Fracking is not an alternative for the better

Over the past few years particularly in the UK, the debate around hydraulic fracturing or fracking has created huge controversy and brought wide-spread of public attention. Before the controversy kicked-in, the scientific understanding of fracturing and its impacts were not widely discussed among the general public, even though it has been routinely practiced by many oil and gas producing industries in the past. Fracking has been extensively used in-land for the past several decades in the U.S. Natural gas production from shale deposits in the U.S alone hit 230 billion cu m in 2012, nearly double 2010’s total, and the price of natural gas has fallen by over 80% since 2008 (B. Walsh in Time Magazine, September 16, 2013). Also, in the UK since late 1970s, fracking has been used in offshore North Sea oil and gas fields. However, the controversy is far from over; it is now spearheading the global debate on present and future energy challenges.

Fracking is a process that involves injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives deep into the Earth to target the shale rock formations to fracture, which subsequently result in releasing trapped natural gas. The mixture of fluid is extracted and the natural gas is collected through the well and stored for energy use. It sounds fairly simple and easy process to unlock the gas that has been trapped in the shale rock formations for millions of years. But, the entire process is not simple as it seems. The British anxiety recently exploded in Balcombe in West Sussex, which was the reflection of the risks that pose by the fracking techniques. Not only in Britain but activists from 26 countries around the world participated in around 250 protests on last 19th October 2013. Besides the technicalities of drilling or mining the natural gas, there are environmental and health effects to be considered, which have been the focal points of the whole argument.

There is a long list of potential environmental and health effects of fracking that can be listed, including the requirement of vast amount of water, backflow of waste water with the mixture of chemical additives and disposal of the waste water, fracking induced earthquakes, risk of ground water contamination,  risk of methane gas emissions, noise pollution, risk of soil contamination from the chemical spillage, health effects (of drilling, fracking, processing and transporting of natural gas) and the effects on local biodiversity etc. Some of the major concerns of fracking are the impacts on surface water, particularly where water is a scarce commodity, and also huge risks of possible groundwater contamination. In addition, most importantly are the risks from radiation exposure are often unheard (e.g. naturally occurring Uranium and its radioactive daughter Radium-226, also radioactive alpha emitting gas Radon-222 and its radioactive daughters Bismuth-214, Lead-210 and the alpha emitter Polonium-210). Deep down in the earth there are lot of radioactivity, which is safe for environment and human health but if they are brought to the surface, then it becomes some serious risks to human health, safety and to the environment. In the fracking process, waste water that returns to the surface very often contains radioactive materials.

Many American States e.g. Arkansas, Colorado, Michigan, New York, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas etc. had witnessed numerous environmental incidents primarily drinking water which is contaminated due to fracking. A new report by the Environment America Research and Policy Centre (October 2013) has reported that the fracking wells nationwide produced an estimated of 280 billion gallons of wastewater in 2012 - containing cancer-causing and even radioactive materials and has contaminated the drinking water sources from Pennsylvania and New Mexico. The overwhelming imbalances in use of fracking and the environmental incidents in America may have provided a false assumption that the fracking is environmentally safe. What is plausibly safe now (as proponents of fracking claim), which might not be safe in the longer run. Society is moving forward with the technological advancement faster than ever, which makes possible to do things that we couldn't do before, but often with far reaching consequences.

The fracking technology has been advanced considerably but there is no clean technology yet that exist which would make fracking process safer. Recently the UK Government has lifted the ban on onshore fracking, they planned not to outright prohibition of fracking, instead there will be more focus on the regulatory aspects. New regulations would be introduced to put tighter controls on fracking but it is very difficult to encourage local people as no one wants drilling sites in their backyards. Given the potential risks to the environment and human health, fracking should be kept desolate - more precisely it should not be allowed in-land. Technology may have advanced significantly but it cannot always beat the odds forever.

