers. It would help if the debaters could agree on a definition for what they’re arguing about. Is it native only if it masquerades as editorial content? Does native necessarily involve the co-opting of journalists? What’s clear is that marketers are becoming disillusioned with banner ads but still see the web sites of reputable publishers as attractive venues for engaging the hearts and minds of potential customers.

For further reading: 

• Is Print Really Killing Publishers?

• Who Killed the Magazine App?: 9 Suspects

• Are Printed Magazines Growing or Shrinking? Yes

National Geographic Comes Full Circle on Recycled Paper

In a victory for the environment, or maybe for marketing, two environmental groups announced today that the National Geographic Society will begin using recycled paper in its magazines.

More than two years after the society began discussions with an environmental group that targeted it with a "Practice What You Print" campaign, it has committed to using paper containing a whopping 5% post-recycled consumer content. Some magazine papers contain more than 90% recycled content.

The switch by the society's National Geographic magazine a few years ago from coated freesheet to coated ground paper probably had more impact on "saving trees" because groundwood paper uses trees more efficiently.

But no one except an obscure blog called Dead Tree Edition paid any attention to that move. It's hard to rally the masses with a move that only a few paper geeks  understand. Everyone knows what "recycled" means.

The 5% may be just a first step, the announcement indicated. And it could have greater reverberations if it inspires -- or pressures -- other magazine publishers to try recycled paper. Only about 3% of U.S. magazines use recycled on a regular basis, according to the Green America Better Paper Project.

Here's a look at the events leading up to today's announcement, followed by today's press release from Green America and the National Resources Defense Council:

• The Yellowing of National Geographic: Will Today's Copies Age Faster Than That Stack in Your Gramma's Attic?): This 2010 article revealed National Geographic's switch to coated groundwood and highlighted a Verso Paper study indicating that adding using more recycled and less virgin pulp in the magazine's paper would not reduce its carbon footprint. 
• What Exactly Is Environmentally Preferable Paper?: The society worked with small land owners to increase the amount of environmentally certified forest lands in Maine, did a thorough life cycle assessment of its main magazine -- and saw the "Practice What You Print" campaign launched against it. 
• Green Groups Turn the Heat Down on National Geographic But Up on KFC: Green America reveals "productive discussions" with NGS regarding the use of recycled paper. 
• The Recycled Debate: Can We 'Get Beyond the Stereotypical Industry-Environmental Relationship'?: Frank Locantore of Green America and publishing pundit (and former production guy) BoSacks debate the environmental merits of recycled paper. 
• Using Recycled Paper in Magazines Protects the Environment: Locantore discusses why the National Geographic Society "changed course on recycled fiber, walking away from its long held belief that using recovered fiber in its publications has negligible environmental benefit."

Here is today's press release:

Washington, DC – July 17, 2014 –In a major step forward for the use of recycled paper in the magazine industry, the National Geographic Society (NGS) has begun incorporating recycled fiber in all the pages of National Geographic Magazine, National Geographic Kids, and National Geographic Little Kids. The shift clearly demonstrates the viability of using recycled paper for high quality photographic reproduction. This expanded use of recycled paper comes as a result of close collaboration with Green America and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 

For large publishers that have been slow to adopt recycled fiber for their publications, the latest move by National Geographic—one of the most widely read and admired publications in the world—sends an important signal to the industry. 

“The magazine that has showcased the natural wonders of the world for generations is now helping to preserve them in its very pages,” said Darby Hoover, NRDC senior resource specialist. “National Geographic’s world-renowned photography is unparalleled—if they can continue to captivate their audience in print by using recycled content, anyone can. By adding recycled fiber into their magazines, National Geographic is joining a growing movement that can help ensure the world’s forests can live on the pages of their magazine—instead of in them—for years to come.” 

“National Geographic’s recycled paper use is a tipping point for recycled paper in the magazine industry,” Green America Better Paper Project Director Frank Locantore said. “National Geographic takes its environmental responsibility seriously and their recent commitment to using recycled paper helps further lower their greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. If National Geographic Magazine, with over four million print copies each month, can take this important step to use recycled paper, all magazines can follow their example.” 

National Geographic is initially piloting magazine paper containing five percent postconsumer recycled fiber, and intends to continue testing the viability of papers with increased recycled content. This is an important first step, and the environmental groups have committed to working with National Geographic to increase recycled content in their magazines over time. 

“For National Geographic, our goal – and our challenge – is to balance our desires to utilize as high a percentage of recycled fiber as possible, maintain the highest quality and aesthetic standards, produce affordable products and minimize our impact on the environment,” said Stephen Hughes, National Geographic’s vice president for global sourcing. 

Environmental groups Green America and Natural Resources Defense Council have worked closely with NGS since 2011 to assess the impacts of NGS’ paper use and identify opportunities to reduce its environmental footprint. In 2013, Green America and NRDC joined with NGS on the most rigorous study to date of the benefits of using recycled fiber versus virgin fiber in magazine publications. Conducted by an independent third-party for NGS, the study found that recycled fiber is superior to virgin fiber in 14 out of 14 environmental categories, such as energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the groups have been working together to develop a plan to incorporate recycled content into the pages of the NGS magazines. 

There are over 15,000 magazine titles in the United States, with only about three percent regularly using recycled paper, according to the Green America Better Paper Project. 

“The paper manufacturing playing field is dominated by the virgin fiber paper industry,” says Locantore. “That’s why National Geographic’s initial step to use postconsumer recycled content should help other publications understand that they can also begin using recycled paper while simultaneously building momentum to make recycled paper use the paradigm rather than the exception.”

Using Recycled Paper in Magazines Protects the Environment

New Life Cycle Analysis study shows that in 14 of 14 environmental impact categories studied there is an environmental benefit to using recovered fiber as a substitute for virgin tree fiber.

Frank Locantore, with Stella and Schofield

A study commissioned by the National Geographic Society found overwhelming environmental benefits to using paper containing recycled content, it was announced today. Frank Locantore, Project Director of the Green America Better Paper Project, which for more than a decade has helped publishers switch to recycled paper, joins us as a Guest Columnist to explain and interpret the study's findings (which are summarized here).


Recently, National Geographic Society changed course on recycled fiber, walking away from its long held belief that using recovered fiber in its publications has negligible environmental benefit and agreeing to explore recycled paper options. We are encouraged by National Geographic Society’s initial indication that they may begin printing on recycled paper soon. If they do so, they will join the growing list of other magazines that have been using recycled paper for a decade or more like, Fast Company, Audubon, YES!, and Ranger Rick.

As a big fan of Dead Tree and his efforts to foster a dialogue within the industry about this topic, I wanted to share this information with him and his followers to help advance this discussion. As a proud “paper geek,” I look forward to productive conversations with any of you about the best ways to promote environmental paper use that can help the industry prosper in an environmentally and financially sustainable manner.

