Harris Poll: More 18- to 24-Year-Olds Say They’ll Pay Extra for ‘Green’ Products

Thirty-one percent of 18- to 24-year-olds say they take environmental issues into consideration when making purchases, according to Harris Interactive, a number that has risen from 24 percent in 2010 and 22 percent in 2009.May 31, 2012


ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER

Thirty-one percent of 18- to 24-year-olds say they take environmental issues into consideration when making purchases, according to Harris Interactive, a number that has risen from 24 percent in 2010 and 22 percent in 2009.

Harris Interactive surveyed 2,451 US adults ages 18 and older, and found that while concern and awareness around environmental issues has slipped since 2009, this hasn’t affected how consumers say environmental issues influence their purchasing behavior. The exception is young adults, ages 18 to 24, who are actually more likely to consider the environment in their spending than before.

In 2012, US adults are now less likely to do each of the following in their daily life:

  • Reuse things they have instead of throwing them away or buying new items (65 percent in 2009 vs. 61 percent in 2012).
  • Make an effort to use less water (60 percent in 2009 vs. 57 percent in 2010 and 2012).
  • Buy food in bulk (33 percent in 2009 vs. 30 percent in 2012)
  • Purchase all-natural products (18 percent in 2009 vs. 16 percent in 2012).
  • Purchase organic products (17 percent in 2009 vs. 15 percent in 2010 and 2012).

A quarter of US adults (26 percent) say that environmental issues are either “extremely” or “very” important to them when deciding which products or services to purchase. This number, according to the poll, remains consistent across gender, geography, education and income. The percentage has moved little over the years: 27 percent of US adults said environmental issues were extremely or very important to their purchasing decisions in 2010 and 26 percent said the same in 2009.


Americans also show a preference for products and services that are “green,” with 79 percent seeking out green products, slightly up from 78 percent in 2010 and 76 percent in 2009. Additionally, 31 percent of US adults say they are willing to pay extra for a “green product,” up from 28 percent in 2010. Thirty-two percent said the same in 2009.

Again, 18- to 24-year-olds show the biggest change: 35 percent say they are willing to pay extra for a green product, an increase from 27 percent in 2010 and 25 percent in 2009. Although just four percent of all US adults seek out green products and services regardless of the cost—virtually unchanged from 3 percent in 2010 and 2009 – the 18- to 24-year-old age group is at 11 percent, far above the three percent of 18- to 24-year-olds who said the same in 2010 and 2009. Still, 51 percent of this youngest age group say they are not willing to pay extra for green products.

More than 70 percent of consumers say they worry more about price than whether a product is good for the environment, according to an October 2010 study by the Harrison Group.

No More Reading Wars! Getting Ahead of the Transition From Print to Digital Books

A bit of a “preserve print for children” movement appears to be growing, including expert testimony that print books offer both an “emotional” and co-reading pull that should not be underestimated as the number of articles on parents’ preferences for maintaining print books grows.

May 29, 2012

Huffington Post Blog

By Michael Levine

When it comes to learning to read well, our country seems to be in a never-ending cycle of conflict and consternation. Recall the infamous “reading wars” of the 1980’s and 90’s between advocates of phonics and those of the “whole language methodology,” which in turn led to several attempts to catalog research on the efficacy of phonics and whole language. The US commissioned a National Reading Panel (NRP) that in 2000 set forth key principles and guidelines to help settle policy, distribute funding, and inform best practices, However, there still remains a good deal of disagreement among scholars and professionals who are concerned that a laser focus on basic reading skills encouraged by No Child Left Behind and the NRP has backfired. Those concerned argue that high stakes assessments and “drill and kill” direct instruction are diminishing the complex vocabulary, knowledge and “reading to learn” activities that every ten year-old must now master to be on a pathway to academic success in our global, information age.

The public discourse about early reading remains heated, frankly because the stakes could not be higher. Analysis of the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress, for example, shows that over time, black and Hispanic students have made important strides in improving reading performance, but a breach still separates them from their white peers. For example, special analyses by the National Center for Education Statistics in 2009 and 2011 showed that black and Hispanic students trailed their white peers by an average of more than 20 test-score points on the NAEP reading assessments at 4th and 8th grades, a difference of about two grade levels.

