In which no impact man finally finds recycled notebooks

We’re into the third stage of the project—low, sustainable consumption—and I need notebooks in order to work. I tried making some out of pieces of card, paper printed on one side and staples, and I actually used them for a while. But they sucked.

So I start traipsing around the stationers (since buying online means packaging) and no one has recycled notebooks. Not Kate’s Paperie, not anyone. It’s dispiriting. They don’t have them because there is no demand for them. Meanwhile, here in the USA, we cut down a huge number of trees for paper, most of which ends up in the dump (anyone care to comment on what the horrible number actually is?).

Finally, Will Georgiades (two days, two mentions, because he works in the next cubicle at the Writer’s Room) showed me the notebooks he uses, made by the Japanese company Muji from 100% recycled paper. Muji distinguishes itself with its design minimalism, emphasis on recycling, avoidance of waste in production and packaging, and no-logo policy.

But they don’t have a store in New York.

Fortunately, the MoMA Store in Soho carries some Muji stuff. So—Yippee!—I have notebooks again. Of course, even though, they were recycled they were shipped all the way from Japan. Oy vey! You make your choices.

Anybody care to comment on which is worse: virgin paper or shipping from across the planet? Better yet: anybody want to start a recycled paper notebook company in the United States or at least tell me about one that already exists?

 

Comments

[Freaking]

I like that the Japanese notebook has no spiral binding. I use Mead Grad Recycled spiral-bound, which are only 30% PCW but available in every office supply store. Ampad EnviroTech Recycled notebooks, also spiral bound, are 100% PCW. I sometimes find those around.

But, seriously, if you can say you HAD to go to MOMA to buy your writing notebooks, you have more of a story than if you slink into the Office Despot.

Your only friend in Utah.

[megan]

According to Rathje and Murphy's _Rubbish!_, the horrible number is "well over FORTY percent" (emphasis mine). And paper in landfills, even newspaper, doesn't biodegrade. The book is a good resource on everything you ever wanted know about garbage and landfills, if a little out of date. Let me know if you find anything better.

Thanks for the tip on the Muji goods.

[Adam H.L.]

Muji is a wonderful store. I live in Japan now and buy from them regularly. Their name means literally "no seal."

In Japan the packaging situation is far worse. I'm talking about individually plastic wrapped cookies in a plastic tray in a plastic bag. I haven't eaten a snack food in a long long time do to the guilt factor of buying them.

[katherine]

hey, great project and good luck.

i always thought that new york was pretty efficient, then i moved to germany. here, one needs an advanced degree to recycle. outside of my flat sit two bins; organic and plastics/tins, while on the street sit four more for paper and each varietal of wine bottle. with each water bottle or beer you buy, you pay a 'pfand' penalty, reclaimable with return of the empty bottle to the place of purchase.

now if only they would do something about those autobahns...

[sarah]

If you go back to the making-your-own route, I've done it successfully with single-sided printouts by either (a) using a three-hole-puncher and putting them in a three-ring binder or (b) using a gluing machine, which I had access to in college.

[Peter Coy]

Colin,

In a market economy, a good rule of thumb for figuring out what uses the most resources is what costs the most. I'm just guessing here that the Muji notebooks from the MoMA store cost more than generic notebooks from, say, Staples. That is a strong indicator that they consume more resources, not less.

Why would a recycled-paper notebook use more resources? There's the shipping from Japan, which you mentioned. But that's just thte start. Consider all the costs of collecting waste paper, cleaning it, processing it, etc. (Trucks, drivers, machinery, and so on.) Presumably higher expenses for marketing, advertising, store display, etc., which eat up resources. Higher pay for all the highly esthetic people involved in designing and selling the product, from Muji to MoMA. (And those people spend the money they get on stuff that uses resources.)

There are exceptions to the check-the-price rule of thumb, of course. They often involve some kind of failure of government--as when virgin tropical rainforests are illegally or semi-illegally exploited for low-value wood and paper products. But for the most part, when markets are working, if you look at the big picture, the lowest-priced product is the one that uses the fewest resources.

[Colin Beavan]

Hi Peter--
Thanks so much for commenting. I don't know much about economics but my new favorite word from your field is "externality"--which I gather is something that should be considered in the cost of a product or service but is not, so it leads to failure of the market to correctly evaluate its price.

Hence, if recycled paper costs more than virgin paper, it may be because externalities are not considered. In the case of paper products, the many services that trees provide to the environment are not included in the cost of virgin paper--externalities--like cycling water deeper into the forest, providing habitat for threatened species, absorbing carbon dioxide. The fact that we destroy these services when we cut down trees for paper--a lot of which comes from the Amazon--is not accounted for in the price of virgin paper. So, price as an indicator of resource use is not so good here.