In the case of National Geographic, Green America and many other NGOs encouraged the venerable publisher to re-examine its beliefs regarding recycled paper. In response, National Geographic hired an independent consultant, ENVIRON International Corporation, to determine if it made environmental sense for them to use recycled paper in their magazine. The results (shown below) clearly indicate that in 14 out of 14 environmental impact categories studied, the production of deinked pulp is environmentally superior to the production of virgin fiber pulp.


ENVIRON International Corporation was asked to answer three questions: 1) Is it better for the environment to use recovered fiber for magazines versus virgin fiber in isolation? 2) If so, can we show that it is better to use recovered fiber in an alternative product? and 3) Do supply limitations exist such that the use of recovered fiber in magazines would displace its use in an environmentally preferable alternative product?

Decision Chart

Question 1: Is it better for the environment to use recovered fiber for magazines versus virgin fiber in isolation? Yes.

In Figure 5 of the study (see below), it is clear that deinked pulp (green) has substantially lower environmental impacts relative to a 50% Kraft/50% Mechanical virgin pulp mix (blue) in all fourteen impact categories.

Relative Impacts

The central environmental question that all paper purchasers must ask is: “Which paper options provide the greatest environmental benefits and fewest negative impacts?” This Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) compared the environmental impacts of paper production between deinked pulp and virgin pulp. When compared to kraft and mechanical pulp, deinked pulp always has a smaller negative environmental impact.

Question 2: Can we show that it is better to use recovered fiber in an alternative product? No.

The fact is that magazine publishers are not choosing between printing on containerboard or newsprint or printing/writing papers for their publication. They are only considering paper options within the “printing/writing” grade.

National Geographic did not want to make the study “mill specific” to the mill they source their paper from, Verso Paper's Jay, Maine mill. Rather, they wanted the results to be applicable for the entire magazine industry. However, this question can only be answered for a specific mill.

Lisa Grice, Sustainability Practice Area Leader for ENVIRON, wrote in her summary of the LCA:

[We cannot determine if there is a better use for recovered paper] because the sensitivity analysis shows that, because of the range of mill specific characteristics regarding fuel mix and energy efficiency, we cannot distinguish between impacts of alternative products produced from any combination of the mechanical or kraft pulp studied. It is possible that a future analysis at the individual mill level may indicate that a specific grade of deinked pulp used to displace a similar grade of virgin fiber pulp for one product may have greater or lesser impact than displacing virgin fiber pulp for another product, but this would be only applicable to the specific mills involved and not more broadly applicable.

While possible, it seems highly unlikely that virgin pulp production could have an overall environmental benefit considering the tremendous environmental advantage for deinked pulp that is demonstrated in this study. ENVIRON’s answering the question, “no,” indicates that it can’t be shown that recovered paper and deinked pulp would be better used to manufacture other products over printing/writing grades.

Question 3: Do supply limitations exist such that the use of recovered fiber in magazine would displace its use in an environmentally preferable alternative product? No.

I should reinforce that no environmentally preferable product has been identified. We all know that some industry stakeholders believe that there is a limited supply of recovered paper available to produce deinked pulp for recycled paper. While true, that “limited supply” is far from exhaustible and nowhere close to being adequately used.

It is difficult to predict how the market will react to increased recycled paper use in the US. Will increased demand create higher prices for recovered paper? Would potential higher prices for recovered paper drive better and more collection of valuable printing & writing paper, separated from the mixed grades where most of it currently ends up? Would increased demand for recycled content printing and writing papers reopen some of the shuttered capacity in recycled mills, potentially enabling even more customers to specify recycled content printing and writing papers? Would the US ship less recycled paper to China? Would more paper companies increase the supply of recycled papers?

What we know is that 9 million tons of printing & writing grade paper remains uncollected each year. And much of what is collected ends up mixed into lower grades that find their way into packaging or other non-printing & writing paper products. We also know the U.S. is behind a number of countries in collecting recycled paper, and that higher recovery rates are possible.

And, we know that National Geographic has their paper made by the Verso paper mill in Jay, Maine – only about 31 miles from Cascades' Auburn Fiber deinking plant.

According to the supply study completed by ENVIRON and done in conjunction with the LCA, Tony Newman, the plant manager for Cascades, indicated that, they “currently have excess capacity, and if demand for paper with recycled content were to increase they would increase their capital investment, produce more, and meet the increased demand.”

From "The Availability of High Grade Paper with Recycled Content for Magazine Use," prepared by ENVIRON, commissioned by National Geographic Society:

[I]t is likely that if demand for magazines with recycled content were to increase, then sufficient supplies of magazine-quality recycled fiber would be available. For a very large magazine, however, the state of world markets is not as important in terms of availability. It is likely much more regionally based. And the fiber they need is already available from a regional supplier [Cascades].

Could National Geographic’s demand for recycled paper simultaneously help boost the profits of Maine’s Cascades plant and reduce pressure on the environment? Based on the study provided by ENVIRON, such a move would benefit the environment, and it is hard to see how sourcing more pulp from Cascades could do anything other than increase profits and provide more employment opportunities for the plant’s community in Maine.

Conclusion

Going back to the questions in the “decision chart” at the beginning of this blog, all the arrows point toward “National Geographic to consider availability and cost of using recovered fiber for their magazines.”

1) The relative environmental impacts for deinked pulp are better than those for kraft or mechanical pulp in all environmental categories studied.
2) It isn’t demonstrated that it is better to use recovered fiber in non-magazine paper.
3) There are currently no significant limitations on recovered paper supply.

We applaud National Geographic’s effort and work to come to this conclusion, and look forward to their use of recycled paper in the near future.

Paper production – both recycled paper and virgin fiber paper – has an impact on the environment. However, using recovered paper has much lower impacts than virgin fiber, which should be the only comparison end users are making when considering paper choices – not pointing fingers at where an imagined limited supply of recovered paper is “best used.” If we want to avoid painful environmental consequences, we must act together so we can all succeed. Unfortunately, we have been going around in circles on this conversation for years – mainly, we talk past one another. I find that tiresome and unproductive, and consider the results of this study as an opportunity to now move forward together.

As Winston Churchill once said, “The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

The paper industry as a whole has made some strides towards sustainability, but we’ve still got a long road to travel. We should have an honest conversation about the key metrics to determine how to make and use the most environmentally responsible paper. Collaborative efforts will achieve the best results.

National Geographic demonstrated a good model for collaboration and deserves recognition for committing to a process that was transparent, actionable, and inclusive. Green America, Natural Resources Defense Council, and World Resources Institute were stakeholders throughout this entire process. The participation of all the parties resulted in a study with a high level of integrity and value.

Now the question is whether or not others in the paper and magazine industry can employ the same model of collaboration in order to solve critical environmental consequences associated with paper production and use?

Please contact me if you would like to be part of this conversation: frank@greenamerica.org, 202-872-5308.

Related Dead Tree Edition articles:

• Green Groups Turn the Heat Down on National Geographic But Up on KFC  
• What Exactly Is Environmentally Preferable Paper?  
• The Recycled Debate: Can We 'Get Beyond the Stereotypical Industry-Environmental Relationship'?

The Recycled Debate: Can We 'Get Beyond the Stereotypical Industry-Environmental Relationship'?