Enter the fray a new disruption that will likely cause early reading to undergo a whole new look in the next five years: the transition from print to digital books. What impact — if any — will the evolving new patterns of reading on mobile phones, tablets and e-readers have on young children’s literacy habits? App developers, video game designers and other technology leaders are harkening a new frontier of digital reading — one needs only to visit YouTube very briefly to observe hundreds of toddlers innocently “swiping” print books in an effort to unlock their digital potential! A bit of a “preserve print for children” movement appears to be growing, including expert testimony that print books offer both an “emotional” and co-reading pull that should not be underestimated as the number of articles on parents’ preferences for maintaining print books grows.

The research base analyzing the amount and the quality of early literacy activities which are mediated by digital device usage for children ages 2–8 is fairly weak. To begin to assess the potential and challenges that e-book reading pose for young children and their families, the Joan Ganz Cooney Center at Sesame Workshop has recently mounted a series of “QuickStudies” focused on diving into the fascinating dynamics of parent-child reading with and without the aid of today’s most modern technology. Today we are releasing the findings. “Print Books vs. E-books” by Cynthia Chiong and Lori Takeuchi, outlines the results of the Center’s first exploration of parent-child interactions as they read print or digital books together. The Center worked with partners at the New York Hall of Science in Queens, New York in an effort to tackle some of the questions we have about the growing popularity of e-books among readers of all ages. We asked:

  • How do adults and children read e-books compared to print books?
  • What might the nature of parent-child conversations differ across platforms?
  • Which design features of e-books appear to support parent-child interaction? Do any features detract from these interactions?


For this study we observed families reading both basic e-books, which are essentially print books put into a digital format with minimal features like highlighting text and audio narration, and enhanced e-books, which feature more interactive multimedia options like games, videos and interactive animations. We recruited 32 pairs of parents and their 3–6-year-old children at the New York Hall of Science’s Preschool Place. Each pair read a print book and either an enhanced or basic e-book while researchers videotaped their interactions and took observational notes. Following the co-reading task, researchers interviewed parents about their reading practices at home and elsewhere.

Our key findings on parent-child conversation included:

  • Both the print and basic e-book elicited similar levels of content-related actions (e.g., labeling, pointing, and verbal elaboration of story features) from the children and parents.
  • Parent-child pairs engaged less with the content of the story when reading the enhanced e-book than when reading the print book.
  • Both types of e-books, but especially the enhanced, prompted more non-content related talk and actions than the print books.

Our key findings on story comprehension found:

  • Children who read enhanced e-books recalled fewer narrative details than children who read the print version of the same story.
  • Features of the enhanced e-book may have affected children’s story recall because both parents and children focused their attention on non-content, more than story related, issues.


Our key findings of overall engagement (a composite measure of parent-child interaction, child-book interaction, parent-book interaction, and signs of enjoyment) found:

  • 62% parent-child pairs engaged about equally across print, basic, and enhanced formats. Only 6% of the pairs were more engaged with the e-book than the print book.
  • Children physically interacted with the enhanced e-book more than when reading either the print or basic e-book.


To sum up: 1) We did not find differences between print books and e-books in general. 2) We did, however, find differences between print books and enhanced e-books, and 3) Basic e-books appear to provide co-reading experiences that are more similar to print books.

To get in front of the next big debate on whether print or digital are “better” delivery methods, the Cooney Center is hoping to develop research-based recommendations on the conditions under which technology-enabled reading is most effective for preschool and primary age youngsters. This study has some important implications for e-book designers, parents, and teachers:

  • For designers: Too much extraneous interactivity can detract from parent-child conversation and their focus on story elements
  • For parents and teachers of preschool youngsters: They should choose basic e-books (over enhanced) if they want a more literacy-focused co-reading experience with their children
  • Enhanced e-books may be better suited for solo storytelling experiences or for children who have already mastered basic reading skills


Future research on the transition from print to digital reading is ripe with possibilities. At the Cooney Center, we are especially interested in the forms of engagement that will lead vulnerable children to spend more time in purposeful literacy activities, so we will be delving into issues that relate to the placement of features, reading modes, page turning method. We are also intrigued by possible differences in parental age, and parenting styles, the ways in which digital media may be deployed for ELL families and those with special needs. These initial studies were very small scale and should be viewed with needed caution: the research and developer communities need to work with a larger, more diverse sample and a wider variety of books to draw enduring conclusions. We must also spend more time understanding demand from parents and other caregivers, as they are the ones who will ultimately define best practices in sorting through the newest early reading challenge. To help understand what parents are thinking and doing in this regard, the Cooney Center will be publishing findings from its survey research on modern day parent-child co-reading practices, based on results from a group of some 1200 parents later this summer.

