Today’s environmental problems, such as climate change, deforestation, and species loss, are so large that it’s easy to become overwhelmed by the scale of the threats. But what if, instead of being intimidated by the scope of the changes needed to create a sustainable society, we focused on a few small-scale changes? Here’s a modest environmental reform that would require little investment but help prevent millions of tons of greenhouse gas emissions a year and protect wildlife: Let’s ban spam.
according to san jose state university’s center for recycling development, an american adult receives 41 pounds of junk mail a year. producing so much paper requires felling between 80 and 100 million trees a year. If left standing, these trees would absorb 1.7 million tons of CO2 per year.
The World Wildlife Fund reports that more than 40 percent of all industrial wood is converted into a paper product, making paper production the second largest use of felled wood after materials. of construction. Clearing virgin forests in places like Indonesia for pulp and paper contributes to global climate change while, at the same time, threatening the integrity of some of the world’s most diverse ecosystems. But the devastation wrought by paper mills in poorer nations is no more destructive than what is happening in the southeastern United States, the world’s leading pulp-producing region.
The net gain in forest cover in the United States over the past century has been used to promote the sustainability of American forestry. But according to a report by the Dogwood Alliance, between 2006 and 2010, the US forestry industry emitted an equivalent of 580 metric tons of CO2, more than the emissions produced each year by commercial and residential buildings. Measured by carbon footprint, logging is five times more damaging to the environment than conversion, forest fires, wind, pests and tree mortality combined. This is because replacing natural forests with monoculture tree plantations creates a carbon deficit. mature trees release about 55 percent of sequestered carbon almost immediately after felling. they are then replaced by fast-growing, short-rotation trees, which are harvested relatively quickly and have low long-term sequestration potential. as such, the usefulness of tree plantations as a carbon sink is greatly overestimated.
A tree plantation not only lacks the climate-stabilizing benefit of a protected natural forest, it also fails to provide habitat for endemic species of plants and animals. “A factory tree farm is not a forest,” said Danna Smith, CEO of the Dogwood Alliance. “We have lost all of our ancient and intact forest landscapes.” Logging has contributed to the decline of many native species, from the North Carolina flying squirrel to the critically endangered red wolf, of which only 40 individuals remain in the wild.
Cutting down trees to make paper has a particularly intense environmental impact, as short-lived paper products have a higher carbon footprint than long-lived wood products such as furniture and hardwood floors. . A 2016 NASA-funded study found that pulpwood production leads to the largest forest carbon release of all wood products.
And one of the shortest-lived paper products is direct mail, also known as “junk mail,” the flood of unsolicited mail like catalogs, promotional materials, and donation requests that clog your mailbox. For most people, these emails produce little value but a lot of hassle. (Who among us hasn’t been inundated with credit card applications we don’t need?) An estimated 44 percent of spam is thrown away unopened.
In the grand scheme of things, spam can be a relatively minor environmental problem. but it is the kind of rare environmental problem for which a solution seems feasible.
“Any policy that prohibits harmful practices is a good thing,” Margaret Klein Salamon, founder and director of Climate Mobilization, told me of the merits of a spam ban. “We need a paradigm shift in environment and climate policy, and banning destructive and wasteful activities is the right approach rather than incentivizing. nothing is more effective.”
salamon compared the idea of banning spam to the recent spate of local government bans on plastic straws and corporate promises to phase out plastic straws. By weight, plastic straws make up just 0.022 percent of plastic waste. However, they have become something of an environmental lightning rod because they are so ubiquitous: In the United States alone, some 500 million straws are used every day, according to one estimate. By targeting something most people don’t really need, plastic straw bans have given anti-plastics activists a way to raise bigger questions about sustainability and waste. As Greenpeace’s Kate Melges told a Seattle news station after the city ordinance went into effect, the straw bans are about “really taking a stand on what needs to happen: a ban on all straw products.” single-use plastic.
Similarly, spam is a small fraction of all paper waste in the United States; Using that figure of 41 pounds of spam per capita per year, direct mail accounts for about 6 percent of annual paper waste in the United States. like straws, spam is unnecessary, even despised. An anti-spam campaign offers a way to address larger questions about paper waste.
But there is a key difference between bans or tariffs on straws and plastic bags and trying to ban spam. Since direct mail goes through, well, the mail, it’s a kind of interstate commerce, and Congress will likely need to put in place any bans or restrictions on spam. and that’s a long shot.
Still, it may be the right time to promote a ban on spam, especially if the ban were placed in the context of the growing demand for privacy rights and the current wave of online data protection that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. If Facebook can’t sell your data to third parties, as some advocates propose, why should data brokers be allowed to sell your name and address without your consent? “Marketing list buying and selling is invasive. We should be able to say no,” said Alan Durning, founder and CEO of the Sightline Institute, a Seattle-based environmental think tank. Durning argued that advertisers have no right to solicit. “The First Amendment protects free speech on matters of public interest, but it does not apply to commercial speech, which is regulated differently,” he said.
durning pointed out that countries such as the netherlands, the united kingdom and canada already have spam restrictions in place. A US policy might follow Canada’s model, where people simply put a “no spam” or “addressed mail only” sticker on their mailbox. another idea is to establish a do not mail registry similar to the do not call registry that was established with great public support and bipartisan backing in 2003.
Until there is some sort of binding national restriction on spam, you can help reduce spam by using a free service like catalogchoice to at least reduce the number of unsolicited catalogs you receive. But, as he discovered during a decade-long crusade to clean out his own mailbox, trying to stop spam on a personal level is a Sisyphean task. Ultimately, “fighting spam as an individual is not practical,” Durning said. “We need policies.”
If a national spam ban seems impossible, remember this: Many people once said the same thing about plastic straw bans.
Editor’s Note/Disclosure: The Sierra Club relies on direct mail marketing for its membership requests and supporters. The organization also insists on the highest sustainability standards for the papers and inks we use in our shipments. the paper used has the highest level of percentage of post-consumer or recycled waste that can be found on the open market, and must be fsc or sfi certified. Envelope windows use a film made from a by-product of wood pulp and are recyclable. The Sierra Club hires printers that use ecological inks, usually soy-based.
In recent years, Sierra Club has also made new investments in recruiting donors and supporters through digital channels such as email and social media, allowing us to avoid using paper. an increasing percentage of our supporters are monthly donors; ongoing support from monthly donors is another way to reduce the need to send direct mail requests.
It is also Sierra Club’s policy to give donors easy opportunities to opt out of having their names and addresses rented or traded with other organizations. These opt-out messages appear on all donation response forms and online donation pages. At any time, Sierra Club members may opt out of receiving future email, mail, or phone communications.