Despite the ecological and human cost of paper production we continue to throw vast amounts of this resource away after using it only once, even though the capability exists to recycle much of it. Less than half of the paper used in the UK is recovered and over five million tonnes gets dumped in landfill sites [3] adding to the mounting waste disposal problem faced by this country and many others around the world.

Yet if paper is recycled the amount of waste going to landfill is cut and less timber is used. Managing our insatiable demand for timber should reduce the need to clear old growth forests, rich in biodiversity, which must instead be protected from commercial logging.

Despite these clear benefits of paper recycling it has been criticised both as a product and as a process. It has been suggested that producing recycled paper uses more energy than virgin paper production, is more polluting and may make a greater contribution to climate change. Such arguments have been used to promote the view that it is preferable to incinerate paper to produce energy rather than to recycle it [4].

This briefing examines the arguments surrounding the potential environmental impacts of paper recycling in relation to energy use, pollution, contribution to climate change and in comparison to incineration as a waste management option. Market barriers to increased recycling are explored, along with waste paper recovery rates in the UK and other countries. Throughout, the term recycled paper refers to post-consumer waste i.e. paper that has been used and is then recycled.

Energy is needed to manufacture both virgin paper and recycled paper but much less total energy is needed to produce recycled paper [5]. Industry quotes for typical energy savings from producing recycled paper range from about 28%-70%[6]. The amount of energy saved will depend on paper grade, processing, mill operation and proximity to a waste paper source and markets. Moreover, technical improvements to reduce energy use are possible by introducing incremental design improvements at each step of the papermaking process[7].

Energy savings are particularly applicable to recycling of newsprint, according to one study [8]. This is because production of mechanical pulp from which newsprint is made is more energy intensive than production of chemical pulps used for other paper grades.

However, the debate focuses not so much on relative amounts of energy use but the type of energy used. The energy used to make recycled paper is typically derived from fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil. In contrast, virgin fibre production relies on waste by-products of timber processing such as bark, wood waste and spent liquor (see glossary) to meet a high proportion of fuel needs [9]. However, fossil fuel use can also be offset in recycled paper production by burning wastes from the process. More than 20% of the Aylesford Newsprint Mill's energy needs are met through burning waste sludges, for example [10].

The energy debate has tended to be very narrow. The forest products industry generally excludes, in its analysis, the fuel used in forest management e.g. in drilling, seeding, harvesting, transport of timber to the pulp mill and the pulp to distribution points. The proportion of energy needs met by biofuels will

vary from country to country, pulping process and timber used. On a global basis, the industry has yet to show exactly how much of their total energy needs are met by biofuels.

Transport

The opinion has been put forward that because waste paper is delivered to paper banks, transported for processing and distribution, the energy used will outweigh the benefits of energy savings from the recycling process. However, for most transport modes, the energy costs between different transport scenarios of virgin paper and recycled paper are insignificant in comparison to the energy savings arising from the recycled paper production process [11,12,13].

Pollutants from paper making can be divided into three categories: emissions to water, emissions to air and solid wastes.

Emissions to water

Production of both virgin and recycled paper gives rise to pollutants which are discharged to water, called effluents. When assessing these pollutants produced in paper making, four key parameters, among others, are monitored: total suspended solids (TSS); biological oxygen demand (BOD); chemical oxygen demand (COD); and chlorinated organic compounds (AOX) (see glossary).

In order to produce white recycled paper the printing ink has first to be removed, a process known as de-inking. One study showed that the effluent from de-inked paper had slightly higher levels of suspended solids (TSS) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) than effluent produced from virgin pulp [16]. However, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and the level of chlorinated organic compounds was lower in the effluent from recycled pulp.

Effluents can be treated by clarification and activated sludge and/or anaerobic processes to control BOD and COD and “in a few cases waste paper processing paper mills already have realized a totally effluent-free process”[17].