For Young Readers; Print or Digital Books?

Print or digital? Adults grapple with which is the best way to read — not only for themselves, but especially when it comes to their kids. Whether or not parents prefer print books over interactive e-books for their kids, the question is, what’s actually better for them?


May 29, 2012

KQED / MINDSHIFT

By Tina Barseghian


Print or digital? Adults grapple with which is the best way to read — not only for themselves, but especially when it comes to their kids. Whether or not parents prefer print books over interactive e-books for their kids, the question is, what’s actually better for them?

Depends on what you’re trying to achieve. According to a study of a small group of parents released today by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center, kids age 3 to 6 remembered more narrative details — “What happened in the story?” — from print books than from enhanced e-books with multimedia features.

But when kids were asked one plot question for each story, (i.e., “Why did x do y?”), there was nodifference between the print book readers and the enhanced e-book readers.

“I would definitely make the distinction that the platform affected recall instead of comprehension,” said Cynthia Chiong, the lead author of the survey conducted at New York Hall of Science’s Preschool Place.

The study, the first of its kind to qualify the difference between basic and enhanced e-readers versus print books, examined 32 pairs of parents and their 3–6-year-old children as they read a print book and an e-book together. Half of the pairs read a basic e-book and the other half read an enhanced e-book.

Researchers found that while the multimedia features of enhanced e-books grabbed children’s attention, those same features also distracted young readers and led more to “non-content related interactions.” Features like animation, sound effects, videos, and games made it more difficult for some parents to keep kids focused on reading and diminished kids’ recall of the text. Parents continually had to tell kids not to turn the page or not to touch the tablets, according to Chiong.

The implication? Parents and teachers should choose basic e-books like the Kindle or Nook over enhanced e-books, such as the iPad, if they want a more literacy-focused co-reading experience with children. Prompting kids with questions that relate to the text, labeling and naming objects, and encouraging kids to talk about the book’s content from their own perspective all elicit kids to be more verbal, and can lead to improved vocabulary and language development, the study states.

But if “engagement” is the objective, the issue gets murkier. When it came time to measuring “child-book” engagement, based on the child’s direct attention and touch, more kids showed higher levels of engagement for the e-books than the print books, though a majority were equally engaged by both book types. Children also physically interacted with the enhanced e-book more than when reading either the print or basic e-book.

On the other hand, when measuring “overall engagement” —a composite of parent-child interaction, child-book interaction, parent-book interaction, and signs of enjoyment — an interesting trend emerged: 63% of the parent-child pairs were as engaged reading the print book as they were when reading the e-book (both types); 6% of the pairs were more engaged with the e-book than the print book, compared to the 31% of pairs that were more engaged with the print book than the e-book.

“Kids loved the enhanced e-books,” Chiong said. “It was great to see the level of engagement, how much they were enjoying it — and that’s one of our goals as parents, is engaging kids. If this can do that, especially in kids who might not otherwise be interested, it’s perfect.”

Chiong added that this study focused on younger kids — questions and priorities will be different for measuring the differences for older readers.

PARENTS’ EXPERIENCE

Parents’ comments showed a wide range of reactions. Some parents appreciated the iPad’s effect on their young readers.

“They’re able to hear the words…It came alive. I don’t have to do the reading,” said the mother of a three-year old. “Not only that, they pay more attention to the iPad. Sound effects were an excellent idea — they like the books with sound effects.”

Another parent appreciated the e-books’ prompts. “Actually.. [I liked the e-book] because I don’t know what questions to ask sometimes and the iPad showed what to repeat and say,” said a mother of a five-year old boy.

NEXT STEPS

For this “quick study,” which researchers recognize is limited by the small number of those surveyed, the intent is to help guide more comprehensive research in the future.

“This whole explosion of e-books has been great, and we love seeing what’s happening with the innovation, but now it’s time to start thinking more purposefully and thoughtfully into what goes into the creation of an e-book,” Chiong said.

Researchers advise that e-book designers be discriminating about the types of features they add to enhanced e-books, “especially when those features do not directly relate to the story,” the study states. Parents should also be able to have more control over settings to features so they can tailor the reading experience to their own needs.

Researchers believe a similar study should be done with a larger and more representative sample of participants and books, and should examine what types, combinations, and placement of e-book features help or hinder learning and conversation, and should explore how different populations (e.g., lower income families, non-native English speaking families) use them.

