1. 0 Shrink: Paper Efficiency Project PEP Talk Paper v Digital Mandy Haggith - hag@environmentalpaper.euhag@environmentalpaper.eu Michael Sturges - michael.sturges@innventia.com Meredith Walsh - Meredith.Walsh@uk.penguingroup.com shrinkpaper.org

2. 1 European Environmental Paper Network

3. 2 Common Vision The Environmental Paper Networks in Europe and North America (> 100 NGOs) have a shared Vision for Transforming the Pulp and Paper Industry Reduce consumption Reduce reliance on virgin forest fibre Ensure social responsibility Source fibre responsibly Ensure clean production

4. 3 We want to protect this…

5. 4 from becoming this…

6. 5 …and minimise this.

7. 6 Main impacts of paper-making Climate Change Forest Destruction Energy Use Waste Water Use Pollution Plantations Illegal Logging Human Rights Abuses

8. 7 The shrink project 2 (2012-13) 60 UK organisations being assessed and urged to take action on paper efficiency, 10 each of Supermarkets Catalogue retailers Financial firms Utilities (gas, phone etc) Governmental bodies Universities The scorecard will be published in July 2013 New website, more paper saving case studies Motivational seminars and PEP talks: Packaging (5 June) Paper Vapour (climate change), 9 July, London

9. 8 Paper v digital – some starting points Global annual sector CO2e emissions (from Climate for Ideas): paper - 2500 MTonnes (8% of global emissions) IT - 860MTonnes (2.7% of global emissions) The Climate Group estimates digital applications could replace up to 25% of paper consumption. That could produce really substantial carbon emission reductions.

10. 9 Paper v Digital – some questions Do we compare global impacts of the paper and IT industries, or marginal impacts, product by product? Do we compare impacts of use, or include impacts of manufacture and disposal as well (full life cycle assessment?) What is included in the life cycle assessment of products? Carbon footprint only? Or all environmental and social impacts? Is enough known about the impacts of new technologies (e.g. rare metals and handling of e-waste)? How to handle threshold effects? (e.g. the claim that 5000 pages, digital is better) How to handle multi-functionality of electronic tools?

11. 10 Understanding the footprint of digital content – experiences from the UK magazine sector Michael Sturges, Innventia Edge 10

12. 11 PPAs carbon journey 2001 – Balanced Reading – mass balance of the UK magazine publishing supply chain (Phase 0) 2008 – Magazine sector carbon footprint (Phase 1) 2009 – Magazine Carbon calculator (Phase 2) 2011 – Updating the carbon calculator data (Phase 3) 2012-13 – Moving the calculator online, extending the scope, reporting to government (Phase 4) 2012-13 – Carbon footprint of digital media (Phase 5) 2013 – Embedding carbon footprinting in the industry and reporting to government (Phase 6) 11

13. 12 Potential sources of GHG from digital publishing 12 Source: Innventia Edge 2011

14. 13 What did we learn from the existing research and our own case studies? Some words of caution: There are few studies and only one of these evaluates the carbon footprint of these technologies from the perspective of a magazine publisher Data and assumptions in different studies are often contradictory or lack transparency Boundaries and methodologies are highly influential Some studies lack rigour but achieve influence The displacement relationship between e-publishing and traditional publishing is unclear There is only limited data on the carbon impact of reading devices 13

15. 14 What did we learn from the existing research and our own case studies? Nonetheless, we still begin to get some insights: Data and knowledge is improving all the time and this can change results and conclusions Data centre impacts may be small when allocated across many activities The carbon impact of the supporting distribution network (Internet and access networks) should not be forgotten User devices are a significant part of the digital footprint a. Powering the devices b. Manufacturing the devices User behaviour has a significant influence on the overall footprint of digital content Publishers can take decisions which help the user minimise their footprint 14

16. 15 Crude estimate of the footprint for alternative channels for delivering content 15 Source: Innventia Edge 2011

17. Paper and Digital What do we know? Meredith Walsh Penguin Group UK May 2013

18. 17 Why did Penguin want to calculate their CO2 footprint? Penguin publish trade mono and colour books We manage the impact on biodiversity and landrights via certification and other tools We want to manage carbon impacts We need knowledge to do this Goal is to know paper and digital product footprints We will make both products and want to manage the impacts of both There is also the increasing possibility of legislation that will require us to know the carbon footprint of our supply chain

19. 18 Bookcarbon.com Through the UK Publishers Association a group of UK publishers created Bookcarbon.com Invenntia built this tool It calculates –Monoprint carbon footprints –Titles printed in the UK –Cradle to Grave

20. 19 Paper and Digital Comparison Manufacturing and creation footprint Manufacturing and creation PLUS Apples estimate of the CO2 produced over the life of an iPad http://images.apple.com/euro/environment/r eports/docs/iPad_Retina_PER_oct2012.pdfhttp://images.apple.com/euro/environment/r eports/docs/iPad_Retina_PER_oct2012.pdf http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalrepo rts/buyingbookswithoutamazon/environment.a spx

21. 20 What have we learnt? Book Production Where the main CO2 impacts lie when we print a book For Penguin it’s mostly in the paper, as most of our titles are over a certain number of pages – and we can manage this impact Whether or not a mill is integrated and what it uses for energy make a big difference to the carbon impact Using the WRI scopes; we have lowered our impact

22. 21 What would we like to know more about? Digital supply chain and product use More knowledge would provide more insights with which to manage our impacts Questions we’d like to answer –How do customers use devices? How long do they read for, do they read to finish an article or do they have a screen tolerance time? –What kind of product is used on what devices? –Can products be designed to be low storage and low use? –What methodology should be used for comparing single function devices or products to multifunction devices? –What are the other environmental impacts of the digital supply chain, particularly for the extraction of minerals? Mineral extraction as a driver of deforestation? –As products change how should our communication with customers change?

23. 22

24. 23 What have we learnt? Digital production We can measure the CO2 generation of content creation for a digital product There is limited publicly available data on the CO2 footprint of reading devices, but what there is we can use to begin the paper and digital comparison Using the WRI scopes; moving to digital products lowers our carbon and forest impacts We see that there are additional impacts across the full length of the digital supply chain We can engage our customers and offer advice on end of life for both paper and digital –Opportunities to recycle books and devices –Repairing devices –Reusing books

25. Thank you

26. 25 Thanks for listening and for caring about your impact on the environment! More information on paper versus digital here: http://shrinkpaper.org/toolkit/paper-versus-digital/ The environmental paper calculator is here: http://c.environmentalpaper.org/home We’re happy to answer any questions you may have. http://c.environmentalpaper.org/home