My recent article about discussions between National Geographic and an environmental group has stirred up a debate about recycled paper between two industry leaders.

Publishing pundit BoSacks (AKA Robert Sacks) distributed the article to his 12,000-plus email list on Tuesday with one of his famous "BoSacks Speaks Out" rants, charging that, "Forcing recycled paper into the virgin fiber process of paper making is in most cases counter-productive to a successful green footprint." (He left a similar but briefer comment Sunday on Dead Tree Edition.)

Frank Locantore, director of Green America's Better Paper Project, responded today on Dead Tree Edition with a plea for "a constructive dialogue that has a goal of reaching agreement on metrics to determine what constitutes environmentally preferable paper." Locantore has been perhaps the leading advocate and promoter of using paper with recycled content in North American magazines.

I have corresponded with both men over the past few years and believe them to be people of good will who are worth heeding. (In fact, both submitted insightful comments on one of my first environmentally themed articles, I'm an environmental idiot!.) Therefore, in the interest of encouraging meaningful debate and dialog, I'm publishing both statements in their entirety:

Green Groups Turn the Heat Down on National Geographic But Up on KFC

Please see also the May 30, 2012 follow up to this article, The Recycled Debate: Can We 'Get Beyond the Stereotypical Industry-Environmental Relationship'?, where Locantore and industry pundit BoSacks debate the green-ness of recycled paper.

The environmental group that aimed a "Practice What You Print" campaign against National Geographic for not using recycled paper says it is now engaged in "productive discussions" with the magazine.

Frank Locantore, director of the Better Paper Project, revealed the discussions in a comment today on Dead Tree Edition's article, What Exactly Is Environmentally Preferable Paper? Acknowledging that there is more to "green" paper than recycled content, he called for "a broad cross-section of stakeholders" to establish measurements that will lead to making paper more environmentally friendly.

Here is Frank's comment in its entirety:

I've wanted to post a comment to this blog for a long time now. But, there is so much here to comment on that it has been hard to figure out where to begin. First, I want to thank DTE for repeatedly trying to get a conversation going about this. My hope is that the conversation finds a different venue than on-line commenting. It is really difficult to substantially and meaningfully discuss this issue without the benefit of being in the same room with one another.

My three comments are these:

What Exactly Is Environmentally Preferable Paper?

Please see also the follow-up to this article, Green Groups Turn the Heat Down on National Geographic But Up on KFC.

To understand why selecting environmentally preferable paper is so challenging for publishers and other print buyers, consider these three recent news items:

1. National Geographic Society worked with Hearst Enterprises and Verso Paper to help mostly small land owners achieve Sustainable Forestry Initiative certification for well over 1 million acres of Maine forests. 
2. NGS conducted and published a thorough Life Cycle Assessment of National Geographic magazine’s carbon footprint, which Magazines Canada cited as an example for other publishers to follow.  
3. Green America’s Better Paper Project has targeted NGS with its “Practice What You Print” protests because National Geographic magazine does not use recycled paper.

So amidst all of the Earth Day hype, Dead Tree Edition asks: So which is it, is National Geographic an environmental hero or an environmental villain? More importantly for those of us who buy paper: What exactly is “green” paper?

Green Printing Bill Unveiled -- And Sure To Be Controversial

A proposed U.S. tax credit for "green" printing that was unveiled this week could lead to some interesting arguments among environmentalists, printers, paper mills, and print-buying organizations.

As Dead Tree Edition reported last month in Federal Subsidy For Green Printing To Be Proposed, Print Buyers Online revealed the proposed legislation at a conference this week as scheduled. (See full text of the bill below.)

The legislation would be good news for paper mills using recycled fiber and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative but bad news for big printers and overseas paper manufacturers.

To be declared "a qualified sustainable print project" must meet 13 of 15 criteria, including (with my comments in Italics):

• "The materials used in the print project must be recyclable." (All of the materials? Can ink be considered recyclable if paper has to be de-inked before being recycled?)
• "The print project must contain verbiage that encourages the reader to recycle the printed piece." (That's a no-brainer for direct mail, publications, and cereal boxes. But it's trickier for printed products that don't contain words, like wallpaper, vinyl flooring, and electronic circuits.)
•  "The print project must contain verbiage that allows prospects/customers to opt-out from further printed communications." (How do you opt out of receiving a cardboard box? There needs to be a distinction between something meant for paying customers and one meant for prospects.)
• "The paper or substrate must contain over 25 percent post-consumer waste for coated paper stock and 50 percent post-consumer waste for uncoated paper stock." (That will be tough for overseas paper mills because the U.S. is one of the few countries that distinguishes between pre-consumer and post-consumer waste.)
• "The paper or substrate must be produced Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) or Process Chlorine Free (PCF)."
• "The paper or substrate must be certified by a credible third-party chain-of-custody certifier, such as The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)." (Putting SFI on the same footing as FSC will not go over well with groups like Greenpeace and ForestEthics.)
• "The ink, coating, laminates and/or adhesives must emit no more than 2 percent volatile organic compounds (VOC) for sheet-fed printing, no more than 30 percent VOCs for heat-set web printing, no more than 10 percent VOCs for cold-set web printing and no more than five 5 percent VOCs for flexographic printing." (What about other printing processes, like inkjet and rotogravure? And does "emit" refer to what comes off the press or what escapes from the building?)
• "If a print project is 96 pages or less and is bound as a book, the book will be bound as saddle stitched rather than perfect bound." (Interesting. I don't recall seeing any discussion of saddle vs. perfect in articles about green printing.)
• "The printer who manufactures the print project must not have been fined for violations in the past five years from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), or by state or federal regulators for environmental, health or safety issues." (I'm guessing a lot of the big multi-plant printers have received an OSHA fine at one of their plants in the past five years.)

I'm skeptical of well-meaning efforts to subsidize environmentally responsible behavior because such legislation is so open to abuse by businesses and legislators. (See black liquor tax credits, Son of Black Liquor, and Grandson of Black Liquor.)

But there's something to be said for trying to define what environmentally friendly printing is, even if the first draft is a bit rough. I wonder if some day environmental groups will press corporations about the inks, binding methods, and opt-out provisions they use in their printed materials instead of just focusing on the source of the paper.

Here is the text of the bill in its entirety:

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow print buyers a credit against income tax for the completion of sustainable print projects.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Print Buyer’s Reduction in Taxes Bill of 2010 (PRINT).”

SEC.2. CREDIT AGAINST INCOME TAX FOR THE PRODUCTION OF QUALIFIED SUSTAINABLE PRINT PROJECTS

(a) In General – Subpart D of Section IV of subchapter A of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to business related credits), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end of the following new section:

“SEC. 45R. NEW SUSTAINABLE PRINT PROJECT CREDIT

“(a) GENERAL RULE.— For purposes of Section 38, the new sustainable print project tax credit determined under this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to the state sales tax paid by a print buyer for a qualified sustainable print project.

“(b) LIMITATIONS.—The credit allowed by subsection (a) for a single print buyer may not exceed 25 percent of the federal income tax owed by the print buyer for the taxable year.