AF&PA Releases April 2012 U.S. Recovered Fiber Monthly Report

The American Forest & Paper Association released its April 2012 U.S. Recovered Fiber Monthly Report today. According to the report, total U.S. industry consumption of recovered paper in April was 2.48 million tons, 4% lower than March 2012. Year-to-date consumption in 2012 is 3% lower than during the same period last year.

May 24, 2012


AF & PA, WASHINGTON, DC

The American Forest & Paper Association released its May 2012 U.S. Recovered Fiber Monthly Report today.

 

According to the report, total U.S. industry consumption of recovered paper in May was 2.54 million tons, 3% higher than April 2012.  Year-to-date consumption in 2012 is 3% lower than during the same period last year.

 

U.S. exports of recovered paper dropped 11% in April compared to March, with decreases mainly seen in Other Mechanical and Corrugated.  Year-to-date exports of recovered paper in 2012 are 2% lower than during the same period in 2011.

The complete report with detailed tables, charts and historical data can be purchased by contacting Dina Menton at dina_menton@afandpa.org or 202-463-2710.

US Urban Trees Store Carbon, Provide Billions in Economic Value

From New York City’s Central Park to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, America’s urban forests store an estimated 708 million tons of carbon, an environmental service with an estimated value of $50 billion, according to a recent U.S. Forest Service study.
7 May 2012

From New York City’s Central Park to Golden Gate
Park in San Francisco, America’s urban forests store an estimated 708
million tons of carbon, an environmental service with an estimated
value of $50 billion, according to a recent U.S. Forest Service study.

Annual net carbon uptake by these trees is estimated at 21 million tons and $1.5 billion in economic benefit.

In the study
published recently in the journal Environmental Pollution, Dave Nowak, a
research forester with the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Research
Station, and his colleagues used urban tree field data from 28 cities
and six states and national tree cover data to estimate total carbon
storage in the nation’s urban areas.

“With expanding urbanization, city trees and forests are becoming
increasingly important to sustain the health and well-being of our
environment and our communities,” said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom
Tidwell. “Carbon storage is just one of the many benefits provided by
the hardest working trees in America. I hope this study will encourage
people to look at their neighborhood trees a little differently, and
start thinking about ways they can help care for their own urban
forests.”

Tens of thousands of people volunteered to plant and care for trees
for Earth Day and Arbor Day this year, but there are opportunities all
year long. To learn about volunteer opportunities near your home, visit
the Arbor Day Foundation.

The Forest Service partners with organizations like the Arbor Day
Foundation and participates in programs like Tree City USA to recognize
and inspire cities in their efforts to improve their urban forests.
Additionally the Forest Service is active in more than 7,000
communities across the U.S., helping them to better plan and manage
their urban forests.

Nationally, carbon storage by trees in forestlands was estimated at
22.3 billion tons in a 2008 Forest Service study; additional carbon
storage by urban trees bumps that to an estimated 22.7 billion tons.

Carbon storage and sequestration rates vary among states based on the
amount of urban tree cover and growing conditions. States in forested
regions typically have the highest percentage of urban tree cover.
States with the greatest amount of carbon stored by trees in urban
areas are Texas (49.8 million tons), Florida (47.3 million tons),
Georgia (42.4 million tons), Massachusetts (39.6 million tons) and
North Carolina (37.5 million tons).

The total amount of carbon stored and sequestered in urban areas
could increase in the future as urban land expands. Urban areas in the
continental U.S. increased from 2.5 percent of land area in 1990 to 3.1
percent in 2000, an increase equivalent to the area of Vermont and New
Hampshire combined. If that growth pattern continues, U.S. urban land
could expand by an area greater than the state of Montana by 2050. 

The study is not the first to estimate carbon storage and
sequestration by U.S. urban forests, however it provides more refined
statistical analyses for national carbon estimates that can be used to
assess the actual and potential role of urban forests in reducing
atmospheric carbon dioxide.

More urbanization does not necessarily translate to more urban
trees. Last year, Nowak and Eric Greenfield, a forester with the
Northern Research Station and another study co-author, found that urban
tree cover is declining nationwide at a rate of about 20,000 acres per
year, or 4 million trees per year.

