Recycling paper has become a regular activity of modern life–a good habit that seems second nature to most of us by now. Even big business has embraced it, judging from the shelves and catalogs of the major office supply outlets. They have wisely realized that there is money in being “green.” Environmentally conscious consumers can now choose from a wide selection of copying and printing papers with anywhere from 35% to 100% recycled content.

But is this enough? The computer age was supposed to usher in the “paperless” society, but that’s just not our reality. Filing cabinets still bulge with paper and people will continue to print hard copies of e-mails and other documents for the purpose of verification, backup and security. In fact, we are consuming more paper than ever before, recycled or otherwise. And we will continue to voraciously consume paper in the future: it is estimated that world demand of pulp and paper will rise to 620 million tons by the year 2010.

So can we do better? History, actually, tells us that we can. In fact, we North Americans have taken the notion of paper from trees for granted and rarely think that there are other proven sources (and technologies) for making paper. We can take a step beyond recycling–as necessary and as important as that is–even beyond the progressive and ethical policies that protect old growth forests from exploitation. We can begin to seriously consider other ways of producing paper and one of those time-honored ways is paper from plant fiber, not wood pulp. A number of plant fibers are poised to be our next alternative paper: ramie, jute, hemp, flax and kenaf.

I first saw a greeting card made from kenaf about five years ago. I bought the card for the gorgeous graphics, but I later sought out this greeting card line for the intrinsic quality and beauty of its paper. The weight, colour and feel of the card rivaled that of any high-end, non-recycled, glossy card stock on the market. And now five years later, this card has not yellowed or discolored in any way. It is still as exquisite as the day I bought it. It is 100% tree-free paper. It was made from kenaf.

Kenaf was news to me, but there is nothing new about kenaf. Kenaf was long used for pulp production in Bengal and came to the attention of the West probably in the late 19th century when it was noted in the Dictionary of the Economic Plants of India as a strong fiber, superior in strength to even the paper from which the Bank of England notes were made. Generally speaking, non-wood plant fibers have been used to make paper for centuries. Today, kenaf, jute and other similar fibers are cultivated in southeast Asia and the Far East. Many farmers in Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Nepal and Thailand depend on these fiber crops for their living.

Kenaf is a short-day, high-yield plant that is West African in origin, which means, of course, that it requires warmth and sunshine. It has specific sowing times and a long growing period–the kenaf seeds usually require an additional 60-90 frost-free days to reach maturity in order to germinate. With its specific climatic requirements, its planting range is somewhat limited; however, there are regions in temperate zones where kenaf can be cultivated. In the United States the cultivation of kenaf is not only a possibility, it is already a reality. Kenaf can grow in areas that traditionally grow cotton and tobacco. It is currently being cultivated in Texas, Louisiana and New Mexico.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) began research on kenaf as early as 1940, and twenty years later in 1960, the kenaf plant was selected from 500 other plants as the most promising non-wood fiber alternative for the manufacture of paper. By 1986, the USDA and Kenaf International, a joint venture company, had initiated the Kenaf Demonstration Project. The objective was to show that kenaf pulp was a viable alternative to wood pulp. In terms of cost-efficiency, quality and usefulness kenaf aced the test when a year later the project successfully proved its point: 82% kenaf (18% bleached) newsprint was tested at four American newspapers. Making commercially viable paper out of kenaf was indeed possible. While kenaf had been traditionally used for packing and sacking material, it was becoming increasingly clear that it made a fine paper alternative too: newsprint, high-quality writing paper and specialty papers can all be made from kenaf.

A 1993 article appeared in E: Environmental Magazine with the optimistic title, “Tree Free by 1993?” Fast forward to 2007. Kenaf is still not a household name. Recycling is king, not kenaf–nor any of the other plant fiber alternatives to wood pulping for that matter. We recycle, but we pay very little attention to finding the ultimate alternative to using trees for making paper products. There has been very little progress in telling the world about this crop and its myriad uses. And that’s a real shame because the benefits derived from growing, distributing and making paper products out of kenaf are so obvious that even consumers who are not specialists or researchers cannot dispute them. Nowadays, there is an even greater urgency to find the best possible solutions to our ever-worsening environmental situation. Just as alternatives to fossil fuels are being aggressively researched, alternatives to wood pulping for paper products must also be pursued with equal commitment. Funding, governmental support, and raising awareness that could change attitudes, perspectives and habits are all required now.

