Why use toilet paper? No need to flush our forests

This post now on the syndicated BasilandSpice and on Google News.

Toilet in Malaysia with personal sprayer instead of toilet paper. Photo by Sally Kneidel

We're facing mass wildlife extinctions this century. One big reason: the human population explosion and resulting habitat loss.

You might be surprised to learn how our personal hygiene choices affect wildlife-habitat loss. I was.

Americans flush 54 million trees per year. We're #1!
According to the WWF, almost 270,000 trees are either dumped in landfills or flushed every single day.  About 10% of that total is toilet paper.  Since Americans lead the pack in resource consumption, it's no surprise that we also use more toilet paper than anyone else.  In 2005, North American consumption of toilet paper was 23 kg per capita - 6 times more than the world average of 3.8 kg per capita. Africa had the lowest use in 2005, at 0.4 kg per capita.

Trees on their way to pulp mills or sawmills. Photo by Sally Kneidel

Trees of the Amazon, Southeast Asia, the Pacific Northwest and the southeastern US have been targeted by the pulp and timber industry for decades, but now the boreal forests of Russia, Alaska, Canada, and Scandinavia face the growing threat of chainsaws. According to an online magazine World Science, these boreal forests are 1/3 of the world's remaining forested area and 1/3 of the world's stored carbon. Yet the NGO Forest Ethics reports that Canada's old-growth and intact forests are being logged at a rate of 5 acres/minute, 24/7.

China plans to drape itself in tree plantations for paper
North America's rate of toilet paper consumption is stable, but the rate is increasing almost everywhere else, as developing countries aspire to Western ways. Between 1990 and 2003, China's consumption of toilet paper grew by 11%.  China is projected to become the fastest-growing consumer of all paper products, including toilet paper, and will soon lead the world in paper production as well.  Unfortunately most of China's future paper will come from tree plantations. I say unfortunately because tree plantations are generally non-native monocultures, managed with pesticides and consequently devoid of other plants and wildlife. They are biodiversity deserts. China's "Great Green Wall" initiative aims to blanket the country with tree plantations, covering 42% of China's landmass by the year 2050 with tree species that will produce usable fibers.  Many of those trees will be planted in semi-desert areas where they will deplete already-dwindling water supplies.

 

Great choice for toilet paper, 90% post-consumer-recycled. Photo by Sally Kneidel

Solution #1: Post-consumer recycled paper
Toilet paper can easily be made from at least 90% post-consumer recycled paper. Most companies just don't bother to do it, apparently. Kimberley-Clark is the largest tissue manufacturer in the world. Their products are sold in 150 countries and their tissue is used by almost 20% of the world's population every day.  With so large a market, KC could save a great many forest habitats by making their products with recycled paper. Yet, according to Noelle Robbins' excellent research for Worldwatch, Kimberley-Clark claims there is no advantage to using recycled paper. And so their tissue is made from virgin wood fibers. KC is not alone. There's little effort among toilet paper companies to change consumer preferences to more forest-friendly products.

Still, consumers can buy toilet paper made from recycled paper.Marcal makes tissue from recycled office paper, magazines and paper from residential recycle bins.  Tim Spring, CEO of Marcal, says "Sixty percent of all paper ends up in landfills....We throw away enough paper to make toilet paper for a lifetime."  According to Marcal's website, the company has saved 22 million trees since 2000 by using recycled paper.

My local supermarket does not carry Marcal.  They do however carry toilet tissue called "Green Forest" manufactured by Planet Inc., in Victoria, B.C., Canada.  The package says that it is "Minimum 90% post-consumer recycled content."   If you're looking for recycled, the words "post-consumer" are important.  Because manufacturers can and do claim "recycled" when all they've done is trim the uneven ends off their newly manufactured paper and throw the ends back into the vat of wood pulp to be stirred up and rolled flat again. Whereas "post-consumer recycled" (PCR) means that the paper was previously used by a consumer, as office paper or newspaper or whatever.(Toilet paper is the only paper that cannot be recycled, after use, into new paper.)