In the past, heavy metals (from printing inks) in recycling mill effluents have been a cause for concern. Metals such as copper, chromium, lead, zinc, nickel and cadmium have been commonly used in printing inks and are discharged not only to wastewater but also to waste sludges and some remain in the final paper product. Dioxins and furans also occur in re-pulped effluents, although little is known about their precise source[18].

However, the toxicity of heavy metals and organic compounds, such as dioxins, in effluents and sludges is a matter of debate within the industry. One study suggests that much of the published data on pollution from heavy metals and organic chemicals from recycling mills are already outdated [19].The levels of these materials in recovered paper, and therefore in recycling mill wastes, have dropped dramatically in recent years as a result of similarly dramatic reductions in the levels of these materials in inks and pigments.

Emissions to air:

Direct emissions from the process of making recycled paper itself are minimal and considered to be relatively insignificant, although little research has been done in this field.

Those gaseous and particulate emissions to air that are produced, primarily come from the incineration of de-inking sludges and fuel combustion during the production process. Typical emissions from incineration of sludge and fuel combustion include methane (CH4) ; sulphur dioxide (SO2); nitrogen dioxide (NOx); carbon monoxide (CO); carbon dioxide (CO2).

According to Waste Watch, who are part-funded by the UK Government,“recycled paper produces fewer polluting emissions to air and water” [20].

Solid wastes

As noted, processed waste paper produces a sludge. This contains 30-50% solids made up of short fibres, fillers1 and ink from the de-inking process [21]. The amount of waste is dependent on paper source and product type. Traditionally, this waste has been consigned to landfill. However, incineration is becoming increasingly popular. This too produces solid waste as ash which then goes to landfill. Other disposal options include composting and techniques to remove clay and other fillers for reuse. However, these are still only at the early stages of development and have yet to be proved.

De-inking sludges may contain low concentrations of heavy

metals - cadmium, lead, chromium and nickel. Heavy metal contamination is of concern with respect to direct landfill, incinerator ash disposal and composting while incineration produces emissions of CO2, NOx, CO and SO2, hydrocarbon and dioxins2.

However, as noted above, the toxicity of the sludge is a matter of debate within the industry. Comparisons with sludge from the public sewer have shown levels of heavy metals to be lower in de-inking sludge [22].

The volume of waste is no more than that created in mechanical pulping of roundwood (which produces bark and rejects) and much less than from chemical pulping (which produces bark rejects, spent liquor, sludges, and requires effluent treatment) [23]. But because of the heterogeneous composition of sludges from recycled pulp, and rejects such as staples and glue, disposal is difficult. Cleaner raw materials, processes and products are still needed.

This hierarchy would seem to suggest that recycling paper has more environmental benefits than incineration or landfill. Indeed two recent studies from Coopers & Lybrand/CSERGE and the U.S. Environment Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) support this view [24;25].

The U.S. EPA study concludes that the solid waste management hierarchy described above is also generally valid from a greenhouse gas perspective i.e. recycling produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than incineration and landfill.

Despite the waste management hierarchy, and the most recent European waste strategy, which assumes that in general recycling is preferable to incineration in energy terms [26], there is growing interest in developing incineration with energy recovery capabilities to provide a combination of recycling and incineration [27].

However, public opposition to incineration has discouraged local authorities from providing planning permission for new incinerators. Friends of the Earth opposes incineration on the grounds that [28]:

.    it wastes valuable resources and represents a barrier to increased recycling
.    it causes air pollution and creates a toxic ash

Incineration represents a barrier to increased recycling. Building an incinerator has such high capital costs that a constant supply of waste must be ensured for a given time period to recoup costs. Incinerator operators typically require contracts with local authorities to supply them with a minimum amount of waste to burn over a long time - 25 to 30 years. This will encourage waste production rather than reduction. In some cases, if the local authority does not supply the full amount of waste required, it has to pay the incinerator operator to compensate for the profit shortfall. This assurance of return on investment is a logical requirement from the incinerator operators' point of view, but once incineration is established as an area's mode of waste management, it hampers waste reduction and recycling measures. The incentive on the local authority will be to ensure enough waste is produced, not to ensure that it's reduced.