(1) To qualify for the credit a print buyer must spend $100,000 or above on general print projects in the taxable year.

“(c) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this section—

“(1) PRINT BUYER.—The term ‘print buyer’ means an organization that finds and manages outside resources such as printing, finishing, mailing and specialty printing; communicates specifications and expectations for print projects; purchases print projects; creates and maintains contractual agreements with print suppliers; ensures quality tolerances; and ensures that projects deliver on time at an acceptable price.

“(2) QUALIFIED SUSTAINABLE PRINT PROJECT.—The term ‘qualified sustainable print project’ means a job procured by a print buyer

“(A) the production of which is completed after the date of the enactment of this section,

“(B) which meets the criteria described in paragraph (d) and

“(C) can be certified according to the criteria described in paragraph (e).
“(3) SUBSTRATE.—The term ‘substrate’ means a primary or underlying material (such as paper, plastic, or cloth) on which other materials (such as ink, coating, paint, or treatment) are applied, or from which other materials are made.

“(4) HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE AREA.—The term ‘high conservation value area’ means—

“(A) areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia); and/or large landscape-level forests, contained within, or containing the management unit, where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance, or

“(B) areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems, or

“(C) areas that provide basic services of nature in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control), or

“(D) areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health) and/or critical to local communities' traditional cultural identity (areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in cooperation with such local communities).

“(5) HEAVY METALS.—The term ‘heavy metals’ means metals with high molecular weights that are of concern because they are generally toxic to animal life and human health if naturally occurring concentrations are exceeded.

“(6) POST-CONSUMER WASTE (PCW).—The term ‘post-consumer waste’ means the fiber recovered from papers that have been used for their intended end-use, where the waste-producing use did not invoice the production of another product.

“(7) COATING.—The term ‘coating’ or ‘coated’ means a covering that is applied to the surface of the substrate to enhance appearance, adhesion, wetability, corrosion resistance, wear resistance and/or scratch resistance.

“(8) LEGALLY HARVESTED.—The term ‘legally harvested’ means a tree meets the federal requirements put in place by the Lacey Act of 1900 which require a declaration of

“(A) the scientific name of the wood or wood product contained in the importation and,

“(B) the value and quantity of the wood or forest production being imported and,

“(C) the name of the country from which the wood was harvested.

“(9) TOTALLY CHLORINE FREE (TCF).—The term ‘totally chlorine free’ means virgin paper that is unbleached or processed with a sequence that includes no chlorine or chlorine derivatives.

“(10) PROCESS CHLORINE FREE (PCF).—The term ‘process chlorine free’ means recycled paper in which the recycled content is unbleached or bleached without chlorine or chlorine derivatives.

“(11) VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC).—The term ‘volatile organic compounds’ means toxins that are commonly found in inks, coatings and adhesives in the printing process. VOCs emit dangerous toxic gases into the air.

“(12) SHEET-FED PRINTING.—The term ‘sheet-fed printing’ means a method in which individual pages of paper are fed into a printer, as opposed to continuous rolls of paper used on web presses.

“(13) HEAT SET WEB PRINTING.—The term ‘heat set web printing’ means a printing process in which ink is dried rapidly by forcing-air heating.

“(14) COLD SET WEB PRINTING.—The term ‘cold set web printing’ means a web offset printing process in which ink is allowed to dry naturally through evaporation and absorption.

“(15) FLEXOGRAPHIC PRINTING.—The term ‘flexographic printing’ refers to a machine printing process that utilizes rollers and cylinders with a flexible rubber-like surface that prints with the raised area, much like surface printing, but with much less ink. This means the ink dries quickly and allows the machine to run at high speed.

“(16) UV CURED INK.—The term ‘UV cured ink’ means ink applied to a printed sheet that is bonded and cured with ultraviolet light.

“(17) FILM LAMINATE.—The term ‘film laminate’ means a process where a thin film of laminate is sealed into the substrate.

“(18) SADDLE STITCHING.—The term ‘saddle stitching’ means to bind by stapling the printed piece through the backbone (or center fold). Pages lie flat when the printed piece is open. In general, the maximum number of pages is ninety-six (96) plus cover for saddle stitching depending on the paper stock.

“(19) PERFECT BINDING.—The term ‘perfect binding’ means sheets that are ground at the spine and held together with the cover by glue. Perfect binding is commonly used for catalogs and paperback books and it creates a spine that can be printed on. This process is more economical for higher quantities, in general the minimum number of pages needed for perfect binding is forty-eight (48).

“(20) DEDUPING.—The term ‘deduping’ means a process of removing duplicate entries from mailing lists, resulting in lower costs because it reduces the amount of postage and marketing collateral needed for direct mail campaigns.

“(21) RENEWABLE ENERGY.—The term ‘renewable energy’ means energy which comes from natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides, and geothermal heat, which are naturally replenished.

“(22) RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDITS.—The term ‘renewable energy credits’ means tradable, non-tangible energy commodities in the United States that represent proof that 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity was generated from an eligible renewable energy resource (renewable electricity).

“(23) TAXABLE YEAR.— The term ‘taxable year’ means the twelve-month period used as the basis for computing tax on income received during that period.

“(d) SUSTAINABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—A qualified sustainable print project meets the sustainability requirements of this subsection if thirteen (13) of the fifteen (15) requirements below are employed by the printers and evidenced to the print buyer—

“(1) The materials used in the print project must be recyclable, and/or

“(2) The print project cannot include inks which contain heavy metals, such as metallics and fluorescents, scratch off devices, foils, plastic polystyrenes and/or polyesters and/or

“(3) The print project must contain verbiage that encourages the reader to recycle the printed piece, and/or

“(4) The print project must contain verbiage that allows prospects/customers to opt-out from further printed communications, and/or

“(5) The paper or substrate must contain over twenty-five (25) percent post-consumer waste for coated paper stock and fifty (50) percent post-consumer waste for uncoated paper stock, and/or

“(6) The paper or substrate must be legally harvested, and/or

“(7) The print project must not use paper or substrates from endangered forests or areas of high conservation value, and/or

“(8) The paper or substrate must be produced Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) or Process Chlorine Free (PCF), and/or

“(9) The paper or substrate must be certified by a credible third-party chain-of-custody certifier, such as The Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) or Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and/or

“(10) The ink, coating, laminates and/or adhesives must emit no more than two (2) percent volatile organic compounds (VOC) for sheet-fed printing, no more than thirty (30) percent VOCs for heat-set web printing, no more than ten (10) percent VOCs for cold-set web printing and no more than five (5) percent VOCs for flexographic printing, and/or

“(11) If a coating is applied to the print project, the coating must not be either a UV cured ink or a film laminate, and/or

“(12) If a print project is ninety-six (96) pages or less and is bound as a book, the book will be bound as saddle stitched rather than perfect bound, and/or

“(13) Print projects that are mailed via United State Postal Service

“(A) must contain the +4 extension for zip codes

“(B) must be processed for deduping or merge/purge

“(C) must have been updated in the last six (6) months for National Change of Address, and/or

“(14) The printer who manufactures the print project must not have been fined for violations in the past five years from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), or by state or federal regulators for environmental, health or safety issues, and/or

“(15) The printer who manufactures the print project must use renewable energy (either directly using wind, solar and/or biogas, which is optimal) or by purchasing renewable energy credits (REC).