Great online guide to forest-friendly toilet paper
The Natural Resources Defense Council has a great Shopper's Guide to Home Tissue Products that lists the percent post-consumer-recycled content of 10 to 19 brands in each category of home tissues (toilet paper, paper towels, napkins, facial tissues) and recommends which brands to avoid altogether (Charmin, Cottonelle, Kleenex, Puffs, Bounty, Viva).  Very useful. I was interested to see that Green Forest is actually the best.  The next-best brands of toilet paper listed are 80% PCR.

Solution #2: We learned in Asia that water works better than paper!
During the time I spent recently in two predominately Muslim countries, I was intrigued by the use of water instead of toilet paper throughout these countries. My husband and I were perplexed at first when we found that almost every bathroom we encountered in Malaysia and Indonesia had a bucket of water with a scoop floating on the water. I'm still not sure exactly what that was for, except that it had to do with the hygiene requirements of Islam. We didn't use the buckets, as we're not Muslim.

Bucket and scoop under faucet, bathroom on Indonesian island of Sumatra.  Photo by Sally Kneidel

But most bathrooms also had a hose coming out of the wall next to the toilet, even if the toilet was the kind where you have to squat over a porcelain hole in the floor.

 

 Toilet with personal sprayer, no paper, at a Singapore restaurant. Photo by Sally Kneidel

Sometimes the hose had a simple nozzle or a nozzle with a squeeze handle, similar to those many Americans have at the kitchen sink. (Photo at top of post shows nozzle with squeeze handle.)

Toilet with hose and simple nozzle in Malaysia. Photo by Sally Kneidel

Bathrooms with hoses generally did not have toilet paper.  It's customary to use the hose and sprayer instead. After a few weeks, we came to prefer the sprayer to paper.  Later, in Tokyo, we saw the ultimate technology in the use of water for personal cleaning - the "Washlet." The toilet itself squirts a stream of aerated clean water on the user (from the underside of the toilet seat at the back) and has a blow-drying system as well!

Sign indicating a Washlet, on a Tokyo bathroom door. Photo by Sally Kneidel

If only the whole world would use water...
Ecologically, using water is a great solution. According to a quotation in the Worldwatch document cited below, the production of each roll of toilet paper uses 37 gallons (140 liters) of water. The average American uses 57 sheets of toilet paper per day, which requires 3.7 gallons of water just for the manufacturing process. Compare this to 0.03 gallons (0.01 liter) per use of the Japanese Washlet. Various hand-held squirt devices are estimated to use from 0.2 to 0.5 liters per toilet visit.

But even if, hypothetically, the squirting-water methods used the same amount of water as the manufacturing of toilet paper, they don't require the harvesting of trees. And the harvesting of trees at a non-renewable rate is the big problem with our reliance on toilet paper. The overharvesting of trees, or deforestation, is destroying wildlife habitats at an unprecedented rate. We've got to stop it within just the next couple of decades, before it's too late for tigers and orangutans and all the other wild and wonderful critters on this planet.

Squirting devices are hygienic too
Personal washing devices are not only more forest-friendly, they're also promoted as hygienic improvements over the rags, leaves, corn cobs, newspapers, and other items used in many developing countries - methods that often contribute to diarrhea and other health problems associated with poor sanitation. The Worldwatch article cited below describes several water-squirters for bathroom hygiene that can be used in areas without plumbing, such as the Tjebbi - a portable plastic bottle.  It's produced by Tjebok Health Care.

Nozzles please
We're having some plumbing work done on a very old house we bought last spring. We plan to install in both bathrooms a hose and nozzle like the ones so prevalent in Southeast Asia. Maybe we'll stop consumption of home tissues (toilet paper, paper towels, paper napkins, facial tissues) altogether. I like that idea.