Doubtless recycling plants cause disamenity problems such as increased local traffic and litter. However, an incinerator too creates a visual eyesore, increased traffic (waste trucks and staff cars), and fails to provide community benefits in terms of public education and local involvement in solving waste disposal problems.

Life Cycle Analysis

Much of the research concerning the preferred end use of paper takes the form of life cycle studies which compare the environmental impacts of various wastepaper disposal/use scenarios. A number of life cycle analyses (LCAs) have been published comparing the environmental impact of waste paper recycling and incineration. Of these, some conclude that under certain conditions paper recycling has less environmental impact than incineration [29;30]. Others conclude the opposite[31;32].

In 1996 the International Institute for Environment and Development produced its report “Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle” [33] which presented the results from a number of LCAs. In most cases a recycling scenario resulted in lower total energy use. As discussed above (under the section on energy) the energy used was predominantly obtained from fossil fuels.

In general, the release of net CO2 equivalents was higher in

the recycled scenarios compared to the incineration scenarios. This is because incineration can be used to produce energy and thus offset a given amount of fossil fuel use and CO2 production. However, the more recent study from the US Environmental Protection Agency, noted above, shows recycling produces less CO2 equivalents than incineration[34].

For air and water emissions no clear picture emerged. The two studies that favoured recycling did so on the basis of changes in air and water pollution releases. Those that favoured incineration based their argument on reductions in CO2 equivalents.

The IIED study concluded that:

“Most of the studies support the view that recycling and incineration are environmentally preferable to landfill. There is less agreement on whether recycling is preferable to incineration. Critical factors are the nature of the pulp and paper making process, the level of technology at all stages of the life cycle and the energy structure of the countries under study. Interpretation also plays a role in weighing up of increases in some emissions against reductions in others.”

This all reflects that life cycle analyses have a number of drawbacks, key ones being that they may be over-simplified or do not use adequate data. Concern has been raised that it may be premature to use LCA for evaluation of alternative waste management options since LCA originated as a way of evaluating the impact of a particular product over its lifecycle rather than a management system such as waste disposal [35].

The results of LCAs are influenced by the assumptions made and the boundaries adopted. Most of the LCA studies in the IIED report, for example, failed to incorporate data on forest management [36] illustrating that the entire life-cycle had not been accounted for.

Few LCAs consider resource use as well as effluents and emissions. For example, production of recycled paper uses less raw materials for pulp and paper production, uses less wood and should result in less intensive forest management[37]. This has important implications for conserving biodiversity.

If there is less need for intensive forest management this should take the pressure off old growth forest as existing commercial plantations should be able to meet demand. Yet currently old growth forest is still being cleared in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia. In the process complex forest ecosystems are destroyed.

Forest land cleared for timber is re-planted for commercial forestry and one of the forest industry's well-worn arguments is that they save trees, rather than destroy them, because for every tree cut down, two or three are planted. However, an intensively managed plantation, little more than an agricultural crop, is not the same thing as an old growth forest rich in biodiversity. A true forest is more than just trees. It is a intricate system comprising a wide variety of species and complex relations between them. Logging “tends to homogenize forest habitats”[38] and with overplanting of one or two species of tree there will be fewer habitats than an old growth forest of mixed tree species of uneven age and height. Fewer habitats means less opportunities for species to establish themselves. Consequently, a commercial plantation forest will support fewer species than old growth forest.

            .    lack of markets for collected materials
            .    lack of funding for recycling
            .    poor participation by residents in materials collection
            .    level of support required from the local authority
            .    possibility of increases in the level of transport in a District
            .    lack of appropriate sites, land or buildings.

Legislative change - supply and demand

Legislative changes would help to address these market barriers. Possible changes include putting a tax on virgin pulp, raising recycling targets, making provision of recycling facilities for local authorities compulsory, and ensuring that companies use certain percentages of recycled products for packaging, office paper and newsprint.

Currently, a world glut of paper exists causing low prices for both virgin pulp and for recycled paper. Yet as recently as 1995 demand for waste paper was such that there were thefts from stores and overbidding was commonplace [40].