“(e) CERTIFICATION.—A project shall not be treated as a qualified sustainable print project unless the print buyer submits the relevant invoices and other documents listing the sustainable qualifications to the Internal Revenue Service (at such times and in such a manner as the IRS provides) specifying that the project meets thirteen (13) of the fifteen (15) requirements listed above.

“(f) OTHER RULES

“(1) STATES WITH NO SALES TAX.— In the case of a state with no sales tax the tax credit will be determined at the beginning of each taxable year by taking the average of the state with the lowest sales tax rate, and the state with the highest sales tax rate for the previous taxable year.

“(g) BASIS ADJUSTMENTS- If a credit is determined under this section for any expenditure with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of such property which would (but for this subsection) result from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the credit so allowed.

“(h) TERMINATION—This section shall not apply to any print project completed after December 31, 2016.”.

(b) CREDIT MADE AS PART OF GENERAL BUSINESS CREDIT.—Section 38(b)

(relating to current year business credit), as amended by this Act, is amended by striking “plus” at the end of paragraph (34), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (35) and inserting “,plus”, and by adding at the end of the following new paragraph:

“(36) the New print project sustainability credit determined under section 45R(a).”.

(c) DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN UNUSED BUSINESS CREDITS.—Section 196(c) (defining qualified business credits) is amended by striking “and” at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting “,and”, and by adding after paragraph (13) the following new paragraph:

“(14) the New sustainable print project credit determined under section 45R(a).”.

(d) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“Sec. 45R. New sustainable print project credit.”.

(e) EFFECTIVE DATE—The amendments made by this section shall apply to print projects completed after ninety (90) days from the date of enactment of this Act.

Federal Subsidy For Green Printing To Be Proposed

A prominent print-buying organization is about to propose legislation that would provide U.S. government subsidies for “green” printing – an interesting idea that could lead to even more interesting debates.

Here’s an excerpt of a message that Suzanne Morgan, president and founder of Print Buyers Online and a well-known commentator on print-buying issues, sent Friday to PBO’s email subscribers:

"On July 19, 2010 at the ninth annual Print Oasis Print Buyers Conference in Washington, DC, Print Buyers Online.com will be unveiling legislation that will be presented to Congress starting on Wednesday, July 21 that can save your company hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or more on print. This legislation proposes that any print project that is bought in an environmentally sustainable way is eligible for refunds of state sales taxes by the Federal government.

"To determine the cost savings for your company, you only need to calculate the percentage of print jobs that meet sustainable standards (can be recycled, include 15% or more PCW, are printed on paper that is legally harvested, etc.) and then calculate the sales tax of those jobs, to appreciate the enormous cost-savings."

Any effort to define what constitutes sustainable printing that is eligible for a federal subsidy (let’s not mince words: a tax rebate is a subsidy) would kick up huge arguments among printers, manufacturers, print buyers, and environmentalists.

A requirement that the material be recyclable should favor paper – until the plastics-industry lobbyists jump in and start arguing that various plastic substrates are, at least in theory, recyclable.

Is paper with 15% post-consumer waste green if the other 85% comes from the clear-cutting of tropical rainforests? Should the new law follow the government’s purchasing standards, which consider sawdust to be post-consumer waste but unsold magazines to be pre-consumer waste? (Most other countries, by the way, don’t distinguish between pre-consumer and post-consumer recycled content.)

Almost everyone agrees that making paper with recycled pulp is great if it diverts waste from a landfill. But what if the result is upcycling – diverting low-grade waste paper from its most efficient use, such as making newsprint or cardboard, to the manufacture of high-quality papers? (Paper industry analyst Verle Sutton calls North American recycled newsprint mills “an endangered species” because recycled pulp prices have been bid up so high.)

Should virgin fiber come only from certified-forestry operations? If so, which certification standards are acceptable? Imagine the battle between the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative over that one.

And what about carbon footprint? Should the law favor paper made at mills that use hydropower or biomass or products produced at wind-powered printing plants?

Must ink contain soy to be environmentally friendly, as some claim? Or are other inks even better because they contain higher levels of other renewable material, as others claim?

Even defining printed matter could be challenging. Wallpaper, linoleum flooring, T-shirts, and electrical circuits can all be printed. Procter & Gamble recently revealed that it prints an absorbent gel onto Pampers with Dry Max diapers. (I tried to find out what printing process was used but couldn’t get to the bottom of it.)

Ms. Morgan and PBO deserve kudos for trying to encourage environmentally friendly printing. If only we could all agree on exactly what that means.

For related articles, please see:

• I'm an environmental idiot! explains the problem with up-cycling.
• Students Lecture Al Gore on Green Printing
• The Great Forest Certification War describes a legal and PR battle between supporters of the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. 

Another Recycled Newsprint Mill Is on the Ropes

High prices for recycled paper are threatening to shut down what may be North America’s premier recycled-newsprint mill, Catalyst Paper revealed today.

“Increasing ONP [old newspaper] prices will negatively affect manufacturing costs at the Snowflake mill, and could result in future production curtailment at that mill,” the company said in its first-quarter earnings presentation.

The Snowflake, Arizona mill uses only recycled fiber, not virgin fiber in its products. Catalyst bought the mill in early 2008 when the Justice Department forced Abitibi to sell Snowflake before merging with Bowater. Some observers thought the feds chose Snowflake because it was Abitibi’s lowest-cost mill.

The newspaper industry’s woes have led to reduced supplies of recycled newsprint, while huge new paper machines in timber-short China have created more demand for recycled paper.

The result is that prices for some types of recycled paper have tripled in barely a year. The rising costs of recycled fiber have already forced four other North American newsprint mills to close this year, industry analyst Verle Sutton wrote recently in Recycled Newsprint Machines are Becoming an Endangered Species.

“Demand [for recycled fiber] exceeds supply and will continue to exceed supply for many years,” Sutton added last week.

For more information about paper with recycled content, please see:

• Three, or Maybe Four, Green Magazine Pioneers, which has this quotation from Hearst, which uses recycled fiber extensively in its newspapers but not its magazines: “After extensive review, we currently believe newspapers and other end uses (packaging, wallboard, etc.) are the most efficient use for recycled fiber, which continues to be in short supply.”
• I'm an environmental idiot!, which backs up the Hearst claim – showing that using recycled fiber in newsprint makes more sense environmentally than in such higher-grade products as office paper or paper for catalogs.
• Noisy Boise Is Reviving Its Newsprint Sales,which shows how one company used black-liquor tax credits to take market share last year from recycled-newsprint mills (including Snowflake).
• Hey, big boy, can I recycle your cardboard?, which tells what happened when the number for a toll-free recycling-information line was taken over by a telephone-sex service – and reminds us that there was a brief glut of recycled paper in late 2008 and early 2009.