  

There is another dimension to the fracking issue. If it is allowed unanimously then we would potentially rapidly reach a point where many countries around the world would start similar practice. Many developing countries still lack of effective regulatory structures, decisions on fracking and that would require new regulations to protect the environment, human health and other social consequences. Otherwise fracking would be a subject to exploitation (e.g. lack of environmental & social responsibilities) by the domestic and international actors. Exploitation associated with the conventional crude oil drilling in the developing countries has been enormous in the past, which created in many cases inequalities and violent conflicts. It beggars belief that the benefits from resources extracted through fracking would be fairer to the indigenous and to the local communities.

It is divisive yet undeniable truth that we need a combination of mix energy sources to fulfil the current and future energy demand but more fracking would encourage more gas burning, which will eventually accelerate the rate of climate change. We should learn from our past mistakes, it would be totally wrong to go for mass in-land fracking. We don't need mass fracking to feed an energy hungry world.

   

What does 400ppm mean to us?

On 9 May 2013, 'The keeling curve' (named after geochemist Charles David Keeling), which plots the constant changes in atmospheric concentration of CO₂ at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, recorded the daily average concentration of 400.03 per-parts-million (ppm). For the same 24-hour period, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego recorded a reading of 400.08 ppm. Climate scientists say that for the first time in at least 800,000 years, the mean atmospheric concentration of CO₂ levels has surpassed 400ppm. It means that, for every million air molecules, 400 are carbon dioxide. It has come as no surprise to us that global carbon dioxide was bound to exceed the threshold sooner or later, given the fact that the world communities have repeatedly failed to slow down global CO2 emissions.

Since the monitoring began more than five decades ago at the Mauna Loa observatory, it had been well documented that the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ had increased from about 0.7 ppm per year in the late 1950s to 2.1 ppm per year during 2003 to 2012. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists pointed out thattoday’s rate of increase is more than 100 times faster than the increase that occurred when the last ice age ended. Human activities are believed to be contributing more and more CO₂ concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere. While our world has entered to a new danger zone, most people are wondering about why this milestone is so important.

400ppm is kept as a round easily remembered figure, which is a critical global threshold agreed in the Kyoto Protocol to avoid average global temperature rise more than 2°C. Creating a prehistoric climate would certainly have major repercussions. Increased CO2 mean increased global temperature and the impacts of increased temperature are already well known, marked in particularly by the biophysical consequences, for example stronger cyclones, increased coastal flooding, frequent droughts, fresh water scarcity and increased water salinity. These biophysical consequences will continue to affect people and their livelihoods, the whole economy across sectors and human development will suffer as a result of changing weather. Unfortunately, the poorer countries are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than the richer countries.

Sea level rise is unavoidable under a warming world due to the increased melting of world’s glaciers. Sea water intrusion, extreme tides and frequent storm surge in the low lying lands have already caused havoc in many coastal communities around the world particularly in the developing countries. Environmental migration is a reality now. People are forced to flee from their lands and sought shelter in the cities. Losing everything and trying to rebuild their lives all over again, have put enormous pressure on families to find jobs that would suit their skills, as well as finding decent and affordable homes. Unable to find the jobs and proper accommodations would naturally fuel the expansion of city slums. Such unsustainable urban growths would in turn step up the deterioration of local urban environment that would contribute further to urban poverty. This would contribute further to other social issues e.g. increased criminality and vandalism, poor public health, no education, increased child labour etc. Implications of these factors would incur huge additional financial costs upon the society, which is very difficult to assess as many consequences are not yet well understood.

Not all are bad news but there's good news too. What if climate change would turn Greenland green? Experts are now saying that climate change could turn Greenland green by 2100 (The Guardian, 28 August 2013). The lead scientist Professor Jens-Christian Svenning, from Aarhus University in Denmark said that the 'Greenland has the potential to become a lot greener - forest like the coastal coniferous forests in today's Alaska and western Canada will be able to thrive in fairly large parts of Greenland, for example, with trees like Sitka spruce and Lodgepole pine.' But what would happen with all the melting ice water? It will naturally flow down to the seas. Perhaps all good news will probably concentrate in the colder and richer parts of the world. People who lives in the colder regions will enjoy relatively warmer weather, possibilities of saving energy over time, will enjoy economic benefits from tourism and the agriculture, forestry and fishery sectors will have the market potential and new commercial opportunities.