This paper glut has given rise to fears that doorstep collections may become uneconomic and that “it appears that the

Government has introduced a landfill tax, to encourage recycling, just as it has become difficult to give recycled paper away, let alone sell it”[41].

This has led to a situation where Councils may be paying extra to separate paper “in order to bury it in the same landfill sites as the rest of the domestic waste from which it was separated”[42].

This excess of waste paper is driving support for expansion of waste-to-energy schemes (incineration with energy recovery) but demand for recycled paper in the UK could increase if more of the paper used in the UK were to be made in the UK. For example, “if all the de-inking grades discarded annually in household refuse, which are not currently recycled, were to be recycled (approximately 4.3 million tonnes), additional capacity equivalent to nine times the planned capacity for Aylesford would be required”3 [43].

The development of an efficient collection system for waste paper in the UK is constrained by these cyclical surges in wastepaper consumption [44] and paper pricing [45]. Over- collection can destabilise markets and established collection systems may be disrupted, especially if there is a lack of demand and processing capacity. Increasingly, to ensure demand for recycled paper, councils are securing contracts directly with paper mills to avoid the impacts of price fluctuations. To ensure demand major investment is needed in recycled paper mills.

Community participation

Market research has shown that although there is a strong community awareness of the importance of recycling, this is not translated into action. A consumer survey carried out for the Aylesford paper recycling mill, for example, showed a number of interesting trends [46]. Although 96% of people said that it was important to recycle domestic waste, only 13% of people said they recycled 80%+ of their household recyclables. In Germany 2% of people do no recycling at all while in Great Britain this figure is 38%. An additional third said they recycle little; 8/10 wanted it to be made compulsory for local authorities to provide a recycling centre, 9/10 said they would support legislation requiring local authorities to provide special bins to help households recycle and 58% of people said they were more likely to buy a newspaper title if it was printed on recycled paper.

Technical barriers - the effect of recycling on fibre strength

About 20-25% of paper cannot be recycled e.g. archive papers, and for hygienic reasons, tissue paper, sanitary products and food parchment papers [47]. In addition, some technical limitations exist. Paper fibres, for example, degenerate each time they are used so there will always be some which cannot be used again and will require disposal.

Fibre can be recycled up to five times [48] but each time that it is recycled it loses some of its essential properties, notably fibre length. Additives and contaminants also affect paper quality. Whilst not affecting basic fibre strength they can interfere with bonding and impact sheet strength.

The decline in quality of fibre with recycling depends on its type and processing, both in initial papermaking and recycling[49]. In mechanical pulping, wood fibres are separated from each other physically and this results in severe fibre shortening. In contrast, chemical pulping dissolves the binding lignin so there may be little reduction in fibre length. The cell walls remain largely intact in mechanical pulping while in chemical pulping a very open and porous network of cellulose fibrils is produced. These differences affect the water retention properties of the fibres. Water uptake and thus swelling, an important factor in the development of paper strength, is greater in chemical fibres than mechanical. The chemical fibres undergo irreversible collapse when dried and this results in a reduction in bonding ability with recycling. Mechanical fibres, in contrast, do not collapse on drying and so their bonding potential is not greatly affected by recycling.

One study predicts only modest strength losses for newsprint even at recycling levels of 80% and claims that the“incorporation of large amounts of recycled fibre into paper grades such as newsprint is possible without major strength losses, since they benefit from 'downcycling' of fibres from stronger grades”[50].

Magazine strength losses in comparison are more severe since the recycled fraction contains weaker newsprint fibres. Despite these impacts it is thought that, rather than strength loss, those factors more likely to inhibit maximum recycling include de- inking efficiency, residual filler material, the availability of suitable sources of wastepaper, age, capabilities and operation of papermaking equipment [51;52].