Condoms to the Rescue, and 5 Other Novel Ideas for Saving the Forests

Wear condoms, retire the bear, and eat less fried chicken.

Those are among the unusual ideas for helping the environment in general and forests in particular that were turned up by a Dead Tree Edition study of recent news reports. I don't think you'll see these in the mainstream media's usual Earth Day articles:

Wear condoms
Not just any condoms, mind you, but Brazilian condoms made from genuine rubber rather than petroleum-based synthetics. The Brazilian government, the world’s largest buyer of condoms, has opened a factory that will produce 100 million rubber condoms per year, the Guardian reports.

“The condom project is both environmentally and economically sustainable,” says the Guardian. “It will provide an income to around 550 families and reduce the incentives for deforestation. The Government says the condoms are the only ones in the world made of latex harvested from a tropical forest” rather than from oil-based synthetics that are cheaper than natural rubber.

The Brazilian government’s condom-giveaway program could buy up all of the factory’s production. But think of how much more of the Amazonian rainforest could be preserved if more factories were built for overseas markets. That, however, would require some branding and marketing efforts to win customers for these high-priced condoms.

Suggested brand name:“The Natural”? Or, playing on the competition’s references to Greek mythology, there could be a brand for women buyers called “Amazon’s Shield”. Suggested slogan: “When you wear a rubber, be sure it’s rubber!”

By the way, there’s no word on whether natural-rubber condoms are carbon neutral or cruelty free. And please don’t ask whether they’re recyclable.

Retire the bear
Industry, government, environmentalists, and scientists agree that northern Arizona’s ponderosa pine forests have “too many trees” and that the solution is selective logging, according to Northern Arizona University’s Ecological Restoration Institute.

The various parties have agreed on a forest-restoration project that aims “to restore ecological and economic health by reducing fire danger and protecting communities, returning our forests and rangelands to a healthier condition that can function with low-intensity natural fire, and providing opportunities to create jobs and stimulate local economies." The stakeholders blame “past fire suppression policies” for causing the forests to be packed with high densities of small-diameter trees that are prone to uncontrollable fires.

I blame the bear. Smokey the Bear.

For decades, his stern “Only YOU can prevent forest fires” has brainwashed Americans from the toddler stage on up that forest fires are bad and are caused by bad people. The result is that we have tried to stamp out every fire.

Fire, especially in the American West, is a natural and important process that thins underbrush and small trees and enables certain species to thrive. It’s time for Smokey to take a hike – though he might have a hard time finding a path through all the trees.

Ban Laura Ingalls Wilder Books
Speaking of brainwashing and forest fires, we’ve got to keep our kids away from Laura Ingalls Wilder books. Every year, thousands read Little House in the Big Woods and decide they too want a little house in the big woods when they grow up.

Having all of those little houses in the big woods (not to mention Big McMansions in the Little Forest) creates political pressure to fight every forest fire rather than letting nature take its course.

If you want the truth on climate change, follow the money
One way to cut through all of the debate about global climate change is to see how businesses are placing their bets, notes "Betting on Change" at the excellent new Web site The Climate Desk (a collaboration of several prominent media outlets, including The Atlantic, Wired, and Mother Jones magazines).

“If a firm's bottom line is going to be affected by a changing climate—say, when its supply chains dry up because of drought, or its real estate gets swamped by sea-level rise—then it doesn't particularly matter whether or not the executives want to believe in climate change.”

The article then goes on to show how a variety of businesses and industries have already demonstrated – through adaptations, investments, insurance purchases, and the like – that they believe the problem is real.

Use less recycled paper
Paper-industry analyst Verle Sutton recently pointed out that several North American newsprint mills that relied on recycled pulp have been driven out of business by the high price of recycled paper. One culprit is the push by some environmental groups to include recycled content in high-quality papers, which is actually bad for the environment.

“Utilizing recycled fiber in packaging, and the lower quality paper grades (as well as insulation and other industrial applications) is much, much more environmentally healthy than utilizing this fiber in higher quality grades,” he writes. For more on why such “up-cycling” is not a good idea, see I'm an environmental idiot!

(Because Sutton mentions the FutureMark coated-paper mill near Chicago, I should pass along some explanatory information provided by my readers: Much of the mill's fiber comes from unsold magazines and waste from nearby web printers, so it’s not up-cycled. The rest comes from Chicago-area curbside collections, so to some extent the relatively low carbon footprint of transporting the fiber makes up for the up-cycling.)

Eat less fried chicken
The environmental group Dogwood Alliance recently launched the Kentucky Fried Forest campaign because it alleges that KFC's “paper packaging is directly contributing to the destruction of our Southern forests.” KFC is targeted because it “is one of the major purchasers from International Paper,” which is “notorious for business-as-usual destructive forest management practices” in the U.S. South.

Dogwood Alliance needs to answer a few questions (see the subsequent response from its campaign coordinator) before I’ll start urging people to boycott the Colonel:

• Would it prefer that KFC use Styrofoam “clamshells” and other non-biodegradable packaging materials, as some other fast-food restaurants do?
• To what extent is the alleged trouble occurring in forests that IP manages as opposed to non-IP forests that merely sell to IP? IP sold off much of its forestry operations several years ago.
• What would happen to those Southern forests if IP stopped using their trees? Would they be converted to agriculture or housing developments? Or to other species of tree? (And, by the way, can rubber trees grow in the South? If so, here’s a suggested brand name for condoms made of GEN-yoo-INE Southern rubber: “Rebel Yell”).

Newspapers Are Greener Than Web News, Says Environmental Expert

Which is greener, getting news online or reading a newspaper? For environmental expert and activist Sarah Westervelt, the obvious answer is the printed newspaper.

“It doesn’t take electricity to read my paper,” she said in a video posted recently at PBS' Mediashift site. “I’m too informed about what’s going to happen to my computer when I’m done with it and too concerned about that” to rely on the Web for news.



“I try to rely on the really good bio-compatible materials that have been around a long time,” said Westervelt, who as e-stewardship director at the Basel Action Network has done much to expose the bogus “recycling” of toxic wastes from discarded electronic gadgets.

“If everybody stops reading newspapers then perhaps we stop growing trees,” Westervelt said during the video, which was taken from a discussion sponsored by USC Annenberg's Specialized Journalism Program. Among other participants in the discussion were the production directors of the San Jose Mercury News and Chronicle Books.

Westervelt didn’t claim that everything about printing and paper is environmentally friendly, noting that trees for paper are sometimes grown on single-species plantations. But those issues pale in comparison with the many toxic materials and “15 different plastics” typically found in computers, she said.

Unlike paper, computer components do not lend themselves well to recycling and reuse because “you have this really complex waste combined with not enough value in the materials to pay for responsible recycling,” Westervelt said.

“So what we have is companies that are presenting themselves as recyclers and really what they are is waste brokers. They are just consolidating, loading up shipping containers and it goes off to China or India or Pakistan. And it’s just having absolutely horrific impacts in a lot of these developing countries to both human health and the environment.”