Green technological innovation will probably thrive in the richer world. Future technological changes will concentrate on super-efficient equipment and appliances, maximising recycling and resource efficiency, finding eco-friendly alternative energy sources, technological advances in climate change science and adaptation disciplines to find more adaptation options and performance of these options. It’s absolutely crucial that the green technological collaborations need to happen between rich and poor countries in order to combat a common enemy. It’s not going to help if the advances in green technologies only concentrate in the richer part of the world.

In the end, the atmospheric CO₂ emissions will continue to increase unless countries around the world take radical steps to stop the rising levels of CO₂ emissions. Chances are remote that it will happen sooner. Maybe five or ten years’ down in the line, Mauna Loa observatory will record the readings which would surpass another threshold value. But the fact of the matter underlying inequalities and vulnerabilities will still exist in hundred years from now if we do not adapt and prepare ourselves for our warming world.

Air Pollution: Dhaka’s invisible, silent killer

Under the shadow of many premature deaths such as pulmonary and respiratory diseases due to exposure to heavy air pollution; life in Dhaka seems to be going on as normal. According to the Department of Environment (DoE), the density of airborne particulate matter (PM) reaches 463 micrograms per cubic meter (mcm) in the city during December-March period - the highest level in the world (Noor, 2013, TUNZA Eco Generation). Negative impacts on human health and financial costs of air pollution have remained staggeringly high. At the turn of the century, the World Bank has estimated that the costs associated with air pollution in Dhaka are approximately 800 million USD every year and 15,000 human lives (DoE and the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, 2011). In the face of changing climate and a warming world, moving into the city in search of shelter and livelihood, Dhaka city will be more crowded with people and more vehicles will have to be accommodated; hence it will contribute further to the problem of air pollution.

Major sources of air pollution are from the traffic congestion and industrial emissions such as clusters of brick kilns are situated on the outskirts of Dhaka city. However, vehicular emissions are the most visual in this case. Travelling through Dhaka city, one will have to experience chocking on exhaust fumes, smoke and dust; a mixture of highly obnoxious gases which would immediately cause eye and throat irritations. But, what can city dwellers do about it? They can neither move out of the city, nor are they ready to breathe more toxic air. However, the consequences of air pollution are hardly seen by the millions of city dwellers in their day to day business unless the effects of air pollution hit them personally. Many disadvantaged people (e.g. street hawkers, rickshaw pullers, regular bus and taxi drivers, street children etc.) carry a double burden – working closely to the sources of the road traffic pollution and breathing the bad air around.

During the manufacturing season from October to March; air emissions from brick kilns especially from the North of the city travel to the main city in the direction of the wind. Fine Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter (commonly referred to PM 2.5) are mostly emitted as a result of burning low-grade coal and wood. PM 2.5 has the ability to penetrate deeper inside the respiratory system, which can effectively carry other variety of hazardous substances in the air, for example heavy metals (e.g. lead, cadmium, arsenic), acid oxides (e.g. sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen) organic (e.g. organic carbon, elemental carbon) and also biological pollutants (e.g. bacteria and viruses). According to UNDP half of Bangladesh’s brick kilns are operating illegally, as investors fail to obtain licenses and flout existing environmental laws. Under these circumstances, the authority faces uphill challenges to curb illegal activities. We don’t often hear about the accidents within this particular business sector which we often see in the garment industries. Air pollution is a silent killer where it kills yearly more than the entire garment industries combined.