To learn how you can encourage sustainable forestry practices and protect forest wildlife, check out these NGOs:
Worldwatch Institute

Earth Pulp and Paper

ForestEthics

Natural Resources Defense Council

Greenpeace International

Rainforest Action Network

Dogwood Alliance

TRAFFIC: the wildlife trade monitoring network

A major source for this post:
Noelle Robbins. "Flushing forests." Worldwatch Institute. June 2010.

Some of my previous posts about deforestation:
Orangutans dwindle as Borneo, Sumatra converted to palm-oil plantations
Wild tigers are in trouble
Plush toilet paper flushes old forests.

Key words: toilet paper Worldwatch Institute World Watch Institute deforestation Southeast Asia forest products Noelle Robbins Flushing Forests

Livestock account for 51% of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions

All photos and text by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com and veggierevolution.blogspot.com

  Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

I read an article today that blew my socks off - it may be the most significant article I've ever read.  It's online and in the Nov/Dec 2009 print issue of Worldwatch, a publication of Worldwatch Institute - a widely respected think-tank and environmental advocacy organization. The article is entitled "Livestock and Climate Change" (see "Sources" at end of this post).

I've spoken widely, written numerous articles and two books on the subject of the environmental impact of raising and transporting livestock. (See a list my books and blog posts on this topic, below.)  Three or four years ago, I was very excited when the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization published "Livestock's Long Shadow" - a scientific document whose authors demonstrated that the livestock sector contributes at least 18% of  greenhouse-gas emissions. They concluded that livestock contribute more to climate change than even the transportation sector does.  I can't count how many times I've quoted that publication, more than 400 pages long, and available on the internet.

This new study goes beyond “Livestock’s Long Shadow”
But this article from Worldwatch Institute goes way beyond the UN's FAO article, and very creditably so. The authors, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, examined the FAO data carefully and explain why their own measurements are more comprehensive and more current than those of the FAO authors. I see no weak spots in these new calculations, they are merely updates to account for the passage of time and our growing population and growing global meat consumption, as well as corrections of omissions in the older FAO article. I have good faith in their carefully detailed figures. I hope to God they're right in their suggestions for solutions.

I'm not going to recount all the new calculations and corrections here, but I will give a couple of examples. First, the FAO's calculations are based on 2002 data, but the tonnage of livestock products between 2002 and 2009 has increased 12%, with a proportionate increase in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG).  Secondly, "Livestock's Long Shadow" reports that 33 million tons of poultry were produced worldwide in 2002, but the FAO's "Food Outlook" corrected that figure, which was actually 72.9 million tons of poultry produced  in 2002.  The authors of the new article describe several underestimates in "Livestock's Long Shadow" such as these, which have a cumulative effect.

As mentioned above, the new Worldwatch document also points out numerous omissions from the original FAO publication, "Livestock's Long Shadow".  For example, the FAO failed to include GHG emissions from
(1) the disposal of livestock waste (feces, urine, bone, fat, spoiled products) all of which emit high amounts of GHG, and (2) fluorocarbons (used for cooling livestock products more than alternatives) which have a global warming potential up to several thousand times higher than that of CO2.  Those are just a couple of examples.

Noting governments' failures, Worldwatch proposes new solutions

I liked that the article ended with several pages of solutions. The authors pointed out that governments have been largely ineffective in developing renewable energy and energy efficiency. GHG emissions have actually increased since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1992, and climate change has since that time accelerated. The authors Goodland and Anhang offer suggestions that would achieve at least a 25% reduction in livestock products worldwide between now and 2017. This would yield a minimum 12.5 % reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, which would by itself be almost as much as is generally expected to be negotiated at the U.N.'s climate conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

Analogs are tasty!  Who needs flesh?

