There is no escaping the Mobius loop of three chasing arrows these days. Globally, the call for greening is louder than ever, and its proponents many. The skeptics, closet or otherwise, are not few either. (After all, haven't we seen similar green/recycling fever, or fervor, before?)
By now, it's common knowledge that the pulp-and-paper industry is the third largest consumer of fossil fuels and one of the biggest generators of air and water pollutants, waste products and greenhouse gases; and that the inks and toners used by the printing industry are the second largest source of carbon black, a byproduct primarily from the incomplete combustion of petroleum. Efforts to counter the bad press have seen a spate of greening moves and initiatives from publishers such as Thomas Nelson (first green Bible printed on FSC-certified paper), Simon & Schuster (first major publisher with a green publishing policy) and Random House (first certified green office building). Many are adopting the FSC seal in a big way, as Scholastic did for its 12 million copies of the last Harry Potter installment, while others are turning to alternative processes and materials to produce print.
Trouble is, these alternatives usually cost more, and some still produce harmful byproducts. There is hardly any 100% environmental-friendly product or process for the printing industry. What we can do, collectively and realistically, is to choose the lesser evil in terms of VOCs (volatile organic compounds), solvents and biodegradability. Here is a quick rundown on some of the alternatives, and their pros and cons.
Say yes to printable tofu. Naturally low in VOCs, soy and other vegetable-based inks have a clearer base that produces more vibrant colors and less ink build-up on the printing plate, which eases de-inking. Unfortunately, these inks, containing less solvent, take longer to dry on press, often causing set-off and rub-off. These problems worsen with coated stocks. All vegetable-based inks contain some pigments and additives. Ink manufacturers also tend to mix in other types of inks (including petroleum-based ones) to get to the final product. In other words, they are not 100% biodegradable. Price-wise, since black soy ink requires more processes and additives to achieve the dark color, it costs about 25% more than its conventional petroleum-based counterpart.
Usable on various substrates, the more versatile UV (ultraviolet) and EB (electron beam) curable inks contain less solvent and provide excellent adhesion, gloss, and chemical and moisture resistance. By default, the printing technology for using these inks is solvent- and water-free. The inks (or rather the chemicals in the inks and coatings) polymerize and dry into a hard film in the press on light exposure. That hard film, however, hampers de-inking and subsequent recycling of the printed paper. The different technology, equipment and expertise also translate into high investment costs, and potential worker exposure to UV and X-ray energy warrants costly protective gears. Moreover, these inks are about twice as expensive as petroleum-based inks, and they are not recommended for lighter weight stocks.
Used predominantly in screen printing on fabrics, these inks do not contain PVC or phthalates, unlike conventional plastisol inks. But the latter are easy to use and last well, although solvent is required in the cleaning process. Water-based inks, though more environmental-friendly, take much longer to dry, therefore consuming more energy, and they tend to clog up the screen during printing (thus requiring more cleaning and water). These inks are also not as durable or glossy as plastisol types.
This fast-drying water-based protective coating, which is made in-line, offers more economical finishes than traditional varnishing. It also provides far better rub-and-scuff resistance. Although it is not as glossy as the UV kind, it contains less toxic VOCs and emits less, too. Unfortunately, being water-based, there is a tendency for paper curl, especially with thinner stocks. Additionally, the inks may bleed and certain colors, such as rhodamine red, rubine red, reflex blue and violet, may shift upon coating.
It uses 100% nontoxic dry inks or toners and provides standard trim sizes of A4 and A2, which in turn limits paper wastage. The newer digital presses are also much more efficient, consume less electricity, and even boast on-press oil-recycling capabilities that cut imaging oil consumption by half. Further, up to 90% of the machine parts and consumables are recyclable. Better still, the machine costs far less than any conventional offset press. The cons? Limited print sizes aside, digital presses require optimized paper (made for use with the special/electronic inks) that is available only in certain grades. How the paper is “optimized” and the resultant byproducts/chemicals from that process is one big question. As for run length, anything above 2,000 copies would be more economically done by offset. Full-color illustrated publications with, say, spot varnish as well as jobs requiring lightweight, heavy or fancy stock need not apply either.
We now have paper that is 100% PCW (post-consumer waste), PCF (processed chlorine free), FSC-certified and made using renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power. On the downside, the “green” in the pulp is always suspect, especially when the source is southeast Asia, where standards and requirements are often tweaked to suit the mills' agenda. Note that FSC specifies three labels: 100%, Mixed Sources and Recycled. The second category has been under fire since FSC member Asia Pulp & Paper has been openly destroying Indonesia's old-growth forests and endangered species' habitat. FSC auditors have also been long accused of overlooking toxic chemical use or toxic waste generation during the chain-of-custody certification of mills.
Kenaf, abaca, flax, hemp and sisal are sources of tree-free paper. Kenaf is emerging as the best alternative to wood pulp. One acre of kenaf, a plant related to cotton, produces as much fiber in one year as an acre of yellow pine does in 20. Its fiber is also naturally whiter and finer, therefore requiring less bleach and energy to process. Presently, kenaf paper is mostly made into newsprint. Debate on farming of fiber crops vs. food crops aside, seasonal harvesting of huge kenaf farms exacts major wear and tear on the topsoil (unlike with the deep-rooted trees). Usage of fertilizers and pesticides gives plant fiber another big minus.
Made from ground stone and nontoxic resin, rock paper is very eco-friendly. Branded under TerraSkin in the U.S., this water- and tear-resistant paper biodegrades when left out in the sun for about six to nine months. The stone-paper making technology, brainchild of Taiwan LM Technology Co., utilizes a water- and bleach-free production process. Since TerraSkin is basically a fiberless material, it consumes 20%—30% less ink than conventional paper. All Museum of Modern Art stores now use TerraSkin in its retail packaging. Its much higher price tag has restricted its usage to packaging and premium catalog printing. Its overall green value is largely determined by what goes with the eco-friendly paper—the inks, coatings, binding, etc.
Resistant to tear, staining, chemicals and water, durability is the biggest advantage of synthetic paper. But since it is made from plastics, it is highly susceptible to heat damage and requires special inks, and these inks also need longer drying time after printing. Then there are special binding requirements; for instance, stainless steel wire for saddle stitching or rounded die-cut holes for spiral binding. And while it is potentially recyclable (like other plastics), it needs special handling and treatment processes. Aside from the higher costs, the publishing industry hardly wants indestructible books except for some special cases.
At the end of the day, the most important question remains: how much will the “green” in the paper, ink or process affect (or reflect) the black on the bottom line? In the meantime, get used to terms such as “carbon footprint” (the measure of greenhouse gases produced), “carbon emission offset” (reduction in one place that cancels out emission in another) and its industrial-scale sibling, “emissions-trading schemes” and, of course, “sustainability.”
