New York Times takes a swing at paper packaging (and misses)
It seems industry can't be 'green' enough to satisfy the media
Image by kirstyfields via Pixabay
Paper is arguably the most sustainable manufacturing material on the planet. In the US, nearly 70 percent of it is recycled annually–some 50 million tons in total–while less than 12 percent is landfilled each year, according to the EPA.These figures dwarf the recycling rates of any other material; the distant runner up is metals at just under 13 percent. And the trees from which paper ultimately come are responsibly harvested by a carefully regulated industry that helps to keep large quantities of CO2 out of the atmosphere.
We mention these basic facts because the New York Times chose to leave them out of a recent story amplifying Amazon’s new sustainability initiative. The online retail giant announced recently that it had replaced 95 percent of its previous packaging material with recyclable paper. “This effort builds on Amazon’s ongoing investment in reducing packaging and increasing curbside recyclability across all of our operations,” the company’s press release noted.
While Times reporter Hiroko Tabuchi approved of Amazon’s new policy, she managed to slip in a bit of knee-jerk criticism:
“Still, the climate impact of paper can vary greatly, depending on what’s used in the pulp, according to a 2021 United Nations report … And if paper bags end up in landfill, they can contribute to planet-warming methane pollution as they biodegrade.”
These claims are not only incorrect, they highlight an important fact about the Times: the paper’s primary concern is not promoting sustainability but attacking forms of consumption it disfavors. These are fundamentally different goals, and we can achieve the former without pursuing the latter.
Paper not green enough?
Tabuchi lamented that landfilled paper bags can contribute additional methane emissions, but the critical assumption in her statement is that the bags are landfilled in the first place. Not only is most paper recycled, as noted above, but significant amounts of the remaining paper waste are actually used to produce sustainable energy. In 2018, for example, 4.2 million tons of paper were repurposed in this fashion. The EPA adds some important context about the process here:
“Confined and controlled burning, known as combustion, can not only decrease the volume of solid waste destined for landfills, but can also recover energy from the waste burning process. This generates an energy source and reduces carbon emissions by offsetting the need for energy from fossil sources and reduces methane generation from landfills.” [our emphasis]
Put briefly, then, even the relatively small amounts of paper that are discarded help to produce sustainable energy and keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere. This is an environmental blessing in other words, what the EPA calls “a key part of the non-hazardous waste management hierarchy.”
Take “yes” for an answer
Last year we challenged the Times and another prominent news outlet for unjustly attacking the Canadian forestry industry’s environmental record. We noted that these media outlets, following the lead of several prominent NGOs, were so eager to chastise forestry that they ignored widely accepted science confirming the sustainability of producing and consuming wood and paper products.
Many environmental activists and reporters start with the false assumption that industry is inherently harmful because it fuels levels of consumption that those activists and reporters consider excessive. (This used to be largely unspoken, but it has broken through into the explicit with the rise of, e.g., “degrowth” discourse). As a result, even when a company like Amazon takes the initiative to make its operations more eco-friendly, reporters like Tabuchi can’t help but protest. As we wrote at the time:
Indeed, US activist groups have targeted Canadian industry precisely because it is environmentally friendly. [They’ve] shown the world that it’s possible to improve economic living standards and protect our natural resources. This presents a problem for groups like NRDC and their allies in the press, who see economic growth itself as an ecological threat. Even as the environment gets cleaner, these activists “have trouble taking yes for an answer,” as Wired contributor Andrew Mcafee observed in 2020.
Like so many other reporters on the environmental beat, Tabuchi needs to accept good news when she hears it. Reducing overall consumption may be one way to mitigate our climate footprint, but it’s certainly not the only way or even the best way. With so many people dependent on paper products–including millions of New York Times readers–the best way to manage our climate impact is to make the products we use more sustainable.
If that approach boosts paper consumption and profits for the industries involved, so be it.