Every year more than 11 million tonnes of paper and board are consumed
in the UK [1]. Much of this comes from Scandinavia. In order to satisfy
our increasing demand for wood and paper products, the majority of the
natural boreal forest in Scandinavia has been converted into intensively
managed secondary forest or plantations, where the inhabitants of a
true and complex forest eco-system struggle to survive. About 5% of
Scandinavian old-growth forest remains, and yet this is still being
logged [2]. As a result, hundreds of plant and animal species are endangered.
The traditional way of life of indigenous people, such as the Saami,
is also threatened and their cultural identity is in jeopardy.
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.
Fossil fuel use vs biofuels
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].
Studies on emissions from recycling plants are much more limited than
those for virgin pulp and paper mills and the data available is not
conclusive. However, the indications from two fairly comprehensive and
independent studies is that effluents from recycling plants have less
environmental impact than virgin pulp effluents [14;15].
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.
To inform decisions on how to dispose of solid waste, such as paper,
a hierarchy of disposal options is used. Options are ranked from those
with the most environmental benefits to those with the least, as follows:
source reduction, including backyard composting; recycling including
centralised composting, incineration and landfill.
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]:
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.
One of the key barriers to increased recycling in Western Europe is
that pulp and paper tends not to be produced near centres of paper consumption
[39]. Paper mills are located near timber sources such as Scandinavian
forests while most paper is consumed in cities. The vast supply of recyclable
paper produced in our cities, particularly office paper, represents
a considerable untapped resource and has been coined the “urban
forest”. The UK could produce much more of its own paper, and thus
rely less on imports, if more paper were recovered and recycled. However,
a number of barriers to increasing recycling exist:
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.
Global recovery of waste paper in 1995 was about 110 million tons which
still leaves about 170 million tons which were not recovered [56]. The
Paper Federation of Great Britain, through its campaign PaperChain 2000,
hopes to increase the amount of wastepaper recovered from 4.5 million
tons/yr to 6 million tons/yr by 2000 [57].
The UK is the fifth highest consumer of paper and board in the world
[58]. On average, each person in the UK consumes 198 kg of paper and
board per year [59]. Compare this to Poland where only 40 kg of paper
and board are consumed per person per year [60]. About 40% of the waste
paper in the UK is recovered [61]. But other countries, Japan and Germany
for example, despite consuming more paper and board also recover more.
Japan, the second highest paper and board consumer in the world, achieved
a recovery rate5
of 52% in 1994 [62].
This briefing has focussed on waste paper recycling. However, while
encouraging recycling, the emphasis must be on reducing paper consumption.
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.
In the UK alone over six million tonnes of paper and board is used
once only despite the capacity for paper recycling. There are
clear benefits to paper recycling such as relieving pressure on forest
resources and reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. Despite
this the product and the process have been criticised. This briefing
shows that those arguments put forward against recycling are not sufficiently
robust as to discourage recycling.
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.
Forests and Climate Change, briefing, 1997, free (available from the
Biodiversity campaign at Friends of the Earth: 0171 490 1555).
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.
AOX: Absorbable Organic Halogens. This is the most common measure
of the mass of available organic halogens (in this case organochlorines)
in a particular medium.
BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of organic
matter requiring oxygen for decomposition used in the context of organic
pollution of water bodies. See COD.
COD: Chemical Oxygen Demand. A measure of the amount of organic
matter requiring oxygen for oxidation similar to BOD. COD is more widely
used as it is a simpler procedure and includes the effects of non-biodegradable
organic matter which can account for up to half the material discharged.
Spent liquor: Chemicals used in the pulping process which are
recovered and used again for further pulping.
Tonne/Ton: Imperial tons and metric tonnes are roughly equivalent
and both units are used in this briefing. 1 tonne = 0.9842 tons.
TSS: Total Suspended Solids.
[1] Pulp and Paper International (1997). Annual Review, July 1997.
[2] Taiga Rescue Network (1997). The 3rd Taiga Rescue Network Conference
in Kuusamo, Finland, October 24-29, 1996. Finnish Nature League, Helsinki.
[3] The Paper Federation of Great Britain pers. comm.
[4] Collins, L. (1996). Recycling and the environmental debate: a question
of social conscience or scientific reason? Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 39(3), 335-355.
[5] Koay, J. (1992). Environmental Impact of Paper Recycling. University
of Manchester, Department of Chemistry, Manchester.
[6] Ogilvie, S.M. (1992). A Review of the Environmental Impact of Recycling.
Warren Springs Laboratory, Stevenage.
[7] Scott, G. (1994). Abstract. Barriers to paper recycling. Ed. S.M.
Abubakr p519. Tappi Recycling Symposium, 1994.
[8] Personen, K.V. (1995). Recycled vs virgin-energy and manufacturing
cost differentials: four hypothetical case- studies. Focus 95+ Recycling
Symposium 19-21 March 95. Atlanta Georgia. Tappi Press pp251-265.
[9] Miner, R.A. and Lucier, A.A. (1994). Considerations in performing
life-cycle assessments on forest products. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry, 13 (8), pp1375- 1380.
[10] Webb, L. (1996). A host of options available for sludge. Pulp
and Paper International, November, pp44-48.
[11] Flood, M. (1992) . The resource cost of moving materials.
Warmer Bulletin 35, pp6-8.
[12] Virtanen, Y. and Nilsson, S. (1992). Some Environmental Policy
Implications of Recycling Paper Products in Western Europe. Executive
report 22. IIASA.
[13] Environmental Defense Fund (1995). Paper Task Force Report, Recommendations
for Purchasing and Using Environmentally Preferable Paper, Environmental
Defense Fund, New York, USA.
[14] Ogilvie, S.M. (1992). Op cit.
[15] Virtanen, Y., and Nilsson, S. (1993). Environmental Impacts of
Waste Paper Recycling. Earthscan 1993.
[16] Virtanen, Y. and Nilsson, S. (1992). Op cit.
[17] Gottsching, L. (1995). Raw materials for papermaking. Institut
fur Papierfabrikation, Technische Hochschule, 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
return to text
1 Filler - Mineral pigments such
as china clay, calcium carbonate, titanium dioxide, added to the fibre
content to improve the print quality.
return to text
2 N.B. Virgin paper, if not
recycled, is stored or disposed, either to landfill or incinerator with
or without energy recovery, or to sewer. Heavy metals in the ink on
printed virgin paper will be either landfilled directly, landfilled
as ash from the incinerator or lost to the atmosphere through incinerator
emissions.
return to text
3 Aylesford generates a demand for 465, 000 tonnes per annum
for de-inking grade materials (Waite, 1995).
return to text
4The price of northern bleached
softwood kraft pulp - the industry benchmark - was $580 a tonne in August
1997 [54]. Exchange rate in September 1997 = $1.6 to £1. One billion=1000
million.
return to text
5 Recovery rate is wastepaper recovery
as a proportion of total paper and board consumption.
Content
Contact details:
Friends of the Earth
26-28 Underwood St.
LONDON
N1 7JQ
Tel: 020 7490 1555
Fax: 020 7490 0881
Email: info@foe.co.uk
Website: www.foe.co.uk
November 1997
Frances MacGuire
Last modified: June 2001
