Vanity Fair Drops Plan to Use Recycled Content
by Leonora Oppenheim, London, UK on 04. 3.06
We were disappointed recently to find out through the o2 Network that the ‘Green Issue’ of Vanity Fair due out on the newsstands in just a few days, and featuring TreeHugger's very own pin-up Graham Hill, will not contain any recycled paper. People were already sceptical of Elle magazine’s attempt at going green by using 10% recycled content in their up coming green issue, many of us were hoping Vanity Fair would improve on this percentage. Unfortunately not, according to Remy Chevalier of Cocktail Organico who picked up this news on Muckraked. ‘Vanity Fair has dropped the idea of using recycled paper in the issue. "They were scrambling to do it but it was too short a time frame and they couldn't make it happen," says one insider. A spokeswoman for Vanity Fair did not return calls for comment.’ While this is bad news we are impressed by one intrepid member of the o2 group who didn’t let it get her down and has taken direct positive action. In response to Remy’s post Jen Pierce immediately emailed Vanity Fair with a letter entitled ‘The Real Problem Is When Setbacks Destroy Good Initiatives.’
We were particularly struck by the tone Jen took in her letter to Vanity Fair. She did not go off the deep end, railing as some people might about failing to go the distance with their ‘green issue’. Instead she makes practical suggestions about how they can turn this set back around by confronting it and writing an article in the ‘green issue’ about the difficulties of switching to recycled paper. You can read her intelligent letter below.
The Real Problem Is When Setbacks Destroy Good Initiatives
I received an article from an emailing list about Vanity Fair's mid-April green issue, and I was thrilled that this could be an opportunity to inform people who aren't in the traditional green circles about environmental issues. Not too long afterwards, however, I was informed that the magazine had been unable to pull together switching to recycled paper on this issue as originally intended. I can understand how this could happen, it's not easy being green, finding alternative sources and changing priorities. However, there is still an opportunity for Vanity Fair to take advantage of this difficulty. I encourage you to write an article in your green issue about the impact of magazine manufacturing on the environment. Tell people how difficult it is for magazines to switch to recycled or other more environmentally firendly paper. Include statistics such as these, derived from the email attached below:
That single issue [the green issue of Vanity Fair] involved the destruction of thousands of trees and it was printed using chlorine and other chemicals. Specifically, that issue probably used up to 2,247 tons of pulp, and produced up to 4,331,757 pounds of greenhouse gases,13,413,922 gallons of wastewater, and 1,744,060 pounds of solid waste throughout the printing process.
By educating readers about the effects of traditional paper sources, the pollutants they cause and the water they use, you could encourage them to change the paper they use. You can include ways to buy smarter, how to reduce the amount of spam mail they receive, and other ways to reduce paper consumption. And you can promise to do the same, continuing to look into greening not only your magazine, but in-house paper and other items. Don't fall back because it is hard to make change. Tak advantage of your opportunities and continue the battle to make businesses and individuals more aware and more responsible for their purchases.
Jennifer Pierce
Chicago, IL
Jen Pierce encourages others who feel strongly about this topic to send Vanity Fair an email with their thoughts: letters@vf.com via: o2 Group
Doesn't recycled paper require just as much if not more chemical treatment? Also considering the fact that trees are farmed quite efficiently and are specifically grown for the creation of paper. As far as I'm concerned very little recycling is actually beneficial.
conde nasty
Do as I say, not as I do
Tree plantations are more or less a disaster, if you ask me.
A bunch of trees of the same species, with a similar genetic markup (seed cloning is often used, I hear), shallow roots (because of the way they are planted), and all of the same age/same height..
About as natural and beneficial to an ecosystem as a corn field.
Attracts pests like crazy, doesn't handle fire well, nor high winds. After a few generations, will destroy a big part of the soil. Often sprayed with pesticides and herbicides.
Meh.
Does anyone here know what they're talking about? Valid question from anon on chemicals and energy taken to recycle paper, particularly high quality multicolour print on glossy. You need to start at the other end of the process.
People are always very quick to try to calculate what it takes to recycle paper, but they rarely do the same process for making paper out of trees.