What makes kenaf such an attractive choice? The reasons are numerous. First, as a crop plant that can be grown and harvested annually, the biological efficiency of kenaf is superior to the forest-based supply chain that begins with tree propagation and ends years later with logging. Simply put, using kenaf as the raw material instead of wood pulp will reduce the overall cost of making paper from the outset. Second, the actual pulping process for kenaf is more environmentally friendly: hydrogen peroxide is used for the bleaching process as opposed to the more harmful substance, chlorine, which is required to brighten pulp derived from wood. Furthermore, the kenaf pulping process uses less energy (about 30%), mainly because kenaf has a lower lignin content than wood. Less pressure and less heat are needed to break it down. But this low lignin content offers up yet another environmental bonus: smaller amounts of chemical are actually required to bleach the kenaf pulp. This is good news all around, especially for our lakes, rivers and streams.

And as if the above reasons were not enough, kenaf, despite its limited growing range in northern climes, can be grown all year in tropical areas or become a “summer” crop in temperate and sub-tropical zones. It also prospers in a variety of soils, so on a global scale, kenaf has the potential of being produced regularly and abundantly to sustain a constant supply should it become more in demand. In addition to all of these positive reasons, it has been reported that the conversion of existing mills to kenaf paper producing mills can be carried out with reasonable ease. And since kenaf can be blended with either recycled paper or even virgin pulp, conversions can be transitional and phased over time.

So why is kenaf–not to mention jute, ramie, flax and hemp–still not widely used as an alternative to papermaking from wood? While some cite issues surrounding the growing season, maintaining a constant supply, transportation, storage, and financing among other “real world” issues that often hamper the process of taking inventions and new techniques from theory to practice, the biggest obstacle is perhaps the lack of public awareness. Environmentalists have long been dismissed as alarmists, and getting the message out about viable, sustainable alternatives to our current consumption habits has been an uphill battle for decades. Witness how only recently, after one of the hottest years on record, and only after a frightening and undeniable statement made by the world’s scientific community, the subject of environmental degradation has become an issue in mainstream media.

Shockingly, many people are still not aware that wood and wood products come from living forests! From the clear-cutting of huge tracts of forests to the poisoning of the streams and rivers with dioxin and chlorine run-off from paper mills, making paper from wood just doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially in this day and age. If people were aware that they could have a high quality paper product that would not yellow or become brittle with age, that could be made cheaply and would do less harm to the environment to boot, real changes might begin to rumble through the papermaking industry. The word needs to be spread. The idea has to take hold. People need to be educated first, and then encouraged to act on their knowledge and convictions.

Today, research continues in a number of countries as organizations and industries explore the ramifications of kenaf cultivation, pulping and paper production. In the United States companies making 100% kenaf, tree-free, chlorine-free, and acid-free paper, or creating products from these environmentally friendly alternatives have been springing up. With a little bit of effort a consumer who wants to buy “green” can now find paper, stationery, greeting cards, and a host of other products all made from 100% kenaf.

In June of this year, the 2007 Symposium on Kenaf and Allied Fibres takes place in Xiamen, China. It is hoped that this gathering will not only draw the scientific and agricultural community but also forward-thinking entrepreneurs and marketers who can find interesting and innovative ways to spread the word about kenaf.

But it’s not just the entrepreneurs or the marketing gurus who affect change. As consumers we have it in our power to ask questions and make demands. It also rests with us, and the more aware we are of the alternatives that can truly offer us sustainable living, the more we can contribute to the conversation about saving our planet’s resources. The next time you are shopping for paper, why not just ask “So, do you have this in kenaf?”

The scope of this paper has not been able to deal with many of the complexities of the topic. For more information about kenaf and alternative tree-free papers, a quick search on Google will lead you to a number of sites and links that can provide the latest research, facts and figures, even where to buy these alternative products. The American Kenaf Society’s website is a good place to start learning about kenaf.

Victoria White

Victoria owns and operates The Virtual Writer (Canada). The state of the environment has long been a topic of concern for her. In fact, her main reason for going “virtual” was to conserve energy and help the planet by being “one less commuter on our already car-clogged highways.”

