Tag Archive | environmental

If You Can’t Be Bad Ass, At Least Look Bad Ass

Many times in the big, scary world we live in, there are times we need to defend ourselves from the big, scary things out there. Now, without getting all logical and deep… We can all probably agree that:

  • All things aren’t what they seem
  • Some things can seem what they are

So, the problem is in figuring out who is telling the truth and who is fibbing…


Sonchus asper ~ sharp-fringed sow thistle, prickly sow-thistle spiny sow thistle, or spiny-leaved sow thistle DON’T TOUCH!!


Sonchus oleraceus ~ common sowthistle, sow thistle, smooth sow thistle, annual sow thistle, hare’s colwort, hare’s thistle, milky tassel, swinies. EAT ME!!


Here is a case of imitation. They are in the same family, however one would really hurt your pie-hole if you were to eat it, where the other would be a nice, fresh addition to your salad.

This is also akin to the cutie thirteen line squirrel.. Who knew he was going to attack a house sparrow!

Don’t judge a book by it’s cover and know there are many look-alikes out there, so beware!





Aieeee! They all look alike!!

© Ilex ~ Midwestern Plant Girl

Pixel or Paper? Is Electronic Media More Environmental?

Many of us received statements from our banks and utilities companies with a message at the bottom suggesting us to “Please consider the environment before printing this email” or “Go paperless, save trees!” accompanied by a logo of a winding river or a green tree.



Implied is the assumption that going digital is better for the environment. However, the paper industry argues this. They are pushing companies to remove these claims, which they says are misleading consumers and are not substantiated by adequate research.

The non-profit, Two Sides, an organization representing the paper and print industry, recently published a press release that it has convinced many major U.S. companies to remove their “anti-paper” green claims promoting e-billing as more environmentally friendly than paper.

“The goal is to put an end to unsubstantiated and misleading claims that electronic communications are more environmentally friendly than print and paper.” Riebel said.

Although, Two Sides has a stake in preserving the paper industry, the organization’s movement does raise an important question: Is going paperless really better for the environment?

Which do you prefer, Pixel or Paper?

“What people often don’t realize is that the paper-making process is sustainable, and claims to the contrary are misleading to the consumer,” said Mark Pitts , executive director of printing-writing, at the American Forest And Paper Association (AFANDPA).

According to Mr. Pitts, more than 65% of paper in the U.S. was recycled in 2012, making paper the nation’s most recyclable product. Over the past century, forest coverage from Minnesota to Maine, has actually increased by 28% according to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service.

Digital media does appear more sustainable on the surface. However, producing electronic products also leaves a carbon footprint, as well as the energy needed to power them. There are also concerns of the amounts of electronic devices headed towards landfills, as many more people are acquiring them. E-waste is on the rise, with a global increase of 40,000 tons per year.

Just the Facts, Madam…

One of the main reasons it is difficult to assert that paperless is better for the environment is that the two commodities are so different, and one has been around much longer than the other.

Paper comes in a variety of forms from many different manufacturers and countries, so there will likely be a number of impacts, not just one that can be generally applied to all paper industries.

More research is needed regarding the footprint of electronics, which means there is no “average environmental footprint” for e-media either.

Two Sides’ main reasons for challenging the claims: (copied directly from site)

  • Unsubstantiated marketing claims like “Go green, Go Paperless” and “Go Paperless, Save Trees” do not meet guidelines for environmental marketing established by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
  • Print on paper made in the U.S. has many unique environmental characteristics compared to other products. It originates from a renewable resource – trees grown in responsibly managed forests, is recyclable and is the most recycled commodity in the U.S. with a recovery rate of over 65 percent in 2012 (America Paper & Forest Association, 2013).
  • Marketing messages like “save trees” create a false impression that forests are a finite resource that is being destroyed instead of a renewable resource that is continuously replenished using sustainable forest management practices. In the U.S., we grow more trees than we harvest. Over the last 50 years, the volume of trees growing on U.S. forestland increased 49 percent (Society of American Foresters, 2007).
  • The full impact of switching to e-media is often not properly considered and sometimes completely ignored. The direct impact of information and communication technology (ICT) products and services replacing paper is far from negligible, and the trade-off between the two “technologies” depends on conditions such as use frequency, source of energy and end-of-life management of the products (Arnfalk, P. 2010).
  • The claims are damaging to the U.S. economy and threaten U.S. jobs. A total of 8.4 million jobs (6 percent of total U.S. jobs) that generate $1.3 trillion in sales revenue (8.6 percent of U.S. gross domestic product) depend on the U.S. mailing industry, which includes paper production, printing production, related suppliers, graphic design and the handling and distribution of mail (EMA Job Study, 2012).
  • The life cycle of e-statements is often not paperless because many people print e-statements at home or at the office for record keeping and other uses (Two Sides & Toluna, 2013).

Which are we saving? Our wallets or the environment?

While the environmental benefits of going paperless may not be entirely clear just yet, it certainly carries cost savings for companies.

“It’s the bottom line that really motivates companies,” said Shamel Naguib, president at Paperless Productivity, “which helps large companies, including utilities and banking institutions, decrease or eliminate their paper documents by going electronic.”

“For 99.9% of the companies that employ us, the green initiative has nothing to do with it,” said Naguib. “It has everything to do with saving money.” Even when he started his company years ago, his employers motives to go paperless were never about going green. And now, “money is so tight with organizations and costs are such a critical part of the puzzle, I don’t know of anyone who is investing money just to be green,” he said.

Meanwhile, customers seem to be wising-up to companies’ true motives. According to a Two Sides survey, “eight of 10 people in the U.S. said they were suspicious of a company’s motives to push e-billing, believing financial considerations were the primary motivation for companies to push e-billing.”

The Take-Home Message

“The ideal situation is that we use both electronic and print media in a way that meets our social and environmental and economic needs,” Riebel said.

Until more research has been conducted on the longevity and environmental impact of electronics, pitting paper and e-media against each other is somewhat pointless. There is a place for both paper and e-media for the time being.