The Green Press Initiative (GPI), of which AAUP is an industry member, makes available a Book Publisher Toolkit, which details steps and guidelines for responsible paper use. The toolkit also features brief case studies from publishers of various sizes, and a breakdown of the various Forest Certification Schemes.
On April 16, the Book Industry Environmental Council (BIEC) announced an ambitious set of goals for the book publishing industry. Called a “global first in publishing,” the council’s goal is a 20% reduction of the industry’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (from a 2006 baseline) and an 80% reduction by 2050. Pete Datos, chair of BIEC’s climate subcommittee and vice president of Hachette Book Group, called the goals “aggressive but achievable,” and predicted they would be precedent-setting for other industries.
To achieve the goals, BIEC indicated that the industry will need to focus on “increasing the use of recycled paper, using paper efficiently, reducing returns, and preventing books from ending up in landfills,” in addition to increasing sustainability in the areas of transportation, energy consumption, and chemicals.
BIEC is coordinated by the Green Press Initiative (GPI) and the Book Industry Study Group, and is comprised of representatives from more than 40 industry stakeholders. Julia Fauci and Brenna McLaughlin are the current AAUP representatives to BIEC.
Read an interview with BIEC members Pete Datos and Todd Pollak.
Harvard University Press and Maple-Vail Join Forces for Debut of Eco-Friendly Printing Process
Meredith Benjamin
Communications Coordinator, AAUP
The Dismal Science, by Stephen Marglin, became the first book published using the new THINKTech™ printing process on June 18. The debut printing was the result of a collaboration between Harvard University Press and Maple-Vail Book Manufacturing Group. Described by Harvard University Press’s Assistant Director for Design and Production, John Walsh, as “one of the biggest things I’ve ever heard of in the printing world in terms of eco-friendliness,” the new technology dramatically reduces the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and eliminates the use of natural-gas-fed ovens.
Maple-Vail has strong ties to the scholarly publishing community and is currently working with 60 university presses. Bill Long, Maple-Vail’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing, explained that they chose to partner with Harvard University Press on this new process because of Harvard’s long-standing relationship with Maple-Vail and their visible commitments to environmental issues and sustainability. Maple-Vail is one of Harvard University Press’s biggest vendors, and Walsh echoed Long’s sentiment in describing the Harvard/Maple-Vail relationship as a “strategic partnership.”
Both Harvard UP and Maple Vail are members of the Green Press Initiative (GPI), and both are signatories to its Industry Treatise for Responsible Paper Use. As an inaugural member of the Book Industry Environmental Council, Maple-Vail was a sponsor of the recent study on the book industry’s carbon footprint (AAUP also sponsored this study). As part of its commitment to GPI, Maple-Vail stocks paper with high post-consumer recycled waste content, which Harvard agreed to use in the printing of The Dismal Science. Walsh described Harvard University Press’s participation in this new printing process as emblematic of their desire to be a part of the leadership of GPI, and said they were thrilled to be asked to participate with Maple-Vail.
Given the current push across industries for green and sustainable business practices, it comes as no surprise that Maple-Vail’s Bill Long cites “strong evidence in the marketplace of an interest in pursuing more eco-friendly book manufacturing alternatives.” Harvard UP knew the initative would be of interest to the university community, and promoted the initiative around campus, where it was subject of a press release and a feature in the weekly Harvard newspaper.
The THINKTech™ process, developed by Maple-Vail and Amerikal Products Corporation, uses a line of sustainable chemistry called Genesis in place of traditional pressroom chemistry. The process greatly reduces use of both natural gas and electricity, as it eliminates the need for gas-fired ovens, chill drums, chill water compressors, electrical pumps, silicone applicators, and electrically powered blowers. Both VOC ink levels and VOC emissions are dramatically reduced, while all federal and state regulated toxins (silicone, federal 313 chemicals and Hazardous Air Pollutants [HAPs]) are eliminated. In addition to these environmental benefits, the technology is also a boon to productivity: it expedites the drying process while improving the quality, producing non-way books that are odor-free.
Both parties were extremely pleased with the outcome of the initial printing. Demonstrating the press’s satisfaction with the results, Walsh said, “I actually passed the book around to people and no one could tell the difference [from the earlier edition].” Following the success of The Dismal Science’s printing, Maple-Vail has been printing a number of both straight text and illustrated titles using the THINKTech™ process. Bill Long explained that, “Maple-Vail is now using the ThinkTech process on a full-time basis on a portion of our web and sheetfed presses. We are in the process of expanding its use across our press platform with a goal to eventually convert the entire pressroom at both of our plant locations to the ThinkTech™ process.” While noting that the decision to use the process lies with the printer, and not the press, Walsh said he would have “no qualms” about this process being used for more Harvard books.
Asked about the choice of The Dismal Science as the book for the initial printing, Walsh explained, “We were looking for a book that connected us back with Harvard University, and [the author] Stephen Marglin is a senior professor in the Economics Department.” Walsh highlighted the press’s desire to connect with the mission of the expansive Harvard Green Campus Initiative set forth by the university and “be out front ourselves.”
Currently the only printer utilizing this new technology, Long said the process creates no additional cost for the customer. Although the ink used in the THINKTech™ process is more expensive, Long explains that this cost is offset by the gains in “decreased waste, higher productivity, and an improvement in print quality.” Long also indicated that he believes this technology will eventually spread beyond book-publishing to the printing industry at large.