Please Note... All links within articles are placed by their author-owners and not by this blog.Products with in those links may or may not be the best in the world.If it sounds too good to be true it could be a scam.Articles are posted for their info,ideas and or entertainment value only.

Powered By WP Footer

Deforestation has been a huge controversy with environmentalists. Many people argue the benefits of deforestation, but they look past the negative effects it does have. People who support deforestation may explore the economic benefits of deforestation. Deforestation may have economic benefits, but despite that, the negatives greatly outweigh the positives. Deforestation destroys natural habitats for animals. When a species’ natural habitat is gone, it becomes hard for that species to adapt- causing extinction. The ultimate result of deforestation is a major decrease in biodiversity.

In the article, Benefits of Deforestation, Nathalie Fiset mainly focuses on the economic benefits of deforestation. She claims that lumber products are one of the most stable constructive materials in human society, and that humans cannot live without lumber products (Fiset). That is true to a certain extent, but we are evolving into a paperless society. Nowadays, almost everything is run electronically. For example, people can pay almost any bill online now; there is no paper involved in that. Also, when people vote, they do it electronically. There are no more paper ballots. There is no reason to have to cut down so many trees when the human society is learning to live without paper products. Most paper companies today use recycled materials, not trees.

Another point that Fiset makes is that deforestation can create many jobs. She states that when environmentalists go against deforestation, it causes many people working with lumber products to lose those jobs (Fiset). When deforestation is looked at in perspective, is it really worth it? People can always get up and find another job. When these people destroy the homes of millions, those animals have nowhere else to go. It is harder for animals to just go find a new home. It takes generations to adapt to new surroundings. When these workers lose their jobs there are many eco-friendly jobs that these workers could go into. For example, they could monitor the forests and wildlife instead of cutting down trees and destroying natural habitats. Another job alternative is to work for a paper recycling company. Instead of cutting down trees, they can be saving trees by recycling used paper. Instead of destroying natural habitats, these workers could be working for a company that stands for something good.

Fiset believes that when companies destroy a forest that they can easily make up for what they lost by planting more trees in the place of old ones (Fiset). When lumberjacks cut down trees, they cannot simply just plant more trees and leave it at that. In one single forest there are various types of trees and it takes hundreds of years to create a voluminous forest that largely supports biodiversity and all the wildlife residing in it. Usually when forests are destroyed, companies plants only one or two species of trees to make up for what they removed. Certain animals need a specific tree to live or raise a family. When humans plant only one single tree, it might be hard for them to adapt, ultimately causing extinction. When natural habitats are demolished to nothing most animals get killed in the process or some of them flee. When the animals return, however, their home is completely gone. For example, many birds that had nests in the different species of trees that were destroyed, now has to raise its family in an open field just asking for a predator to eat this birds offspring. This happens because they cannot adapt quickly enough to support themselves in this new tree. When a species goes extinct, there is no going back. Once they are gone, they are gone for good.

The last claim she makes is that destroying forests could help find more natural resources, such as oil, natural gas, and coal (Fiset). The automobile industry is starting a new revolution with more fuel efficient and eco-friendly cars. The United States is slowly leaning away from natural, non-renewable resources. The effects from burning coal greatly impacted global warming with a dramatic decrease of O-ZONE levels, which protect the Earth from harmful UV rays from the sun. As a result, coal is not a major thing we should be looking for. There are so many other ways of electricity too. There is wind energy, solar energy, geothermal energy, hydraulic energy, and tidal wave energy. All of those energy sources do not have a need for natural resources, and they are all renewable and cause little to no damage to the Earth. If deforestation keeps going down the road it is going, then many more species will be diminished.

In the Amazon forest, there are thousands of different organisms. One certain study done by scientists was to record how the stingless bee adapted with deforestation. According to the article, these certain species of bees are important to not only the environment, but also with humans economically and culturally. Many people would say that bees are not important, but for people living in the Amazon and areas around the Amazon, bees are sacred. Some people even consider these stingless bees as pets. The stingless bee produces honey which has a variety of different uses. People can obviously eat the honey or use it in certain recipes and they can use it to make Balché, which is an alcoholic beverage. Another benefit of these bees is to pollinate farmer’s crops. If there are no bees, then there are no crops which produce food that farmers need to sell.