For a briefer and more light-hearted defense of printed newspapers against the digital onslaught, check out this video of a male a capella quartet doing a fabulous take-off on Gnarls Barkley’s “Crazy”, with lines like "Does that make us crazy? Wanting you to read."

And, yes, this blogger does check his facts twice.

Related articles:

• Smackdown: Printed Editions vs. Digital Editions: A look at the environmental impact of Dead Tree editions (ink on paper) versus Dead Dinosaur editions (digital content read on devices containing 15 different petrochemical-based plastics).
• The Greenwashing Media Award Goes to . . .: Vendors of digital-publication software have made some bogus claims about the environmental friendliness of Dead Dinosaur editions.
• Green Publishing Quiz: Test your knowledge, and your misconceptions, about environmentally friendly publishing.

Green Publishing Quiz

An abbreviated version of this article appears in the December issue of Publishing Executive magazine under the title “Looking to Make Your Magazines ‘Greener’? – Take This Quiz First”. Yeah, that’s right, I’ve actually written something for a real dead tree edition of a magazine, though you can also check it out on PubExec’s dead dinosaur edition. Although geared to magazines, the quiz is relevant to other printed materials, especially catalogs.

I started trying some years ago to make the magazines on which I work more environmentally friendly, but there was a big problem: Me.

It took me a long time to realize that much of what I believed regarding the environmental impact of magazine publishing was misguided or just plain wrong. The realization that I'm "an environmental idiot" has inspired me to devote many of the articles at Dead Tree Edition to publishing-related environmental issues.

Rather than subjecting you to another let’s-all-go-green pep talk, I compiled the following quiz to help you recognize gaps in your knowledge. I hope it provides you useful information you can use to make informed decisions about the environment.

Q: Which of the following constitutes the largest portion of the typical American magazine’s carbon footprint?
a) Printing
b) Distributing the magazine, including freight and postal services
c) Paper manufacturing
d) Cutting the trees to produce the paper
e) The hot air generated by loquacious writers and pompous editors.

A: (C), paper manufacturing. A study commissioned by Time Inc. found that 77% of one magazine’s carbon footprint and 61% of another’s occurred in the manufacturing of pulp and paper. Subsequent studies by others have reached similar conclusions. Making paper is an energy-intensive process, with some mills generating more than a ton of carbon dioxide and equivalents for every ton of paper they produce.

Q: True or false, anything you do to make your publication greener will cost you money.

A: False. Here are some things you can do that won’t cost you a dime or that might even save you money:
• Display a “Please Recycle This Magazine” logo prominently in your publication. Magazine Publishers of America offers free downloads of the logo, even to non-members, as well as several public service announcements.
• Have the paper you purchase shipped in full railcars. See Use Rail to Lower Your Carbon Footprint for more on this potentially money-saving tactic.
• Use Gray Component Replacement (GCR) to reduce ink consumption. Money-Saving Trend: Using GCR to Reduce Ink Consumption explains how.
• Check whether you are using the optimal roll sizes of paper. It’s amazing how often printers quote, and publishers use, roll sizes that are wider than necessary.
• Ask your paper suppliers what they are doing to minimize their carbon footprint. The more they hear that customers are concerned about this, the more they will focus on reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases.
• An obvious one: Print as little as you need. Clean up mailing lists. Reduce newsstand shipments to underperforming locations. Eliminate unnecessary office and inventory copies.

Q: Which has a lower carbon footprint:
a) Paper made nearby at a mill with a high carbon footprint, or
b) Paper shipped halfway across the continent from a low-carbon mill?

A: While generalizations are always dangerous (How’s that for a generalization?), the answer is almost always (b). Transport of paper to printing plants is a tiny portion of the typical magazine’s carbon footprint, while paper manufacturing usually accounts for the majority. The variation in carbon footprint from one mill to another is much greater than the total footprint of the freight. The Time Inc.-commissioned study put transport to the printer at only about 1% to 2% of the total footprint.

Q: Is it easy to compare the carbon footprints of two competing paper mills?

A: Not at all. For example, if you include the carbon footprint of electricity used by mills, you will penalize those that are located in areas where the utilities happen to rely on coal. But if you don’t, you will fail to recognize those that generate green power on site through hydroelectric dams or other means. Rather than looking for a single number from a paper supplier, you should discuss what comprises that footprint, what the mill is doing to reduce its environmental impact, and what you as a customer can do to help.

Q: True or false, environmentally preferable paper always has high PCW (post-consumer waste) content.

A: False. Using PCW in North America to make magazine-quality paper can actually be bad for the environment if it involves “up-cycling”, as explained in I'm an environmental idiot!. Using large amounts of recycled pulp is especially challenging in lightweight papers, which can still be a good choice environmentally because of their efficient use of pulp. By the way, the U.S. is one of the few countries that distinguishes between PCW and other waste; in most of the world, recycled paper is recycled paper.

Q: When you buy paper that has virgin content, you should favor suppliers who promise to plant one tree for every one they harvest, right?

A: Wrong. Generally speaking, there is no need to plant trees in a sustainably managed forest, as Cutting some trees but saving the forest explains. And Illegal Logging in Indonesia: Not Funny shows that tree-planting programs can indicate unsustainable forestry.

Q: Does all sustainably harvested fiber have a certification from an organization like the Forest Stewardship Council or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative?

A: No. There is plenty of sustainable forestry that is not certified. That’s especially true in places like Maine and Finland where much of the forest is in the hands of small landowners because the FSC and SFI guidelines are more suited to large corporate and government land owners. There has also been criticism of the forestry practices of some certified logging operations, though it’s hard to separate fact from fiction because the certification organizations seem to be putting more resources into fighting each other than into promoting sustainable forestry. Still, using paper with certified fiber is the easiest way to ensure it comes from sustainable forestry.

Q: Are printers and paper mills that have chain-of-custody certification more environmentally friendly than those that don’t?

A: Not necessarily. CoC certification has nothing to do with an organization’s environmental practices, just its ability to track which fiber or paper was used on a particular job. Only certification of specific paper -- not of a mill or printing plant -- matters.

Q: Does the harvesting of trees in North America cause or prevent deforestation?

A: Both. Larry Selzer, president and CEO of The Conservation Fund, explains how logging can prevent deforestation: “We know that forests offering value economically and socially are more likely to continue offering value environmentally. And the economic value is an added incentive for owners to manage their forests with care, and to maintain them as forest rather than selling them for profit -- which often results in the forests being turned into malls or subdivisions.” Logging can cause environmental damage but rarely leads to true deforestation, which is the permanent loss of forest. Agriculture and development are more common causes of deforestation.

Q: Does delivering content electronically rather than in printed products save trees and help the environment?

A: Not necessarily. Data centers and electronic gadgets are huge consumers of electricity. While paper mills often rely heavily on renewable resources for their power, conventional electricity typically comes from coal or petroleum. That’s why I refer to digital content as “dead dinosaur editions” (as opposed to ink-on-paper “dead tree editions”). The mountaintop-removal method of coal mining and the processing of oil sands for petroleum are both significant sources of deforestation in North America. See Smackdown: Printed Editions vs. Digital Editions for more on how the environmental footprint of dead-dinosaur editions compares with that of printed editions.

