While visiting my hometown this weekend, I perused the local paper one morning over coffee. As usual, the front page was smattered not with world news but with pictures of fish being caught and Boise-sponsored events for schoolchildren. Even before turning the page, I remarked at the propaganda of this local paper mill shamelessly promoting itself. I remember during my own elementary years there, Boise representatives would visit the classroom often, to help us plant trees or write papers about how great the paper mill was for our little town. In 5th grade, I even won an essay contest supporting the mill. As soon as I had written my little essay, however, I felt extremely uncomfortable. Even at a young age, I was interested in environmental causes and quickly became skeptical of the paper mill's intents.
What truly made my jaw drop was when I did turn the page and read a rather disturbing editorial entitled, It's Ok to Use Paper. The article maddeningly referred to the environmental movement (which has been going strong for several decades) as mere "buzz" and actually sought to encourage paper usage. A quick line about not being wasteful and noting paper is recyclable felt disingenuous and forced, like fine print disclaimers a lawyer would add to corporate advertising. Such blatant denial of ecological concerns is appalling. I am incredulous that anyone would believe that this "buzz" about reducing paper consumption isn't really necessary and that it's really ok to use as much paper as you need.
The editorial mentions, but does not cite, an article from the Wall Street Journal. I think I found the article it refers to. I was hoping to find more scientific fact in this reference, but it was just another opinion piece. Really the only supporting fact to the argument (which was repeated in the Daily Journal editorial) is: "Thanks to improved forest management, we have more trees in America today than we had 100 years ago." Laughably, this "fact" is not from a scientific journal, but is sourced from an e-mail tagline from "Chuck." This line has been used by the anti-environmental movement for years in an effort to make people feel better about environmental destruction. Even if we assume it is true, there are still problems with it. First of all, 100 years ago was not the beginning of time. 100 years ago, the country was very industrial, there wasn't much of a conservation effort to speak of yet, and deforestation was rampant. Are there more trees now than during the pre-industrial era? No! That would be impossible considering the population growth and urban sprawl over the years.
The kernel of truth in that article is that the industry has been stepping up and re-planting forests. That is great, but the issue is far more complicated than simply a band-aid effort of re-planting trees. Even if trees are re-planted, it's not necessarily the same as it was. It takes years for the trees to grow to that size again. Meanwhile wildlife is displaced, habitats lost, and the re-planted forest grows back in unnatural, awkward rows. Songbird populations have decreased because of this fragmentation of the forests. Trees don't grow in farms the way they would naturally in an untouched forest and tree-farmers often resort to genetically-modified species (a scary practice that has already been banned in Canada).
Beyond the issue of using trees and tree farms, there are a whole host of other threats to the environment and public health that the paper industry is responsible for. The logging of trees for paper, as well as their transport and the transport of finished products like paper require the burning of fossil fuels. The plant itself uses electricity to produce the paper, as well as toxic chemicals to get that lovely shade of chlorine-bleached white that everyone seems to crave. The water and air are so polluted that Boise is constantly at odds with Environmental Protection Agency standards. I was told at the local water treatment plant that the treated sewage being spewed back into Rainy River is far cleaner than what Boise is putting back into the water. Anyone daring to breathe, drink water, or heaven forbid, eat fish there risks health complications.
Locals are quick to support the industry, however, jumping to point out just how many jobs the mill provides, thereby supporting the local economy. But simply citing economics and stating that paper usage keeps local jobs is not a valid defense for using such resources and is missing the point. Worrying about jobs in a small town is like micro-managing. A larger worldview sees the global impact, the environmental concern.
If Boise was a forward-thinking, innovating, socially and ecologically concerned company, they would put more effort into keeping up with the times - and the demands of like-minded consumers instead of pandering to the masses, using marketing tactics to encourage more paper consumption while pretending to care about recycling. They could be on the forefront of the paper industry if they were innovating even more sustainable forestry practices and manufacturing processes that involved less chemicals, thereby being less harmful to the environment. They should be implementing their own recycling processes and collect used paper to be used in recycled products. Instead, they continue to use virgin materials while ironically telling us to recycle. I'm tired of standing by while the air and water of my hometown is being further polluted, friends and family getting sick.
End note:
I have veered slightly off my vegetarian path for just a moment to discuss something other than the life of a vegetarian for 2 reasons. First, the topic at hand further illustrates the attitudes of the hometown where this black sheep was raised. Second, I feel that vegetarianism and environmentalism go hand-in-hand. Many go vegetarian for environmental reasons and they are intrinsically linked as issues of health, conservation, and the betterment of the planet. I by no means wish to offend anyone making a living in that community and welcome comments for discussion.