Economic benefits of recycling

In addition to the environmental benefits of recycling waste paper it makes economic sense to recycle paper:

“With some 2.85 million tonnes recycled in the UK in 1990,

the consequences of there being no recycling would be very dire indeed. The need to import wood-pulp at a typical price of £300/tonne to compensate could add nearly £1,000 million pounds to the UK Import bill and extra landfill space would be required for the extra wastepaper disposed of unless this paper could be incinerated with energy recovery. The energy recovered from incineration of the extra waste paper not recycled would only be equivalent to saving about £70-80 million worth of fuel oil”[53]. [At 1990 oil prices of £10.60-11.80 per barrel.]

This is less than 10% of the increase to the UK balance of payments.

These calculations relate to 1990. In 1996 4,323,000 tonnes of wastepaper were consumed in the UK. If, instead, virgin pulp had been imported, almost £1.6 billion would have been added to the UK import bill.4

The recent report from Coopers & Lybrand and CSERGE gives further support to the economic benefits that paper recycling can provide [55]. And by actively promoting a UK paper recycling industry, jobs will be created in collection schemes, sorting plants, recycled paper mills, and the design, marketing, advertising and distribution of recycled paper products.

Reducing the amount of paper used, through changes such as introducing electronic mail to office systems and printing on both sides of paper, should provide more environmental benefits in terms of reducing resource use, waste production and associated pollutants. One newspaper recently reported new technology which could lead to reduced paper use. Apparently a certain kind of ink has been developed that can be turned clear by a specially designed laser printer [63]. A sheet of paper that has been printed is made blank so that it can be reused.

Recycling of paper uses considerably less total energy than the production of virgin paper. However, there is a greater dependency on fossil fuels in recycling processes. Consequently, recycling must be encouraged along side clean energy production from renewable sources such as solar and wind energy. For most transport modes, the energy costs between different transport scenarios of virgin paper and recycled paper are insignificant in comparison to the energy savings arising from the recycled paper production process.

Overall, studies suggest that for pollutants, the environmental burden is less if paper is recycled. There are small increases in BOD and suspended solids but technology is available to reduce these pollutants from the effluent stream. While heavy metals in the sludge have been of concern, the levels of these contaminants are thought to have declined in line with a reduction in their use in inks and pigments.

Clearly, the argument of which process offers the most environmental benefits in terms of CO2 reduction - recycling or incineration with energy recovery - has not been resolved. However, recent life cycle studies tend to favour recycling over incineration.

Paper recycling leads to savings in the use of raw materials for pulp and paper production and less wood is used. This should result in less intensive forest management and take the

pressure off exploitation of old growth forests, vitally important for their biodiversity.

The market demand for waste paper will only increase if new processing capacity is developed. To ensure supply there should be a statutory requirement on local authorities to devise and implement ambitious recycling plans. Minimum targets for recovery levels should be set to ensure supply and demand. Both jobs and the economy would benefit from increased paper recycling.

Not only should paper recycling be more actively promoted but this must be carried out in concert with reduction of paper use.

Up in Smoke...Why Friends of the Earth Opposes Incineration. (Briefing), February 1997, price £1.

The Environmental Consequences of Pulp and Paper Manufacture. (Briefing), October 1996, price £1.