If the authority can tackle these two sources of air pollution efficiently, then it would be a huge step forward. There have been a number of landmark policy initiatives that were taken over the last decade (by each successive government). For example, decision of providing only unleaded gasoline, banning two-stroke three wheelers, imposing stricter penalties on polluters, introduction of vehicle emission standards, improvement of city traffic management and public awareness campaign etc. However, nothing will work if people act irresponsibly and disobey the laws. A comprehensive review of potential air pollution mitigation (e.g. technology potential) and management tools are required by the government. Nothing will achieve in one day, it took UK hundreds of years to sort out their urban air quality problems but still cannot get it right. A few places in the streets of London the air pollution levels are above the legal limit values e.g. pollution levels exceeded the yearly Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) quota in Putney High Street within three days of 2013, also Marylebone Road in London reported the fourth highest annual mean concentrations of NO2 at 98 ug/m3 behind individual sites in Florence, Stuttgart and Munich (Birkett, 2012). This parallel may not be relevant, nor it is equal between the city of Dhaka and London, however the fact of the matter is, in the city of London people are more inclined to cooperate with the laws and more aware of the consequences of breaking it as the overall government intervention is far more efficient and effective.

Cleanest available technologies would help to curb ambient air pollution to some extent but it is not the only option considering its availability and affordability to the general people. Here is a simple example for instance, only rich urbanites can afford efficient cars with low environmental impact but driving efficient cars in the congested roads would quickly become inefficient as the cars get caught in the queues that end up wasting fuel and create more pollution. Combinations of technical and non-technical solutions need to be implemented, which should be backed by stronger enforcement laws. While traffic dispersion from the congestion roads is one of the main priorities, it is sensible to build more planned flyovers and geographically shift some of the educational, financial and commercial hubs out of central Dhaka city in order to ease the congestion. Having said that, the policy of shift out some of the above mentioned hubs could be quite unpopular, which would face stiff resistance from the members of public.

Other non-technical solution of tackling traffic congestion is to charge motorists to use the road space. In this case, centre of the capital could be under traffic congestion charge where motorists will pay to enter the congestion zone. This needs to be combined with the improvement of overall public transport system, increased enforcement of the parking and traffic regulations. There are no magic bullets and technological quick-fix, but some draconian measures can save the city otherwise the city of Dhaka will lose its battle against air pollution.

Rana Plaza: The place where Occupational Health and Safety and Corporate Social Responsibility grossly failed

Collapse of an eight story commercial building, Rana Plaza was another horrific incident that occurred on 24th April 2013 in Savar; Bangladesh. It was the third major industrial incident in five months. Time and again we observer this kind of terrible incidents, while it's still fresh in mind, there is a desperate need to change the usual game.

Booming garment industry is one of the growing business sectors in Bangladesh and millions of people particularly women are employed to make cloths, which eventually end up in the foreign high street clothing stores like Next, H&M, Matalan, Primark, Bonmarche or even Marks & Spencer. I feel extremely proud when I buy a shirt or trouser from one the above mentioned shops where it says ‘Made in Bangladesh’, on the other hand, I equally get a deep feeling of guilt if the garment that I wore was made from blood, sweat and tears of those poor women and in many cases by children. Every time I tell myself it is reciprocal where both parties need each other as producers and buyers - thinking millions of people have got jobs, finally they will come out of the poverty trap at some point and their generations would likely to follow suit.

However, the progress has been one sided. Corruption, ignorance and greed have chronically failed those people at the bottom who should be rewarded in the first place. I will still proudly buy 'Made in Bangladesh' garments but I strongly demand to give exemplary punishment even though the perpetrators are the supporters of the ruling political party, punish those who violate building construction codes and make occupational safety and health a top priority.

Minimum [variable] wage of $9.50 a week, long working hours, bad working conditions, [complete] disregard to occupational health and safety and environmental issues have crippled the garment industry. Garment workers are frequently dying. It wasn't too long ago in the same suburb a fire broke out in another factory, surprisingly enough; emergency exit was locked down, as a result 112 people died as they were trapped inside. People have observed only lip-service from the successive Bangladeshi governments but the fundamental issues were never resolved.

New garment factories are opening every year but health and safety at work, social responsibilities and environmental issues still remain elusive. Many cases Health and Safety at work are mostly common sense, which goes hand in hand with common safety (common sense, common safety) to protect people at work from serious threats. People need to imply simple common sense whether the fire exit should be locked down, using flammable sprays in the clothing warehouse or finding a crack on the wall. In light of the evidence, garment factory owners have drastically failed to prevent death, injury and illness for their own workers.

Corporate Social Responsibility [CSR] or the Corporate Conscience has also perceived as window dressing. Most of the fore mentioned companies have their corporate self-regulations [self-regulatory mechanism to monitor and measure the CSR performances] integrated within their CSR policies. They have responsibility to carry out [reasonably vigorous] audits if their supplies are coming from ethical and moral sourcing. Repeated ignorance has no place when people's lives at stake. Garments owners, local and foreign buyers have their mutual benefits in this matter if the whole supply chains become more transparent and non-discriminatory to the factory workers.

Finally, garment industry is a treasure in Bangladesh and we should not let a few badly behaved factory owners and bad working conditions giving the whole industry a bad name. Time has come to put the house in order.

Kyoto Protocol: Far better than nothing at all

The most eagerly awaited United Nation's Climate Change Conference was held from November 26 to December 7, 2012 in Doha, but the meeting appeared to be quiet compared to any other meetings in the previous years. In the conference, the fate of the Kyoto Protocol - an international agreement on Climate Change was decided as the protocol commitments were due to expire at the end of 2012. The other key issues discussed included giving assurance to the developing countries for funding due to the ‘loss and damage’ that incurred by the climate change, negotiation on a new legally binding agreement by 2015 to enter into force no later than 2020 and accelerate the greenhouse gas reduction actions before the start of the new agreement. The conference outcome carry far reaching effects, as yet, little efforts have been made to public awareness and understanding. The media didn’t exert much effort to bring the information to the public.

Before the conference, the most worrisome of all was the fate of the Kyoto Protocol remained unclear – the only international agreement that sets the binding targets for rich countries. After much debate and wrangling, the Kyoto Protocol was tentatively extended to its second period but Canada, Russia, Japan and New Zealand decided to opt out from the Kyoto commitment. They favoured a non-binding target that expected to cut emissions by 10 to 20 per cent up to 2020. USA and China; two of the largest polluters in the world have refused to commit themselves to any legally binding emission targets. It is indeed very frustrating to see that after almost two decades of international negotiations; little progress has been made in order to keep global greenhouse gas emissions under control and to keep temperature rises below the targeted level of 2°C.

Over the years, the entire negotiation process and outcomes had been very slow and with no doubt if all the countries were convinced and they promised to cut desirable level of greenhouse gas emissions starting in Doha, yet targeted level of 2°C would unlikely be achieved. It’s mostly due to fact that carbon dioxide emissions have risen rapidly by even more than previously anticipated.  According to new figures from the Global Carbon Project, co-led by researchers from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA) that Global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were set to rise again in 2012, reaching a record high of 35.6 billion tones. The 2.6 per cent rise projected for 2012 means global emissions from burning fossil fuel are 58 per cent above 1990 levels, the baseline year for the Kyoto Protocol.

Everyone recognises that the awful spectre of climate change looms over all the nations, particularly the world's poorest countries suffer first and most from the climate change. According to Fiona Harvey of the Observer newspaper: 'This is first time developing countries have received financial assurances and the first time the phrase ‘loss and damage' from climate change has been enshrined in an international legal document.' By far recognising the ‘loss and damage’ from climate change is one of the successful outcomes of Doha conference. But the key questions remain unanswered, including whether funds devoted to 'loss and damage' will come from existing humanitarian aid and disaster relief budgets (Fiona Harvey, The Observer, 8 December 2012). Funds devoted to 'loss and damage' will probably be one of the most discussed issues in the coming years as the details have not been worked out yet.

Countries like Bangladesh and the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) have special interests in this outcome as they are facing the toughest consequences of climate change. These funds would allow them to support climate change adaptation programmes in their countries. In the case of Bangladesh, this fund has become rather a contentious issue since the World Bank (WB) wants the control over Climate Resilience Fund. WB also plans to take some percentage of the fund as service charges. The climate change activists in Bangladesh demand that these funds should be controlled by an autonomous board under democratic ownership - meaning, representatives should be involved from all the major political parties, experts, civic society and victims of the climate change. Disagreements will lead more delays hence more suffering for the vulnerable people who are already trapped in a continual round of inequalities, lack of opportunities, social exclusion and lack of access to essential utilities.

It is an on-going debate whether Kyoto Protocol has made the matters worst or it has entirely failed to engage the worst polluters. Despite the extension of Kyoto Protocol, global CO2 emissions will continue to grow. Too little, too late but not doing anything while Global CO2 emissions are on rise is not an option either. European Union should be applauded for their proactive role all the way to the negotiations for a second Kyoto commitment. Now a second commitment period has been ratified by the European Union, Norway, Australia and Switzerland, however it covers only 15% of the global emissions. It’s a tiny portion compared to overall global emissions, but still it’s a step forward to the right direction. Just imagine if no countries want to commit themselves for a second commitment period then the entire protocol process would have been collapsed by now. The consequences would be more unplanned and uncontrolled global emissions hence accelerating the global warming and climate change. We need global collective efforts, patchy and isolated efforts will do very little to combat climate change. 

Paper: Striving towards sustainability

It was unimaginable that just a few decades ago people will be talking about eco-friendly production and responsible use of paper. Today, particularly in an office environment, we often get to see that there is such a willingness to minimise paper usage in order to save money and reduce its environmental impacts.  While this kind of approach has become widely accepted as good practice, yet there are doubts and confusion still exit with regard to origin, usage and disposal of papers.

Recent trends of ‘going paperless’ are largely exit as a concept but in reality it is virtually impossible to eliminate all hard copies of papers from our offices, academic institutions or even from homes. We need to use paper for various purposes - from printing balance sheet items in the offices to hand-written exam papers in the academic institutions or to a simple shopping list. Not to forget about wrapping papers for birthdays or Christmas presents. Papers are essential items that we all need to use occasionally.

Over the past many years, the most controversial issue has been logging of old grown forests to get woods for paper production. In order to avoid status quo, the creation of mono-culture purpose built plantation forests also raised serious concerns about the local ecological imbalances. Not only the deforestation issues in the developed and developing countries, but also air and water pollution, using non-renewable resources (e.g. energy produced from fossil fuels), treatment of waste, wood pulping processes and recycling of papers have been some of the major issues.

In light of this, the very fundamental questions ought to come in our minds - why are we destroying forests to make papers? Are paper manufacturers promoting eco-friendly and sustainable papers? Are we committed to responsible use of papers in our offices and homes? Why should we use recycled papers? Electronic communications may be more environmentally friendly than using virgin papers? And, many more!

There are many myths surrounding environmental issues related to paper. They are often referred to [common] misconceptions and people still believe these false impressions without realising the green improvement that occurred within the pulp and paper industries for the past many years. We cannot conclude (will still remain inconclusive and debatable in my view) whether paper is sustainable or not without discussing a few biggest myths and realities surrounding paper including – ‘paper industries destroy forests’, ‘making paper uses a lot or energy and water’, ‘making paper is bad for environment and climate’, ‘paper industry is out-dated’, ‘paper industry wants to make more paper as it is their bread and butter’, ‘recycled papers should only be used' etc.

Let’s explore briefly just a few of these facts and realities. Tropical deforestation is not happening due to paper industries greed for profits, rather increased demand in use for croplands and pastures from the locals, which is directly or indirectly connected to the effects of economic globalisation. There are many other reasons why tropical forests are declining; however it’s not the scope of this discussion. If we look at particularly in continental Europe, the forests have grown by over 30% since 1950, and are increasing by 1.5 million football pitches every year - an area four times the size of London (Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) forest factsheet, July 2008). As well, 94% of the paper we use is made in Europe (CEPI trade statistics, 2007 in Two Sides 2012). So, it’s a fact that European paper manufacturers are not using trees that are grown in other parts of the world, rather using home-grown raw materials. For other continents particularly in Asia, Africa and South America, it’s difficult to illustrate data comparability as similar statistics do not exist in many cases. Therefore, we can hardly draw any conclusion if the practice is sustainable in those continents/countries.

Pulp and paper industries use lot of waste materials (e.g. biomass materials such as wood chips & pulp waste) to create their own electricity. We may think that industry as a whole is using a lot of energy but on average it takes 500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity to produce 200kg of paper, the average amount of paper that each of us consume each year. 500 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity is equal to burn a 60W light bulb continuously for one year or powering one computer for 5 months (International Paper, 2010). Whatever justifications there might be for using minimum energy or the biomass energy compared to other business sectors, I still dispute that unless energy sources are from 100% renewable, we cannot say that the pulp and paper industries have achieved their goals to accomplish complete environmental sustainability.

Similar logic applies in relation to water consumption. Despite water consumption for paper making in Europe has fallen by 1/3 since 1970 as a result of more efficient machineries (advance in paper making technologies hence paper industry is not outdated and inefficient), but still large amount of water is being used. This is one of the areas where pulp and paper industries will have to remain consistent in reducing further water consumption and water will be always needed for the paper manufacturing processes. In reality there is nothing call ‘water-less paper production’ and the difficulty with water is that it cannot be replaced by other alternatives.

Unlike other non-renewables (e.g. coal, petroleum, natural gas or radioactive super fuels such as uranium, plutonium, and thorium), paper is considered as renewable resource. Trees take water and carbon-di-oxides for photosynthesis processes (energy and carbon fixing reactions) and as a result release oxygen as by-products. Carbon is stored even when the trees are chopped down and sent for paper making. Trees can be replanted and re-grown therefore replenished over time – a cycle that can endlessly go on.

Paper acts as a carbon sink, holding carbon until they are naturally degraded. According to Ann Ingerson, a resource economist at the Wilderness Society tells ‘paper is not a good option for storing carbon because it degrades too quickly,’ Ingerson says ‘newsprint tends to last for a while in landfills, but office paper breaks down pretty quickly. In landfills it's broken down as methane, which is an even more potent greenhouse gas’ (Chen in Mother Jones, April 09, 2012). It seems paradoxical if we chop more trees to make paper and send it to landfills; effectively we are creating more greenhouse gases. In essence, we see again that like most other environmental problems, the effects of paper on environment are complex, somewhat minimal in terms of its proportional environmental impact ranking but not free from any air emissions.

In my view, the notion of ‘paper industry wants to make more paper as it is their bread and butter’ is not correct. Production of more paper over environmental impacts can be quite a conundrum for the pulp and paper industries. In order to protect their own existence, the pulp and paper industries will have to remain consistence in reducing their environmental impacts and concentrate more on sustainable forest management, which ultimately will provide secured supply of raw materials, or else pulp and paper industries will soon find themselves out of business. A parallel example can be drawn with many other goods and services presently exist in our society that depend on natural resources including water, fisheries, oil, natural gas and agriculture sector etc.

It is essential to choose the least bad option. Arguably, electronic communications may be more environmentally friendly than using virgin papers, but again, the same argument can be drawn whether the energy sources are from 100% renewables. With a reading time of 30 minutes per day the environmental impact of a web based newspaper is, in general, in the same range as a printed newspaper’s environmental impact (Moberg A, et al, 2007 in Two Sides 2012). It’s not possible to come with a clean slate with no negative environmental impacts in both cases. We will shift the problems if we choose only one option over the other without making the chosen one complete clean. It’s well and good if we can make that happen, until then we need to carry on closing the sustainability gaps as much as possible within our limits. Looking closely at the evidences, pulp and paper industries have surprisingly done very well in order to minimise sustainability gaps.