Give then noise about the paper mill planned to be built by Gunns in the Tamar Valley Tasmania, I was interested to read a report published in May by Access Economics on paper and the environment.
Commissioned by representatives of Double A paper, the study analysed the environmental impact of major paper manufacturers around the world. The report lauds Double A paper as being environmentally sound:
Considering a wide range of environmental issues relating to paper manufacturing, Access Economics estimates the environmental cost of Double A paper to be just over $16 per tonne (or 4 cents a ream). This compares with a cost of $80 per tonne for a leading brand of Australian copy paper (see table and chart below).
Double A’s environmental advantage lies in its pulp sourcing (from farmed eucalyptus trees grown by farmers along the edges of rice plantations) and its ability to be self-sufficient in energy via its carbon-neutral biomass-fuelled electricity generating plant. In addition, waste water is treated by ‘extended aeration activated sludge’ process and recycled to irrigate trees and to cool the power plant without discharging into public water sources. Moreover, high
rainfall in Thailand means that the opportunity cost of water used in the paper making process is relatively low. As such, Double A outperformed recycled paper from the United Kingdom, and its European and Finnish counterparts.
I’m please to read this because Double A is the premier brand of paper we stock in my newsagency.
While I am against the Gunns paper mill, this report from Access Economics brings the issue of paper back to consumer choice. What we feed into our printers every day is as important an environmental decision as whether the mill is built. It is why I will continue to support Double A paper.