By Roine Morin
Suppliers to the tissue industry are
being asked increasingly to quantify
their carbon footprint, but the
information is not yet being passed on to
customers. It has not taken long for details of
carbon footprint to become required
information, particularly from suppliers like
ourselves. At Södra Cell, in common with
many other suppliers, we have gone to great
lengths to put a figure on our carbon footprint,
or declaration as I prefer to call it. We deliver
a value on the pulp that our customers have
to calculate in to their footprint)
I must admit it was a task which we
relished. While the measurement process is highly detailed,
we were
confident that the forest industry has a very positive story
to tell when it
comes to carbon footprint. When we came up with the relevant
figures,
while not being complacent, we could see that our optimism
was wellfounded.
Thanks largely to the carbon sink that our forests represent,
we
knew our footprint would be suitably dainty next to that
of other process
industries. Maybe this would be the beginning of the end
of that allpervasive
"cutting down trees is bad" mantra.
Where is this information going?
Surprisingly, the wider availability of carbon footprint
information
has not gone hand-in-hand with the wider use of this information
to inform
consumers of paper products about the carbon footprint of
their purchases.
Such information, after all, will show paper products in
a good light. At
last we have an opportunity to quantify what we have always
believed:
that paper is a sustainable, recyclable product. Tissue's
main ingredient
is pulp. We know pulp's carbon footprint stands up robustly
to scrutiny.
Isn't this something we should be promoting?
Of course when you are measuring anything, the decision as
to how
to communicate the results is never simple. On the one hand,
carbon
footprint can be seen as a way of setting the record straight.
Carbon
footprint is, after all, the most comprehensive environmental
impact
assessment. It is complicated to measure, and we have to
be sure than everyone is using the same ruler. But once the
figures have been obtained,
they give a very clear message.
However, one concern could be that of direct comparison.
The Nordic
Swan mark or forestry certification systems like FSC and
PEFC are read
by consumers as absolutes. Either they value them, and are
influenced by them when they make their purchases, or they
ignore them and fill their shopping trolleys regardless. While we know that
even the most rigorous certification systems are bound to include those
who just scrape into the 'club' and those who graduate with honours, the
buying public just sees a symbol and that's that. After all, what other
option do they have?
Direct comparison
Carbon footprint is different. It provides information from
which a
direct comparison can be made, and this might well strike
fear into the
hearts of tissue companies. It is the environmental reporting
equivalent
of laying your cards on the table. This is not about comparing
the tissue
industry with other industries, but comparing one tissue
product with
another.
With effective marketing, however, consumers should come
to see
the carbon footprint measure in the same way as they see
the calories
contained in their food. While health-conscious consumers
might compare
the calorie content of two brands of low-fat yoghurt, they
are basically in
the market for low-fat yoghurt because they know it helps
keep off the
kilos. Likewise, as the general public becomes knowledgeable
about carbon
footprint, they will see tissue as a relatively 'green' purchase,
and that has
to be good news.
One obvious issue will be how carbon footprint affects recycled
products. A recycled tissue based on deinked pulp produced
in a country
which extracts most of its energy from fossil fuels is likely
to have a more
substantial footprint than a virgin fibre-based tissue made
from pulp
produced with bio-energy. This is of course good for a virgin
pulp producer
based in Sweden such as ourselves. The point is that this
is about
transparency - something from which we all benefit in the
end as human
beings.
Legislation will force our hand
Whatever the fears surrounding going public about carbon
footprint,
we are likely to be overtaken by legislation. Governments
are fearful of
the greenwash effect, in which a proliferation of labels
and symbols can
make a product appear to be more environmentally friendly
than it really
is. This is why legislators are likely to push for the display
of carbon
footprint information over any other. It is the nearest thing
to a catch-all
measure that we have, and it is unambiguous. Above all, it
is the most
effective means of decarbonising industry, and legislators
will be only too
aware of this. If governments are serious about instigating
behavioural
change among consumers to reduce carbon emissions, then low
carbonfootprint
products have everything to gain.
Even if environmental groups try to claim that the carbon
sink which
our forests represent is an environmentally-damaging monoculture,
responsible forest managers know and can prove different.
There are some
industries which have everything to fear from carbon footprint,
but ours
is not one of them. TW
|
Roine Morin is environmental manager
at Södra Cell, Sweden. |
|
