The detail is in the small print...

It's a big day today.  1st September, the end of the summer and everyone is gearing up for a busy autumn.  We head into the political and professional conference season, and getting our minds round all those tasks we put off during the dog days of summer.

It's a time when campaigns and new initiatives often start, and today is no exception.  I was prompted to start blogging properly, not just by the turning of the calender, but by the launching of a new campaign today by The Guardian.  Their 10:10 campaign seeks your active commitment to reduce your carbon emissions by 10% during 2010.  With massive climate talks in Copenhagen coming in a few months time, raising public and corporate commitments to reduce emissions have never been more important, and it is really good to see The Guardian taking this initiative - I support it and have signed up.

However, it prompted me to have another look at what The Guardian itself says about its own paper consumption.  The story is mainly positive, but is not straightforward.   Here is a letter I have sent to the Editor today:

Dear Letters Editor (for consideration for publication) and Editor (for a corporate response please)

Two and a half cheers to The Guardian for taking a positive leadership role on climate change by launching the 10:10 campaign.  This is welcome and necessary, and the ability you have in the media industry to be a force for good on this issue is recognised.

The reason I can’t give you three cheers is buried in your own sustainability reporting.  You have recently reported that 96% of the newsprint you use is recycled.  Great - does that mean you have stopped buying virgin newsprint manufactured in Russia?  Let’s hope so. 

But even further inside your sustainability report you inadvertently highlight the difficulties many folk have to make sense of corporate reporting on sustainability.  You state (Operations report, p39) that each tonne of UK 100% recycled newsprint creates 363kg of CO2 while the same grade from Norway (but with 85% virgin fibre) creates only 9kg, as a result of low-carbon fuel use in manufacturing over there.  All well and good, but this is not the full story.  If you switch newsprint purchasing to imported virgin fibre and away from UK recycled fibre, you diminish the market for recycled materials here at home and ensure that more newspapers end up in landfill sites at home than need to.  You do not take into account the CO2 impact of this potential switch, nor recognise that manufacturing of recycled newsprint is an energy saver. 

Of course, British manufacturers of newsprint can probably do more to switch their energy consumption to more renewable sources, and even utilise wood and print offcuts in their fuel use, but as significant purchasers and marketmakers, you have a responsibility to tell the whole story on carbon impacts, not just the bit that suits you in relation to the ‘carbon footprint’ of your purchasing decisions.

It makes your own corporate target for 2009-10 of ensuring that “recycled levels for newsprint to be held at or above 80%” a little hollow.  If you are already at 96% use of recycled newsprint and are therefore planning to use less recycled paper, at the very least be open about this.  Better still, calculate the impact this switch will have on British landfill sites and CO2 emissions, and tell the full story.  As a loyal Guardian reader for thirty years, I expect nothing less from you.

Yours sincerely

Ray Georgeson

Clear enough?  On the face of it, it looks as though they are planning to reduce their consumption of recycled newsprint from the UK in favour of a mainly virgin fibre product from Norway.  This will have potential impacts here on the markets for reclaimed newsprint and may even lead to more material being landfilled here instead of being recycled.

But it isn't completely clear.  If the full account is made of the negative impact of landfilling reclaimable paper here and the energy savings made in recycled newsprint manufacturing, then surely sourcing newsprint closer to home and recycling it near to home is better?  At the very least, let's see the full picture and then be better able to make a judgement.  I look forward to a reply.

In the meantime, I will carry on reading my Guardian - and sharing it with others to save some paper - supporting the 10:10 campaign, and trying to make sense of the information we all need on products to make good choices in favour of the environment.