For more on the Green Press Initiative and the Book Industry Environmental Council, see past Exchange articles:
“AAUP Participates in Book Industry Environmental Council”
“Publishing’s Carbon Footprint”
By Julia Fauci, Design/Production Manager, Northern Illinois University Press
On June 11 I represented the AAUP at the first meeting of the the Book Industry Environmental Council (BIEC) held at the corporate headquarters of Random House in New York City. Brenna McLaughlin from AAUP also attended. This group was formed at the urging of Tyson Miller of Green Press Initiative, though it is not under his direction. In attendance were a complimentary mix of publishers, paper manufacturers, book printers, and booksellers. Half of the group met around a large conference table, while half attended via phone hook up.
Prior to arriving in New York I queried my fellow AAUP book designers and production managers about what kind of eco-book, forest-friendly logo would work for them when designing and producing university press books. I reproduced this on-line discussion in pdf form and handed it out to my fellow BIEC members. Almost all AAUP designers wanted a line-art logo that did not interfere in the design of the dust jacket but still graphically conveyed a message of environmental certification.
At the BIEC meeting a lively discussion about the book industry’s ecological footprint dominated a large part of the session, with some paper manufacturers maintaining that the books themselves qualified as “carbon sequestration” and should be calculated as offsets to the burning of fossil fuels during paper manufacture. Also discussed were the requirements of a universal BIEC logo and what such a logo’s function and appearance should be. Concerns were raised about “logo bloat” and “greenwashing” where logos cease to advance meaning or educate consumers. The largest number of attendees signed up to be on the Logo Subcommittee, myself included.
The first phone meeting of the logo subcommittee was on July 31st. I was regretfully out of the office and could not attend, but here are the highpoints gleaned from the minutes:
********
Publisher vs Product Certification:
Through consensus it was decided to certify publishers rather than books, making it much easier to verify compliance. A publisher could be audited once a year, rather than verifying thousands of titles. This would allow a publisher to make last minute changes without having to change certification on the title page and jacket.
Scorecard Approach to Certification:
The scorecard approach provides publishers with a ladder of environmental goals to achieve while getting credit for what they are already doing for the environment, giving them credit for the small steps they may have taken. A scorecard approach would involve people from all levels of a company and it could increase and formalize communication between publishers and suppliers.
Proposed changes to Scorecard:
Awarding points for calculating carbon footprint may alienate small publishers that do not have resources to conduct the necessary analysis. Instead, points should be awarded for accomplishments that would have the effect of reducing a company’s carbon footprint such as installing efficient lighting, reducing travel, etc. Relative weighting of transportation should be increased.
Inks would be difficult for publishers to track, as printers may change brand of inks frequently. This info would be especially difficult to track for those printing offshore.
********
If anyone from the AAUP has a query regarding the Book Industry Environmental Council, please contact Julia Fauci, Design/Production Manager, Northern Illinois University Press, 2280 Bethany Road, DeKalb, IL 60115
BISG and the Green Press Initiative Release Environmental Benchmarking Survey
By Brenna McLaughlin, Electronic and Strategic Initiatives Director, AAUP
In 2007, the Book Industry Study Group (BISG) set as one of its research goals the measurement of the U. S. book industry’s environmental impact. Partnering with the Green Press Initiative (GPI) and hiring the Borealis Centre for Environmental and Trade Research, BISG pursued this goal through the development, collection, and analysis of an Environmental Benchmarking Survey. On March 10, 2008, the final report was released, indicating the current carbon footprint of book publishing in the United States, as well as tracking efforts by many publishers and vendors to reduce the climate impact of our work.
The number? The U.S. book industry emits 12.4 million metric tons of carbon per year, or a net 8.85 pounds per book. Steps the industry is beginning to take to reduce this load include increasing the use of recycled or environmentally sustainable papers, reducing overproduction, and reducing office and plant energy use.
The Survey subcommittee and Borealis Centre had two main hurdles to cross in producing this survey and report. The first was simply to understand the extent of publishing activities that needed to be measured. Impacts of forest harvest and paper production were obvious, but then came the related question of how much the stored carbon in printed books offset this. The final calculation of the carbon footprint had to account for every step, from the obvious energy consumption of printing and binding to the less obvious amount of travel and transport involved in the industry, including the shipment of books from manufacturing to warehouse to store to customer, as well as staff business travel.
The second hurdle was obtaining the data from a wide array of industry players. Publishers, paper mills, printers, distributors, and retailers were all targeted, and a total of 104 firms participated in the survey. The survey report notes that a possible limitation was self-selection bias—that is, companies with environmental policies in place might have been more likely to respond to an attempt to benchmark the industry’s environmental impact. However, a significant share of key segments responded, including 45% publishing market share and 24.6% of printing market share.
AAUP members were invited to take part in the survey, and many did so. Several university and scholarly publishers, represented in the AAUP by the members of the Eco-subcommittee of the Design and Production Committee (once the Eco Task Force), have been at the forefront of environmentally sustainable publishing. Eighteen AAUP members are signatories to GPI’s Treatise on Responsible Paper Use.
The full BISG/GPI report, “Environmental Trends and Climate Impact: Findings from the U.S. Book Industry,” is available for sale at the BISG web site. Another useful tool for publishers who wish to pursue environmentally responsible practices has recently been released: In February 2008, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) issued a “Handbook on Paper and the Environment,” a practical guide to issues of sustainability. Sessions on “The Green Challenge” are planned to address these issues at the AAUP annual meeting in Montreal this June.
The Book Industry Study Group (BISG) and the Green Press Initiative (GPI) have launched the first survey of the environmental impact of the full U.S. publishing industry.
AAUP is a supporter and sponsor of this effort. The survey results are scheduled to be published in December 2008.
Read more about the survey: http://www.bisg.org/publications/environmental_benchmarking.html