Darmstadt.
[18] Ogilvie, S.M. (1992). Op cit.
[19] Miner, R.A. and Lucier, A.A. (1994). Op cit.
[20] Waste Watch (1996). Paper. Information from the Waste Watch Wasteline. Briefing Paper. Wasteline, London.
[21] Ogilvie, S.M. (1992). Op cit.
[22] Hamm, U. & Gottsching, L. Schermetalle bei der Papier Herstellung aus Altpapier: Quellen, Verbleib und Bewertungskriterien, Papier 43, 10A, October 1989, pp39- 48; in Ogilvie, S.M.(1992). Op cit.
[23] Waite, R. (1995). Household Waste Recycling. Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
[24] Coopers & Lybrand and CSERGE (1997). Cost-benefit analysis of the different municipal solid waste streams: Objectives and Instruments for the Year 2000. A report by Coopers & Lybrand and CSERGE for DGXI of the European Commission.
[25] U.S. Environment Protection Agency (1997). Greenhouse gas emissions from municipal waste management. Draft working paper. Prepared by: ICF Incorporated, EPA Contract No. 68-W6-0029. Work assignment 0-06.
[26] Review of waste management strategy, European Commission, COM (96) 399, 30 July 1996.
[27] M.E.L Research (1996). Assessment of Solid Waste Arisings and Potential for Use in Energy from Waste Schemes. Estimates for UK Electricity Company Areas. M.E.L Research report number 9506/01.
[28] Friends of the Earth (1997). Up in smoke...why Friends of the Earth opposes incineration. Briefing paper. Friends of the Earth, London.
[29] British Newspaper Manufacturers Association (1995). Recycle or Incinerate? The Future for Used Newspapers: an Independent Evaluation. The British Manufacturers' Association. Swindon, UK.
[30] Environmental Defense Fund (1995). Op cit.
[31] Karner, A., Engstrom, J., and Kutinlahti, T. (1993). Life Cycle Analysis of Newsprint. Finnish Pulp and Paper Research Institute, Espoo, Finland.
[32] Pajula, T., and Karna, A. (1995). Life Cycle Scenarios of Paper. The first EcoPaper TechConference. The Finnish Pulp and Paper Research Institute (KCL), Helsinki, Finland, June 6-9.
[33] IIED (1996). Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle. IIED, London.
[34] EPA (1997). Op cit.
[35] Pidgeon, S. and Brown, D. (1994). The role of lifecycle analysis in environmental management: general panacea or one of several useful paradigms. GMI 7, July.
[36] IIED (1996) Op cit.
[37] Virtanen, Y. and Nilsson, S. (1992). Op cit.
[38] Niemelä J. (1996). Invertebrates and boreal forest management. Conservation Biology, 11 (3), 601-610.
[39] Virtanen, Y. and Nilsson, S. (1992). Op cit.
[40] Stefan, V. (1995). Nothing to lose in a seller's market. Pulp and Paper International, April 1995.
[41] Smulian, M. (1997). Paper chain strained. Pulp and Paper International, p19.
[42] Smulian, M. (1997). Op cit.
[43] Waite, R. (1995). Op cit.
[44] Bardos, R.P., Barton, J., Burlace, C.J., Holt, G., Ogilvie, S.M., Pendle, W., Prosser, H.J. and Tron, A.R. (1992). Market barriers to materials reclamation and recycling. Warren Springs Laboratory, Stevenage.
[45] Environmental Defense Fund (1995). Op cit.
[46] Aylesford Newsprint (1996). The Aylesford Newsprint Recycling Report. Aylesford Newsprint Ltd.
[47] Virtanen, Y. and Nilsson, S. (1992). Op cit.
[48] Virtanen, Y. and Nilsson, S. (1992). Op cit
[49] Phipps, J. (1994). The effects of recycling on the strength properties of paper. Paper Technology Jul/Aug 34-40.
[50] Phipps, J. (1994). Op cit.
[51] Phipps, J. (1994). Op cit.
[52] Environmental Defense Fund (1995). Op cit.
[53] Ogilvie, S.M. (1992). Op cit.
[54] Financial Times. Producers see end of pulp friction, Greg McIvor, 15 August 1997.
[55] Coopers & Lybrand and CSERGE (1997). Op cit.
[56] Webb, L. (1996). Op cit.
[57] Pulp and Paper International (1997). Op cit.
[58] Pulp and Paper International (1997). Op cit.
[59] Pulp and Paper International (1997). Op cit.
[60] Pulp and Paper International (1997). Op cit.
[61] Pulp and Paper International (1997). Op cit.
[62 Collins, L. (1996). Op cit.
[63] Financial Times, All clear for ink, Damian Carrington, 5 Aug 1997.

November 1997
Frances MacGuire
Published by Friends of the Earth Ltd
© Friends of the Earth Ltd
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
26-28 Underwood Street, London N1 7JQ
Telephone (0171) 490 1555, E-mail: info@foe.co.uk
Printed on 100% recycled paper