PowerSwitch

Interesting infographic from the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... lumberjack

From article:

WHATEVER happened to the “paperless office”? Thirty years ago the rise of computers was hailed as the beginning of the paperless-office era. In a 1980 briefing in The Economist entitled “Towards the paperless office”, we recommended that businesses trying to improve productivity should “reduce the flow of paper, ultimately aiming to abolish it”.

Even in the 1980s this was a recognised problem. There was a song at the time, I'll leave you to guess the tune

If you go down to the woods today
You're in for a big surprise,
If you go down to the woods today
You'll never believe your eyes,
For every tree that ever there was
Is sure to be felled for certain because
The paperless office can't do without the paaaaaper.

I liked it better as
Todays the day the Teddybears have their Pi....cknic!

My office uses a lot less paper since planning applications were allowed to be submitted online. When I first started in 1975, and for about 15 years, four copies of plans were required. This then escalated to five and then in some cases eight copies. We then had to provide plans of the existing as well as the proposed which doubled the number of plans.

Now, submitting .pdf versions online, I use no paper for the local authorities who send out all their consultations by email. That's a huge saving, specially on major application which can have dozens of separate plans.

kenneal - lagger wrote:Now, submitting .pdf versions online, I use no paper for the local authorities who send out all their consultations by email. That's a huge saving, specially on major application which can have dozens of separate plans.

How many copies do they print?

A lot fewer as they email their consultations out. I doubt that many consultees bother to print the plans off. The council probably only print two sets off for the council meeting, if it goes to council, and one for the public consultation file.

I used to work in IT, and believed we were moving towards a paperless office. I think it was more a reason to spend money on IT systems, saying that they could save money on paper.
But now I am not so certain using less paper is as good an idea. As long as we grow the trees to produce the paper, we are storing carbon. Making that operation as energy effecient as possible is essential. Once documents have been printed it takes no technology to read them, wheras electronic documents need power every time.
On the other hand there is a lot of stuff printed which need not be, and councils and government are as guilty as anyone else. They tend to send out letters hen they do not need to, and don't when they should. All those rates/council tax statements could be sent electronically, especially as there is far more paper content than absolutely necessary.
Recyling paper back into more paper is not as good as it should be, given the amount of new pulp and chemicals needed. Better to find something it can be turned into with a far lower carbon footprint. I use 100% recycled paper in my 3D artwork, and minimal paint and glue. Heat(which could be natural sunshine at right time of year) a small amount of electricity to power liquidiser(and I could switch back to hand mashing) and some fresh water (about 2/3 is reused each time, and none goes down sink, so no processed by water treatment centres).
All it takes is a little bit of thinking outside the box, and looking for positives rather than negatives.

rue_d_etropal wrote: But now I am not so certain using less paper is as good an idea. As long as we grow the trees to produce the paper, we are storing carbon.

As soon as the tree is cut down the store is irrelevant, as something is going to be done with the tree which will consume carbon even if the tree still remains as wood. It may be sawn up, so there is waste to deal with, pulped so there is waste to deal with, and there are the direct fuel inputs for the process.

A carbon store is only relevant if the tree is left to grow, but even then it will one day die and rot.

woodburner wrote:

rue_d_etropal wrote: But now I am not so certain using less paper is as good an idea. As long as we grow the trees to produce the paper, we are storing carbon.

As soon as the tree is cut down the store is irrelevant, as something is going to be done with the tree which will consume carbon even if the tree still remains as wood. It may be sawn up, so there is waste to deal with, pulped so there is waste to deal with, and there are the direct fuel inputs for the process.

A carbon store is only relevant if the tree is left to grow, but even then it will one day die and rot.

If the waste were turned into biochar and used as a soil conditioner with the gas used to produce power, that could decarbonise the process to an extent.

Good point, but I suspect no large scale plant will be built.