Life cycle carbon footprint of the National Geographic magazine

CARBON FOOTPRINTING

Abstract

Purpose

Climate change is an urgent and serious global problem. Life cycle assessment methods may be used to evaluate the life cycle carbon footprint of a product, such as the National Geographic magazine. The results of the study provide the publisher and material suppliers with information to reduce life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The study also informs consumers of the GHG emissions associated with the product. The purpose of this study was to document the life cycle carbon footprint of the National Geographic magazine.

Methods

Currently, there is no international standard for conducting a product life cycle carbon footprint. Both the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the World Resources Institute’s Greenhouse Gas Protocol are working to develop standards. The study followed the ISO standards for life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006). The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard also provided guidance.

Results

The study showed that the life cycle of the National Geographic magazine produces about 0.82 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents per life cycle of the average magazine. The amount of GHG emissions per life cycle of each magazine produced is about the same amount of GHG emissions produced by driving an automobile (8.5 km/liter gasoline) for about 3 km.

Discussion

High quality, geographically and temporally representative data for the study were provided by National Geographic, Verso Paper, and Quad Graphics. These data are specific to the magazine life cycle and account for about 88% of the total energy results and about 75% of the total GHG emissions for the entire life cycle of the magazine. The study includes extraction of raw materials from the earth, processing of raw materials, fuels, intermediate products, transportation steps, manufacture of paper, printing, distribution of the magazine, and final disposition.

Conclusions

The results indicate that opportunities for improving the carbon footprint of the magazine are more likely to be found within the manufacturing and printing of the paper. These two steps account for the majority of the greenhouse gas emissions. Including recycled fiber into magazine paper did not improve the carbon footprint of the magazine. Incorporation of groundwood did impact end-of-life emissions from disposal into landfills.

Keywords

Carbon footprint Climate change Global warming potential Greenhouse gas emissions Life cycle Magazines 

References

  1. Achankeng E (2003) Globalization, urbanization and municipal solid waste management in Africa. In: African Studies Association of Australasia and the Pacific 2003 conference proceedings—African on a global stageGoogle Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) Australia‘s environment issues and trendsGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlaz M et al (1997) Biodegradability of municipal solid waste components in laboratory-scale landfills. Environ Sci Technol 31(3):911–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bontoux L (1999) The incineration of waste in Europe: issues and perspectives. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, SevilleGoogle Scholar
  5. Domalski ES, Milne TA (1987) Thermodynamic data for biomass materials and waste components. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Sponsored by the ASME Research Committee on Industrial and Municipal WastesGoogle Scholar
  6. Environment Canada. (April 8, 2009) Waste management, thermal treatmentGoogle Scholar
  7. Estevez P (2003) Management of municipal sold waste in Santiago, Chile: assessing waste-to-energy possibilities. Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Fu Foundation of School of Engineering and Applied Science, Earth Engineering Center, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. European Recovered Paper Council (2007) European Declaration on Paper Recycling, 2006–2010. Monitoring Report 2007Google Scholar
  9. Fire FL (1991) Combustibility of plastics. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hands On TV. Paper profits—Zimbabwe. http://www.tve.org/ho/series4/green_endings_reports/green_endings_mm/paperprofits.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2009
  11. Hincapie I (2007) Solid waste management in Bogota. International Waste Working GroupGoogle Scholar
  12. India Together (2002) Waste or resource? Facts at a glance. http://www.indiatogether.org/environment/articles/wastefact.htm. Accessed 8 April 2009
  13. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (1996) Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1996. IPCCGoogle Scholar
  14. International Standards Organization (ISO). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework, ISO 14044:2006, Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. ISOGoogle Scholar
  15. Ministry for the Environment (2005) Waste management in New Zealand—a decade of progress. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  16. Monteir, JHP (2008) Integrated municipal solid waste manual: In Latin American and Caribbean cities. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), MontevideoGoogle Scholar
  17. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). http://www.nrel.gov/lci/. Accessed March 2008
  18. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ORDEQ) (2004) Life cycle inventory of packaging options for shipment of retail mail-order soft goods. ORDEQ, OregonGoogle Scholar
  19. Paper Recycling Association. http://www.pppc.org/en/2_0/2_4.html. Accessed 8 April 2009
  20. Paper Recycling Association of South Africa. http://www.prasa.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=74. Accessed 8 April 2009
  21. Paper Recycling Promotion Center. Paper Recycling in Japan. http://www.prpc.or.jp/kami-recycling/english-paperrecycling.pdf. Accessed 8 April 2009
  22. Statistics Canada (2006) Waste management industry survey: business and government sectors. Statistics Canada, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  23. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Climate leaders technical resources. http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/resources/index.html. Accessed 15 March 2009
  24. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) Benefits Calculator. http://www.epa.gov/lmop/res/lfge_benefitscalc.xls. Accessed March 2008
  25. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008) Municipal solid waste in the United States: 2007 facts and figures. EPA530-R-08-010Google Scholar
  26. United States Postal Service (2008) The environmental impacts of the mail: initial life cycle inventory model and analysis. USPSGoogle Scholar
  27. World Business Council for Sustainable Development/World Resources Institute (WBCSD/WRI) (2001) Greenhouse gas protocol, a corporate accounting and reporting standard (revised edition).Google Scholar
  28. Ximenesa FA, Gardnerc WD, Cowiea AL (2008) The decomposition of wood products in landfills in Sydney, Australia. Waste Manag 28(11):2344–2355CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harmony Environmental, LLCOlatheUSA

Personalised recommendations