Another simple consumer example is plastic bags. They cost less than pennies. My reusable cotton bag costs three dollars. But did you know that one percent of the trillion bags a year used end up as pollution on our land, in our rivers and in the oceans? A study of dead sea turtles off the coast of Long Island showed that most of them had died of plastic impacted in their stomachs. This is why countries like Ireland and others have taxed plastic bags out of use. Their market price didn't reflect their real price. Back to my favorite economics term again--externalities.

Personally, I think there is a problem with our national obsession with economics. Sometimes we navigate by economic science, which should be just a road map, when reality is right in front of our noses. In other words, sometimes we try to make reality fit the theories.

Sometimes--if not often--common sense applies more readily. Try to avoid killing trees applies here. Intuitively, most people already understand this. I LIKE TREES! That's why I buy the more expensive Muji notebook. And yes, I know I'm a soppy idealist to look at it that way.

I should also add, the paper, recylced or not, uses resources, which is why I am trying to work as paperlessly as possible.

I really appreciate your commenting and I would be really glad to have you pick holes in my logic. I'm interested in what economists have to say about all this.
All the best,
Colin aka No Impact Man

[Peter Coy]

Dear Colin aka N.I.M.,

Excellent point. Prices don't reflect true costs when externalities are involved. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned cutting down the tropical forests. I appreciate your example of plastic bags being found in the stomachs of dead sea turtles (not Dead Sea turtles, as my wife read it at first).

The question is, what's the answer? Sticking with plastic bags: Should we ban them? I don't think so. There are a lot of good things about plastic bags. They're cheap to make, strong for their weight, etc. The answer is to change the prices of plastic bags so that they DO reflect total costs, including the environmental externalities.

Ireland, which you mentioned, has the right idea. It didn't ban plastic bags. Instead, it put a 15 euro cent tax on them. Because of the tax, consumption of plastic bags has dropped more than 90%. Note: Not 100%. The people who are still using plastic bags even with the tax must value them a whole lot. I'm glad they still have the opportunity to use them under Irish law.

The Irish tax is going up to 22 euro cents on July 1. I'm not sure what the right figure is. That would require detailed knowledge about how much harm the bags are doing and the costs of fixing the damage. But let's say 22 euro cents (about 29c in American money) is really the right amount. I would have a clear conscience about buying one of those heavily taxed bags, knowing that I was paying my fair share to avoid or remediate any harm it caused after leaving my hands.

One other thought: I don't have any problem with "killing" trees to make notebooks. To me, growing trees and then cutting them down for paper or lumber is just as ethically defensible as growing wheat or soybeans and cutting them down for food. (Rare and endangered species of trees are obviously an exception.)

Oh, and although I talk to economists every day, I'm not one myself. But thanks for thinking so.

Yours,

Peter

[Colin Beavan]

Hi Peter--
Just one last thought on killing trees for notebooks. I have no problem with growing trees and then cutting them down either, if that's what we did. That would be sustainable. The problem is that we do an awful lot of the cutting down part and not so much of the growing part. At the same time, some 40% of what goes to the dump is paper. Why not reuse that paper to make recycled notebook and show a little more respect for our planet's resources.
Thanks again for posting.
Colin

[Emanuel Feld]

Hi Colin,

Firstly, I would like you to know that Muji is going to open a store in the New York Times building this year!
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/03/muji-new-york.php

Secondly, I'll explain my view on recycled paper. I have learned that recycling paper can be harmful (chemicals are needed to lift off the inks, some recycled paper is bleached in the end, the vehicles transporting the paper pollute). Yet, I continue to buy recycled paper because the bleaching issue can be easily bypassed by not buying bleached paper and because if more and more people recycle their paper goods, then the technology has to improve and recycling facilities will be built closer to each of the communities.

Anyhow, great job! I cannot even turn off my mother's computer when not in use without her ranting about it to my father!

[robin]

Oh, I so know this problem! When I lived in France, I bought these amazing recycled-paper notebooks at the local grocery. And then, for the first year I was back in the states, I'd bring back stacks whenever I visited. Sadly though, they seem to have disappeared even from the monoprix, and I am now in the same position as you: in search of local-ish, unpackaged, recycled notebooks. (though i'm not in a hurry -- i'm still working my way through my stash.) good luck.

[Christina Moran]

Green Field Paper Company makes tree-free products like printer paper, notebooks and artists papers out of recycled paper and hemp :)

[emma]

Have you checked out five and a half? It's a small business making handmade notebooks from recycled materials.