 Carbon Storage by Urban Trees

State

Carbon Stored (tons)

Texas

49,800,000

Florida

47,300,000

Georgia

42,400,000

Massachusetts

39,600,000

North Carolina

37,500,000

New York

35,400,000

California

34,600,000

Pennsylvania

31,700,000

New Jersey

30,900,000

Connecticut

25,700,000

Ohio

25,300,000

Michigan

25,200,000

Tennessee

20,800,000

Alabama

20,600,000

Illinois

20,600,000

South Carolina

19,100,000

Virginia

18,300,000

Washington

15,200,000

Maryland

13,100,000

Missouri

12,400,000

Louisiana

11,600,000

Indiana

10,700,000

Wisconsin

10,400,000

Minnesota

10,200,000

Oregon

8,900,000

Arkansas

8,500,000

Mississippi

8,200,000

New Hampshire

7,900,000

Kentucky

7,100,000

Arizona

6,000,000

West Virginia

5,700,000

Kansas

5,300,000

Colorado

4,800,000

Oklahoma

4,800,000

Rhode Island

4,600,000

Maine

4,200,000

Iowa

4,100,000

Delaware

2,500,000

Hawaii

2,400,000

Utah

2,300,000

Alaska

2,200,000

New Mexico

2,000,000

Nebraska

1,800,000

Vermont

1,700,000

Nevada

1,400,000

Idaho

1,200,000

South Dakota

800,000

Montana

500,000

North Dakota

500,000

Wyoming

300,000

Total

708,100,000


The mission of the U.S. Forest Service is to sustain the health,
diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to
meet the needs of present and future generations. The agency has either
a direct or indirect role in stewardship of about 80 percent of our
nation’s forests; 850 million acres including 100 million acres of
urban forests where most Americans live. The mission of the Forest
Service’s Northern Research Station is to improve people’s lives and
help sustain the natural resources in the Northeast and Midwest through
leading-edge science and effective information delivery.

USDA has made a concerted effort to deliver results for the American
people, even as USDA implements sequestration – the across-the-board
budget reductions mandated under terms of the Budget Control Act. USDA
has already undertaken historic efforts since 2009 to save more than
$828 million in taxpayer funds through targeted, common-sense budget
reductions. These reductions have put USDA in a better position to carry
out its mission, while implementing sequester budget reductions in a
fair manner that causes as little disruption as possible.

Invitation to Join Two Sides for 2012-2013

Two Sides is currently inviting companies in the Graphic Communication Value Chain to join us as Commercial Members or Allied Organizations for 2012-2013. Please see the attached letter and contact us if you have any questions.

Two Sides is
currently inviting companies in the Graphic Communication Value Chain to join
our organization as Commercial
Members
or Allied
Organizations
to assist in promoting print and paper’s great sustainability
story.

Over the last year
our U.S. launch significantly strengthened the Two Sides international network which
now operates in 14 countries with over 1,000 members. Please join other leading U.S. companies in
the print and paper sectors to help strengthen our efforts and our voice, and
benefit from the many resources and benefits Two Sides offers. For testimonials from some of our current
members, click here.

Since our official
launch in June 2011, Two Sides U.S. has been busy accomplishing many of our
preliminary objectives.
We are now well positioned to grow the initiative thanks to a solid governance structure made up of
senior industry people, including experts in sustainability and environmental
marketing. During our first year we successfully focused
on putting Two Sides “on the map”.

Our U.S. website (www.twosides.us), launched in January 2012,
contains one of the largest collections of resource material on the
sustainability of print and paper. Several
of our members are now using our recently produced Myths
and Facts booklet
which can be
customized to support their own environmental communications. Two Sides is also currently working on a
collection of ads that will be ready for insertion into newspapers and
magazines in the coming year.

Our next major
initiative will challenge anti-paper and print claims coming from the nation’s
leading banks, utilities and telecommunications companies. Our goal is to
convince at least 80% of the companies we engage to remove or change their unsupported,
negative environmental claims related to print and paper. We’re also finalizing our 2012-2013
marketing and communications plan and will continue to broaden our reach by recruiting
new members.

We are counting on
the support of more companies in the print and paper sector in 2012-2013 as we
expand our efforts to promote the sustainability of print and paper. Joining is
easy. Read our membership pages and fill out the online form before May
31st.

We strive to
deliver maximum value to our members and encourage companies to take advantage
of all the benefits we
offer. Please don’t hesitate to contact
me if you have questions, concerns or ideas to share.

Phil
Riebel, President
and COO

E:
pnr@twosides.info / T:
855-896-7433

Are e-Readers Really Green?

