Going Green ↓

We haven’t done a “green” post in a while so I figured one was overdue. This post is going to be a random string of stats and thoughts.

###

The debate rages on about the direct mail industry not being environmentally-friendly so I thought it would be interesting to reprint some eye-opening stats from the September issue of Deliver Magazine.

Americans generated more than 169 million tons of municipal solid waste in 2007 that was discarded into the stream to be disposed of for recycling efforts or to become part of the nation’s landfills.

According to the EPA, here’s the percentage breakdown of this solid waste:

Food Scraps 18.2%
Yard Trimmings 6.9%
Furniture and Furnishings 5.5%
Corrugated Boxes 4.9%
Clothing and Footwear 4.2%
Glass, Beer and Soft Drink Bottles 3.0%
Newspapers and Magazines 2.3%
Plastic Bags, Sacks and Wraps 2.3%
Disposable Diapers 2.2%
Direct Mail 2.1%

I was pleasantly surprised to see direct mail at the bottom of the breakdown…I was even more surprised to see how much food we waste!

On a side note, I read in DM News that we plant 2 trees for every 1 we cut down to make paper. And we (Ballantine) know from experience with our own network of printers that many are becoming more and more “green” conscious.

So I think things are looking good and getting better. What do you think?

Welcome back. Have you subscribed to our blog's email updates yet? Remember - you also get the free whitepaper pictured left on cutting direct mail costs.

Not only are vegetable based inks (soybeans) more environmentally friendly, but they also offer some additional benefits. Here are some stats about vegetable based inks that we thought you might find interesting:

• Vegetable based inks are naturally low in VOCs.
• As soybeans grow, they remove damaging carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere.
• Almost half of all soybeans produced in the United States do not need irrigation.
• Vegetable based inks have greater rub resistance than petroleum based inks.
• The clarity of soybean oil allows pigments to reach their full potential.
• Vegetable based inks maintain their lithographic stability throughout the entire print run.

Source: St. Ives

We haven’t written a “green” post in a pretty long time, so we felt one was due.

This green post will be about the argument that direct mail is bad for the environment because it requires so many trees. But we’re going to take a look at it from both sides.

In a previous DM News article, there was a column that featured April Smith from the National Wildlife Federation and Robert Muma from National Envelope Corporation. They were both asked, “Will lower direct mail volume save trees”?

Both share some pretty compelling arguments…

April Smith argues that producing direct mail requires a lot of trees. She also contends that the actual manufacturing of paper uses an excessive amount of energy and water, and outputs both greenhouse gases and solid waste. She advises that better targeting, using the best list hygiene available and respecting consumers’ mail preferences can improve environmental performance.

Robert Muma argues that that the production of paper begins with the forest companies that harvest trees and that they plant 4-5 trees for every one they harvest. To back this up, he shares that the US forest inventory has increased by about one-third since 1952. And these trees actually soak up carbon dioxide, an important component in the battle against global warming. 

So who is right?