Tech advances in bleach etc won't be restricted to wood pulp, nor to America and Europe. IMO trees have no future in high quality paper production. I've read assertions that bamboo needs less bleach than wood in the first place, and it would obviously need less less mechanical treatment. Less mechanical treatment means less fuel consumption. There's no American or Euro factory that will rival the efficiency of the Japanese/SEA plant (it's not in China). Nobody's going to build such a factory in the West or Russia, in any imaginable future: Heavy industry belongs to Asia now. Shipment of pulp hither and yon from Canada, Russia, and the US is expensive and wasteful of fuel. Better to grow it near big factories. There's no way to make trees grow pulp as rapidly as bamboo: replanting vegetation that does slow growth (trees) is inherently less productive than replanting weeds (bamboo) which have incredibly rapid growth. Tree growth in the Northern Hemisphere is inherently slower than tree growth near the equator. Canada, Russia, and the US are going to lose paper their paper pulp industries. Most of America's plants are reportedly very old now, and it's hard to imagine Russia or Canada wasting money building new ones, given other more lucrative priorities, such as carbon extraction. In the 80s there was a move to build massive floating pulp factories that would rape the Amazon. Indonesian jungles are being ruined by furniture makers. The last thing we need to see is "advances" in processing of wood pulp.
Message
Re: Printing with less environmental footprint ...?
2007-11-13 by john kelly
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.