The suggestions of Goodland and Anhang (for Worldwatch) focus on businesses rather governments. They point out that consumers listening to food marketing are listening for words that evoke "comfort, familiarity, happiness, ease, speed, low price, and popularity." Based on that, the authors outline a marketing plan whereby food companies can succeed by marketing "meat and dairy analogs" alongside traditional animal products in grocery stores. Analogs are products such soy- and seitan (wheat gluten) imitation beef, chicken and pork products, as well as soy- and rice milk, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream.  "Analogs are less expensive, less wasteful, easier to cook, and healthier than livestock products," they write. Meat and dairy analogs can be positioned in stores, and through marketing, as "clearly superior to livestock products, thus appealing to the same consumer urges that drive purchases of other analog products, such as Rolex knockoffs".  By replacing livestock products with analogs, "consumers can take a powerful action collectively to mitigate most GHGs worldwide.  Labeling analogs with certified claims of GHGs averted can give them a significant edge."

Sounds good to me! Since Ken and I both work, and I have two jobs, we consume a fair amount of pre-made "analogs" such as Morningstar Farms "chik" patties and chik nuggets and Tofurkey sausage or kielbasa, as well as soy milk, soy yogurt, using ground flax seeds to replace eggs in baking, and so on. We've been doing this for years and I never ever miss meat. I did eat one real chicken nugget a few years ago to test the difference, and found it disgustingly greasy and and containing recognizable animal tissues such as little veins and connective tissue.  After years of eating yummy soy-based imitation chicken patties, the real thing was akin to eating  road-kill.

 Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

I encourage you to read Goodland's and Anhang's article from Worldwatch, available on the internet. To me, their proposal sounds clearly like the easiest and most realistic scheme yet for quickly and drastically reducing the world's GHG emissions, and possibly averting dramatic climate change. Should that change continue unabated as it is now, new climate patterns will destroy wildlife habitat the world over, destroy essential agricultural areas by altering rainfall, cause famine and create climate refuges from developing nations, raise sea levels, and lead to mass wildlife extinctions that humans have never before witnessed.

Roll the article up with a ribbon for the perfect holiday gift!

Read this important Worldwatch article and forward it to your friends. Or print it out and tack it on the bulletin board at work. Include it in your holiday greeting cards!  Or make a nice little cover for it, and give as a holiday gift to those whose future matters most to you.

by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Sources:
Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang. "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key factors in climate change are cows, pigs, and chickens?" Worldwatch 22(6):10-19. Nov/Dec 2009.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental issues and options." Rome, 2006.

My books on this topic:
Veggie Revolution: Smart Choices for a Healthy Body and a Healthy Planet. 2005. Sally and Sadie Kneidel. Fulcrum Books.

Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. 2008. Sally and Sadie Kneidel. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my prior posts on this topic:
"New study: meat impacts climate more than buying local"  May 23, 2008 on Veggie Revolution blog

"Less meat....smaller footprint"  Feb 6, 2009 on Veggie Revolution blog 

"Is local food the greenest choice?  New study says no"  May 14, 2009 on Veggie Revolution blog

"Earth Day: 3 things you can do"  April 22, 2007 on Veggie Revolution blog

"An apple? Bran muffin? or cold cereal?  Top ten sources of easy fiber" Sept 14, 2007on Veggie Revolution blog

"10 hot tips for a green and energy-efficient holiday." Oct 10, 2008 on Veggie Revolution blog


"Obama to fight consolidation of farms: good news for small farms and consumers"  Aug 21, 2009 on Veggie Revolution blog

"Smithfield blamed for swine flu by Mexican press"  April 29, 2009 on Veggie Revolution blog

"The virus is a swine flu and has its roots in North Carolina, the land of Smithfield"  May 2, 2009 on Veggie Revolution blog

"Tyson and Smithfield drooling over untapped profits abroad" March 20, 2006 on Veggie Revolution blog

"Working in a turkey insemination factory"  Nov 20, 2008 on Veggie Revolution blog

"A tasty vegan meat substitute: Tofurkey kielbasa" June 10, 2009 on Veggie Revolution blog

Key words:: climate change livestock and climate change Worldwatch Institute 51% of climate change Robert Goodland Jeff Anhang