Plastic rubbish has always been a target for "greenies" and is more and more criticised by the general public. Computers, on the other hand; are often thought to be squeaky clean.

In fact, neither the ubiquitous plastic bag nor the "paperless office" fully deserve their reputations. In several ways plastic is more environmentally friendly than paper or glass — less energy is used in its production, meaning it is cheaper to make and contributes less to global warming. Plastic bags and bottles are lighter and therefore cheaper to transport; plastic takes up less space in landfill; and, in general, less energy is used in recycling it.

Plastics are also criticised for being made from non-renewable resources — oil or natural gas. The first counter to this is that transporting paper and glass products consumes more oil, which tends to balance the equation. The production of paper also causes pollution and environmental damage, while nonrenewable fuels are used to supply energy in the manufacturing process.

A study done in the US last year for the Council for Solid Waste Solutions found that making plastic grocery bags from virgin material used between 20-40% less energy than making paper grocery bags. Although this disparity decreases as recycling rates increase — because energy savings in recycling occur at a greater rate for paper — the plastic bag continued to use less energy in most cases than the paper bag.

The study also looked at the environmental impacts caused by the production and disposal of the two types of bags. It found that virgin plastic bags "contribute between 74% and 80% less solid waste by volume than (virgin) paper sacks." The production of plastic bags produces between  63% and  72% less atmospheric emissions (though levels of one pollutant, hydrocarbons, are higher) and 90% less total waterborne wastes, such as dissolved solids, suspended solids and acids.

Like the equation for energy, these disparities generally decrease as recycling rates increase. The exception is the last category, waterbome wastes, where recycled paper produces a greater volume of pollution than virgin paper. Given these figures, one might think twice about throwing out re-usable envelopes or whether those extra photocopies are really necessary. One could also question whether less paper really is used in the so-called computerised "paperless office."

The growth in the number of facsimile machines has been phenomenal, photocopies are usually made of faxes if the latter are to be preserved, computer printers spew out reams of printouts and hardly a day goes by where one does not photocopy something. While in the old days, writing a business letter required one piece of paper, sending a business fax now uses three — the original letter, the fax, copy and the photocopy of the fax, though of course envelopes are no longer necessary.

Nick Moynihan, managing director of Wiggins Teape, one of Hongkong’s larger suppliers of office paper, estimates the annual growth in demand for fax paper in the colony is at least 30% a year. The rate for photocopy paper is less, but at 10% per year it is still well above the rate of GDP growth. In terms of total number of photocopies made annually on A4 size paper in Hongkong, he calculates it works out at 4.3 billion sheets. And though demand for telex paper has gone down, a whole new market has opened up for laser printers, which require higher quality and heavier paper than photocopy paper, Moynihan says.

A few years ago Wiggins Teape was worried about the possible effects on its business of the "paperless office" and carried out a study to assess the situation. "The broad conclusion was that it was not something we needed to worry about. This has certainly been borne out. What we have found is that there are changes of (usage such as from telex to fax paper) and growth in areas such as laser printers," Moynihan says.

- Jamie Allen

Source : Far Eastern Economic Review, 19 Sept, 1991

Back to Archive Page

Recycling Point Dot Com

(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved