skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Last week the city of Seattle made an important step last week - it voted "on a yellow pages "opt-out" ordinance that would get rid of those phone books." It makes Seattle the first city in the country to set up an opt-out registry if you don't want to receive yellow pages.We have discussed here before how wasteful are the Yellow/White Pages' practices ('The Yellow Pages are going green, but how about eliminating the wasteful printing in the first place?') and also compared the carbon footprint of a search on Google and a Yellow Pages directory. So any step in the right direction is a reason to be more optimistic.Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the headline given by our friends at Treehugger to this story (Phone Book Litter Banned in Seattle, Nation's First Opt-Out City) is not a bit too optimistic. Applying Opt-out system is an important step, but it's very far from banning phone book litter. First, you can already opt out system for Yellow Pages (well, right now they're upgrading it so you can't really use it) and second, it's going to be real ban only when it will change to an opt-in system.I'm afraid that even the most user-friendly opt-out system won't get enough people to move themselves out of the list, even in a progressive city like Seattle. If the city really wants "to allow residents to say no to the books" it should give them the freedom to choose if they want to receive these books in the first place. It's reasonable, better to the environment and will save money to the city (according to the announcement "City Councilor Mike O'Brien says unwanted yellow pages cost the Seattle $350,000 a year in recycling costs").So I hope that the city of Seattle won't stop in launching an opt-out system and will end the current wasteful practice by creating an opt-in system to get things done. Then, we'll be able to talk about banning phone books litter in Seattle.Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!
Last Tuesday I had a 'pleasant' surprise on my doorsteps (see photo above): a new thick copy of the local white pages, which I really didn't want and I'll never use. If printing the yellow pages is a wasteful and anachronistic practice, what can you say about the white pages? even my 95-old grandfather doesn't use them anymore!Therefore, I was very happy to read today in the New York Times that Verizon is looking "to end the annual delivery of millions of White Pages to all of its customers in New York." Mazal Tov as we say in Hebrew!And the savings? According to the article "the company estimates that it would save nearly 5,000 tons of paper by ending the automatic distribution of the books."Verizon is quoting a 2008 Gallup survey saying that "only about one of every nine households uses the hard-copy listings anymore," but somehow I find it difficult to believe that we're talking about more than 10% usage. It looks to me that it's more somewhere around 1%-2% and the example brought in the article (320-unit building in New York when not even one copy was requested) demonstrates it.I was surprised to hear that the phone companies are required by law to deliver these guides. Hence Verizon and other phone companies need to ask the regulators for a waiver. Is there any chance to see a change in this anachronistic legislation? I sure hope so.Last but not least, this is of course a win-win move that will benefit not only the environment but also the bottom line of the publisher, SuperMedia.Kudos to Verizon for doing the right thing. I hope you'll continue and move forward in other states as well, and don't forget Delaware. I really hope this is the last time I'll find such pleasant surprises on my doorsteps!Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!
Following my post on the Yellow Pages directories, I received an interesting question on LinkedIn:
All this is based on the idea that internet & generally dematerialization is more "eco-friendly" that the old paper-way. Are we sure about that? Sustainable business is full of "false good ideas". Is there any comparative LCA (Life Cycle Analysis)?
This is a great question and since I am not familiar with such a life cycle analysis I decided to prepare one of my own. Of course not all the data is available and I made couple of general assumptions on the way, but I hope that you will find the results valuable.
OK, so here we go:
For our comparison we will use the figure 12 billion searches, which is the number of annual searches made using the printed directories as reported by the Yellow Pages Association ("People reference print Yellow Pages directories more than 12 billion times while Internet Yellow Pages sites receive 4.6 billion references each year").
Option 1: Google search
So what's the carbon footprint of 12 billion Google searches?
Following an estimation of Dr. Alexander Wissner-Gross that was published on the Times Online on January 2009 (5-10g of CO2 per a search), Google announced Google that a Google search produces about 0.2g of CO2. Aleksandr Rudkevich, Vice President in the Energy & Environment Practice of Charles River Associates, analyzed Google's input and explained that this is an average figure. He calculated the worst case scenario (from a pollution point of view): "Applying this to the Google spate earlier this year, if the Google search is powered by coal-fired generation, the 0.0003 kWh of electricity it requires will result in about 0.3g of CO2 emissions, or 50% above Google’s average estimate." We'll use this figure for our analysis.
The equation therefore is: 0.3g x 12 billion = 3600 tons of CO2
Option 2: Yellow Pages directory search
1. Every year, according to Paperless Petition, 540 million directories are distributed in North America. I'll take off 30% of this figure, as the sustainability report claims that "The demand for directory paper has declined 29 percent since 2006". 540M X 70% = 378M
2. I don't have the carbon footprint of an average directory, so I'll use available data to get a good estimate. According to the Environmental Trends and Climate Impacts report, the carbon footprint of a book is 8.85 lbs. The Cleantech's report says it's 16.4 lbs per a book. Let's do an average - 12.63 lbs per book, or in grams - 5,729 grams (5.73 kg) of CO2.
To be fair, let's consider the fact that the directories are "containing 40% recycled content. The other 60% comes from "residual chips," a byproduct of sawmills left after logs are converted to lumber.". For our analysis let's calculate it as 100% post recycled paper. Using the EDF paper calculator, we find that we need to deduct 42% of the initial calculation of 5.73kg as usage of recycled paper has a much lower carbon footprint. So, the equation is: 5.73 X 0.58 = 3.32 kg of CO2
3. Our final calculation is: 378 million x 3.32 kg = 1,254,960 tons of C02
[Please note that even if you use the number of 130 million directories that I used initially, based on information on the Yellow Pages website that for some reason I can't find now, you receive a carbon footprint of 431,600 tons of CO2).
Bottom line: Using Yellow Pages directories to make 12 billion searches has a carbon footprint that is 348.6 times higher (!) of using Google on your computer for the same purpose. Again, it's 1,254,960 tons of CO2 vs. 3600 tons of CO2. I believe these figures speak for themselves.
Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!
Last week on Earth Day, the Yellow Pages Association (YPA) released its first sustainability report. It included updates on their progress including the news that:"Yellow Pages publishers use directory paper that contains recycled content. In addition to recycled paper pulp, this type of paper contains fiber primarily derived from “residual chips,” a by-product of sawmills left after logs are converted to lumber. That is, the chips become paper pulp instead of going into landfills or being burned. It is not necessary to use new trees to produce Yellow Pages."
This is good news, but my question is: Do we really need to print about 130 million Yellow Pages every year?
Just think about it - how many of you really use these printed directories? I guess the number is shrinking every year, especially when all the information is available online on their website. But at the same time the wasteful practice of delivering everyone new copies every year is still going on. It's true that now you can opt-out if you want to, but doesn't it make more sense to make it an opt-in process instead of opt-out?
It makes perfectly sense from both a consumer and environmental point of view - give the directories just to those people who really want them and who will actually use them. The only one that might not see it as a win-win solution are the Yellow Pages Publishers as a smaller circulation means smaller revenues from ads.
In their sustainability report, Neg Norton, president of YPA says:"Yellow Pages print directories remain a key part of our business and a widely used tool to connect buyers and sellers. In fact, in 2009 alone, print Yellow Pages received 12 billion references. As long as consumers continue to use print directories and our clients see value being represented in them, we will continue to offer that service – but we must be committed to doing so responsibly and with high regard for the communities in which we live and work."I can understand that the directories are valued and used by people, but again, why give so many of them to others who don't need them? and why do it every year? But, Neg (if I may), if you're really committed to do it responsibly, then you should shift to an opt-in process. Otherwise, no matter how hard you would work to improve the current opt-out unsustainable practice, you will fail to meet your commitment to make the yellow pages green.Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris
Eco-Libris: Promoting sustainable reading!
I'd like to update you on a new article I published today on Triple Pundit entitled "California Stops Automatic Delivery of White Pages. Will Yellow Pages be Next?":