In a study done on these stingless bees, scientists went to different areas of the Amazon that were being affected by deforestation and collected the bees to see how they were adapting to deforestation. As a result, they found seven different species of stingless bees, but only two of those species seemed to not be affected by deforestation (McCoy and Mushinski). So that means five of species of the stingless bee is vulnerable for extinction. This is just one example of how deforestation can destroy a species.

Another example of animals at risk because of deforestation is the ring-tailed lemurs. These monkeys live in Madagascar, but since the human population has been expanding rapidly in Madagascar companies are clearing forests and destroying the lemur’s habitat. Many scientists believe that lemurs are what make a rainforest healthy (Butler). There are only about 50 species left of lemurs. Deforestation is putting a lot of pressure on these lemurs living in Madagascar. The evidence proves that there are so many different kinds of species being affected by deforestation ranging from bees to monkeys.

Clearing trees to build farms, cities, and homes just destroys natural habitats. Those are just the primary effects. There are other effects of deforestation that most people look past. One example of a secondary effect of deforestation is the pollutants brought in to the forest. When a company is clearing an acre of forest, they bring trucks in that deposit harmful pollutants in the wildlife. Researchers have found that thousands of harmful chemicals are introduced to the natural environment that disrupt the nervous, immune, endocrine, and reproduction cycles of animals that come in contact with these chemicals (Hose and Guillette 87). This also has a major effect on endangered species, because when affected with these pollutants, it can be hard for them to reproduce. This means that the population of the endangered species will not go up not making it difficult at all to go extinct.

However, there are some solutions humans can make to help prevent harmful products from entering a natural environment. One resolution can be to keep very close observations on the toxins exposed to the environment. This will limit how much chemicals can pollute the environment and will set reproduction cycles back on track. Another resolution can be knowledge of the chemicals that are being distributed into these environments. Once people know how bad these chemicals really are, then they might stop using them. The last resolution is to create model ecosystems, like restoration facilities, to help reform the endocrine system (Hose and Guillette 88-89).

Although deforestation has greatly impacted the wildlife, there are a few organizations trying to help some of the animals struggling in the wild. These organizations create restoration programs for animals on the brink of extinction. Scientists can measure the success rate of these facilities, and the success rate is usually very high. It is easier to measure success one facility at a time (McCoy and Mushinski). Deforestation may be destroying the lives of some animals, but when humans take little steps towards helping the natural environment is one step closer to ultimately helping an endangered species.

There are many examples of how deforestation can be beneficiary, but a lot are simply looking at what they can do for humans. Supporters want to destroy habitats to find natural resources which can and will destroy this planet. Global warming is prevalent, and deforestation is just adding more fuel to the fire. Also, when destroying an acre of forest, that is millions of animals homes being destroyed. When the homes of these animals that live in those forests that are being cleared everyday are gone, they have no protection for themselves and their offspring. This is a major problem for biodiversity. Each day thousands of species become extinct drastically decreasing the Earth’s biodiversity. Deforestation has many benefits to humans, but it is a huge problem for the natural environment.

Sources

Butler, Rhett A. “Lemurs are Key to Health of Madagascar’s Rainforests.” Mongabay. 2008. 5 May 2009.

Fiset, Nathalie. “Benefits of Deforestation.” Ezinearticles. 30 April 2009.

Hose, J.E. & Guillette, L.J. “Defining the Role of Pollutants in the Distribution of Reproduction in Wildlife.” Environmental Health Perspectives 103 (1995): 87-91. JSTOR. Western Illinois University Library. 02 April 2009

Brown, Christopher J. and Albrecht, Christian. “The Affect of Tropical Deforestation on Stingless Bees of the Genus Melipona.” Journal of Biogeography. 28.5 (2001): 623-634. JSTOR. Western Illinois University Library. 02 April 2009

McCoy, Earl D and Mushinski, Henry R. “Measuring the Success of Wildlife Community Restoration.” Ecological Applications. 12.6 (2002): 1861-1871. JSTOR. Western Illinois University Library. 02 April 2009

Geena Bartley

Please Note... All links within articles are placed by their author-owners and not by this blog.Products with in those links may or may not be the best in the world.If it sounds too good to be true it could be a scam.Articles are posted for their info,ideas and or entertainment value only.

Powered By WP Footer