How much resources and eneryg is put into the making of all the tree-cutting tools? All the trucks? All the roads that have to be built in forests? All the fossil fuels burned? All the damage done to ecosystems? The energy used to transport and transform trees, etc.
So yeah, recycling is not free. It uses energy and chemicals. But do a lifecycle analysis of making paper out of trees and you'll see what you end up with...
MGR I see lots of attention on the paper production process, and moves to use less polluting methods. Can you link to reliable resource with a comparative LCA? There are many variables that can make a big difference in each of the tree to paper to recycling steps. You can't simply make a blanket assumption that recycled is better on all or even most aspects.
Recycling high gloss, many colours printed paper is a difficult, intensive process. I repeat that you need to start at the other end of the process. Recycling is the last option.
MGR, what is recycled paper made from? Old paper, right? So the cost of recycling paper is actually the cost of producing the original new paper PLUS the additional costs of energy and chemicals used to treat the paper.
Not sure I understand your argument, Bob.
I agree that in some cases (glossy color paper), recycling can be more trouble than with normal paper(though I'm not sure that it's more damaging to the environment than going out into the woods with trucks and machinery and cutting down new trees), but with normal paper, recycling makes perfect sense.
So, your argument is "So the cost of recycling paper is actually the cost of producing the original new paper PLUS the additional costs of energy and chemicals used to treat the paper."
To which I'd reply: "And the cost of making new paper instead of recycling is higher".
For illustration's sake, if the cost of making new paper is 100 units and the cost of recycling is 50 units, then according to your scenario, you use 100 units when you make the paper the first time, and then you have a choice between recyclign (50 units) or making new one again (100 units).
"MGR, what is recycled paper made from? Old paper, right? So the cost of recycling paper is actually the cost of producing the original new paper PLUS the additional costs of energy and chemicals used to treat the paper."
That's some pretty funny "logic".
By the same logic, the cost of my house isn't what I paid for it -- it's the sum total of every purchase transaction since it was built.
I see where Bob is coming from. Recycling uses virgin pulp. So if we use your example:
"if the cost of making new paper is 100 units and the cost of recycling is 50 units, then according to your scenario, you use 100 units when you make the paper the first time"
and when you recycle, you need to make new paper (100 units) and then combine it with the used fiber (50 units).
There's a lot of push-back in the magazine industry recently against recycled paper. Comments like those made by the first anonymous poster are sweeping popular and trade news sources, seminars, emails:
"Doesn't recycled paper require just as much if not more chemical treatment? Also considering the fact that trees are farmed quite efficiently and are specifically grown for the creation of paper. As far as I'm concerned very little recycling is actually beneficial."
And are often partnered with claims defaming the de-inking process and energy efficiency, as stalwarts stick to their virgin fiber agenda.
The truth: 200 million trees a year are logged worldwide, with 63 million being cut down in the US, for magazine paper. This does not include tissue, writing, and other grades. Tree farms are not good practices, and for the most part are mismanaged, and harbor a variety of environmental and social responsibility grievances. Currently, the last North American old-growth forest, the Boreal in Canada, is being logged for material to print the glossies on. There are certification schemes in place to promote sustainable forestry management and stewardship. However, the endpoint sticks, recycled paper is better for the environment.
Speaking from the position of a consumer magazine that regularly runs recycled paper, on our green issue and others, the claims of egregious chemical treatment, energy inefficiency, water contamination are ill-founded. The mill that supplies our paper works from a closed-loop system, de-inks and bleaches their paper with mild soap and hydrogen peroxide, releases no effluents back into the water supply, and uses no more energy than conventional pulping and milling processes. In fact, virgin fiber paper making processes are most often more chemically intensive, as most virgin fiber papers are bleached/whitened with chlorine or chlorine derivatives, which release dioxin into the environment. Dioxin is a number one carcinogen.
Cutting down trees always releases carbon dioxide into the environment, whether it be from ancient-growth forest, tree farms or sustainably-managed forests, which adds to global warming.
For the serious change needed to reconcile the dire situation our earth and selves are in, it is imperative that we get beyond the passing of the buck. The big dogs will continue to spread ill-advised knowledge, as long as their pockets are coated with green. It is time to educate ourselves, and harness the magnitude of our purchasing power as commodity buyers and consumers.