Q: Will publishers that make their products more environmentally sustainable be more profitable as a result?

A: Some people take it as an act of faith that “Green business is good business”, but they don’t seem to be the ones actually making the magazine industry greener. Guy Gleysteen, who heads up production for North America’s largest magazine publisher, Time Inc., says going green is “about doing the right thing” because a publisher’s sustainability efforts “are not readily described in one or two lines that would appeal to a consumer.”

And just because some advertisers are touting their green efforts, don’t expect that to influence how they advertise. For the most part, the decisions about where to advertise are still placed in the hands of 23-year-old media buyers who have only been told to compare CPMs (cost per thousand), not carbon footprints.

Let's hope some day our customers demand that we be green. And let's be ready for that day.

Three, or Maybe Four, Green Magazine Pioneers

While some magazine publishers get plenty of PR mileage from using paper with recycled content, the real leaders in making U.S. magazines greener have gone largely unheralded.

In a recent interview with Publishing Executive, I named three publishing companies that have been “industry pioneers” in making printed products greener. I had a fourth pioneer in mind as well but disqualified it from the list. More on that later.

Here are my green heroes:

Wenner Media
I’ve previously praised U.S. News & World Report for using Catalyst Cooled “manufactured carbon-neutral paper” throughout its “green” issue this year, but it was really following in the footsteps of Wenner’s Rolling Stone magazine. Two years ago, Wenner began changing the industry’s thinking on the environment away from simplistic discussions of recycled content when it announced that all of the magazine’s inside pages would be on Catalyst Cooled.

Wenner pays for a tree-planting program that offsets the already low carbon footprint of the paper. As far as I can tell, Wenner gets no PR or marketing mileage out of that commitment other than a small mention in each issue of the magazine. It is just doing the right thing, in good times and in bad.

Time Inc.
The “Evil Empire”, as competitors and even employees call Time, made a huge contribution by commissioning the extensive, landmark Heinz Center study in 2006 called "Following the Paper Trail". That study showed that the vast majority of a consumer magazine’s carbon footprint occurs at the paper mill and that the emissions of greenhouse gases vary widely from mill to mill.

Time also pioneered the ReMix (Recycling Magazines is Excellent!) advertising campaign that encourages consumers to recycle their magazines.

Check out this audio interview with Guy Gleysteen, Time Inc.’s production chief, who talks about how the company is lobbying paper suppliers on such issues as carbon footprint and sustainable forestry. He’s especially interesting when talking about the company’s motivation for these actions and why Time doesn't mention them in its marketing to consumers.

“The issues that you’d want to educate people on are complex and are not readily described in one or two lines that would appeal to a consumer,” says Gleysteen. He adds that Time’s efforts are about “putting our company into a position where we can be trusted relative to the resources that we use.”

Hearst
Being green seems to permeate the company’s culture, from its award-winning LEED-certified headquarters in New York to the rooftop worm farms (Ooh, gross!) that recycle waste from its Good Housekeeping kitchens in London (Oh. Cool!).

“By the end of 2008, 70% of our magazine paper comprised certified fiber. We have set an interim goal of 80% by the end of 2009,” says the publisher’s "Being Green" report, perhaps the best example of environmental transparency in the U.S. publishing industry. As part of that effort, Hearst and Time went public this week with their campaign to help small forest owners in Maine get certified.

“Being Green” addresses the recycled issue clearly and correctly: “Hearst is currently using more than 15% post-consumer recycled (PCR) paper across its portfolio of publications, primarily in the newsprint we buy. After extensive review, we currently believe newspapers and other end uses (packaging, wallboard, etc.) are the most efficient use for recycled fiber, which continues to be in short supply.”

Now for the almost fourth hero: Readers Digest Association deserves some credit for using paper with 85% recycled content throughout Every Day with Rachael Ray.

As Hearst suggests, coated paper is often not the best use for recycled pulp. But if you’re going to print a magazine in the Midwest on relatively heavy coated-groundwood paper, Myllykoski’s Alsip, IL mill is a green choice. By mixing high-brightness recycled products, such as unsold magazines and printer waste, with curbside-collected paper and virgin kraft pulp, the mill is able to make good magazine paper without bleaching. (The mill’s products are too heavy for Rolling Stone and most Time Inc. magazines, by the way.)

As with Wenner’s announcement about Catalyst Cooled, the marketing of Every Day with Her Perkiness brought much-deserved attention to a paper maker that is greener than its larger competitors.

So why am I not giving RDA as much credit for being green as Wenner, Time, and Hearst? It turns out that Myllykoski already gave Readers Digest plenty of credit: The Finnish company was left holding the bag with $1.65 million in accounts payable when RDA went Chapter 11 in August. That's not exactly a great way to reward a supplier for its environmentally friendly practices.

Do you disagree with my choices of magazine-industry green heroes? Then make your voice heard, not only by commenting on this article but also by entering the 2009 Aveda Environmental Award for Magazines.

For further reference:

• Rethinking the "Green" Magazine Issue
• Certified forestry for small Maine landowners: Does FSC certification help the earth? and More on Maine and FSC.
• Certified Forestry Is In Trouble, U.N. Report Says
• I'm an environmental idiot!: Why recycled content doesn't always make environmental sense for coated paper.
  

Ecologomania and Printed Products

If two recent reports from paper companies are any indication, it may soon become common for printed products to use ecologomania and ingredient lists to demonstrate their environmental friendliness.

Note the 10 environmental logos (above) on Cascades' 2008 sustainability report, which are truly an example of "ecologomania" -- the word I've coined for the display of numerous logos for such environmental certifications as sustainable forestry, recycled content, and energy source.

Catalyst Paper's 2008 sustainability report relies more on data than logos to communicate the company's environmental commitment. Its tell-all report provides mill-by-mill data on greenhouse-gas emissions, water usage, solid waste to landfills, and other items.

It also reveals the kind of data paper companies historically have held close to the vest, such as the amounts of various materials used by the company. Factoid: The company used almost as much precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) as it did fossil fuels.

Both the sustainability report and Catalyst's annual report have what looks like a food product's list of ingredients, showing the inputs and emissions from producing the paper for the report. Note that paper is high in natural fibers.

Another factoid: The carbon footprint of Catalyst's manufacturing operations more than tripled last year when it purchased a 100%-recycled newsprint mill in Snowflake, AZ from AbitibiBowater. That mill's greenhouse-gas emissions per ton of product were at least 9 times higher than that of any other Catalyst mill. So much for the simplistic notion that you can reduce carbon footprint simply by switching to paper with recycled content.

With all of the environmental buzzwords swarming around these days, especially today, vague communications blathering on about corporations’ supposedly green practices don’t carry any weight any more. Increasingly, publishers and paper companies may be expected to back up their claims with hard data and third-party certifications.