May 2, 2012

© Jaymi Heimbuch

The Millions has
a great write-up of the real impact of e-readers. Despite the notion that if
you read enough books on them, they’ll have a lighter footprint than printed
books, the reality is something less appealing altogether.

 

“Necessarily, the increased consumption
of print and digital books has led to an ever-increasing demand for the
materials required to create, transport, and store them. In the case of eBooks,
though, vast amounts of materials are also necessary for the eReaders
themselves, and this is something typically overlooked by proponents of
digitization: the material costs are either ignored, or, more misleadingly,
they’re classified as the byproduct of the tech industry instead of the book
industry… In other words: the carbon footprint of the digital book industry
is mostly growing in addition to, not to the detriment of, the growing carbon
footprint of the print book industry.”

The analysis Nick Moran performs to determine just how bad the carbon
footprint of the e-reader industry is provides us with some interesting
numbers.

 

“That eReader, then, accounts for an
initial carbon footprint 200-250% greater than your typical household library,
and it increases every time you get a new eReader for Christmas, or every time
the latest Apple Keynote lights a fire in your wallet. Also, these figures
simply calculate the impact one person’s consumption has on the environment. If
you live in a household with multiple eReaders — say, one for your husband and
one for your daughter, too — your family’s carbon emissions are more than
600-750% higher per year than they would be if you invested in a bunch of
bookshelves or, better yet, a library card.”

Unless you are both an incredibly avid reader
as well as someone who cares for their gadgets and does not replace or upgrade
to new models, e-readers just simply don’t live up to the lighter footprint
they promise. Instead, we should stick with our library cards.

If
you want a well-written reality check about reading, the footprint of the book
industry, and the unfortunate truth about e-readers, you really want to read this article. It’s worth the energy your laptop/smart
phone/tablet uses while you’re reading. I promise.

Why Trees Matter

TREES are on the front lines of our changing climate. And when the oldest trees in the world suddenly start dying, it's time to pay attention.

By Jim Robbins, April 11, 2012

TREES are on the front lines of our changing climate. And when the oldest trees in the world suddenly start dying, it's time to pay attention.

North America's ancient alpine bristlecone forests are falling victim to a voracious beetle and an Asian fungus. In Texas, a prolonged drought killed more than five million urban shade trees last year and an additional half-billion trees in parks and forests. In the Amazon, two severe droughts have killed billions more.

The common factor has been hotter, drier weather.

We have underestimated the importance of trees. They are not merely pleasant sources of shade but a potentially major answer to some of our most pressing environmental problems. We take them for granted, but they are a near miracle. In a bit of natural alchemy called photosynthesis, for example, trees turn one of the seemingly most insubstantial things of all – sunlight – into food for insects, wildlife and people, and use it to create shade, beauty and wood for fuel, furniture and homes.

For all of that, the unbroken forest that once covered much of the continent is now shot through with holes.

Humans have cut down the biggest and best trees and left the runts behind. What does that mean for the genetic fitness of our forests? No one knows for sure, for trees and forests are poorly understood on almost all levels. "It's embarrassing how little we know," one eminent redwood researcher told me.

What we do know, however, suggests that what trees do is essential though often not obvious. Decades ago, Katsuhiko Matsunaga, a marine chemist at Hokkaido University in Japan, discovered that when tree leaves decompose, they leach acids into the ocean that help fertilize plankton. When plankton thrive, so does the rest of the food chain. In a campaign called Forests Are Lovers of the Sea, fishermen have replanted forests along coasts and rivers to bring back fish and oyster stocks. And they have returned.

Trees are nature's water filters, capable of cleaning up the most toxic wastes, including explosives, solvents and organic wastes, largely through a dense community of microbes around the tree's roots that clean water in exchange for nutrients, a process known as phytoremediation. Tree leaves also filter air pollution. A 2008 study by researchers at Columbia University found that more trees in urban neighborhoods correlate with a lower incidence of asthma.

In Japan, researchers have long studied what they call "forest bathing." A walk in the woods, they say, reduces the level of stress chemicals in the body and increases natural killer cells in the immune system, which fight tumors and viruses. Studies in inner cities show that anxiety, depression and even crime are lower in a landscaped environment.

Trees also release vast clouds of beneficial chemicals. On a large scale, some of these aerosols appear to help regulate the climate; others are anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and anti-viral. We need to learn much more about the role these chemicals play in nature. One of these substances, taxane, from the Pacific yew tree, has become a powerful treatment for breast and other cancers. Aspirin's active ingredient comes from willows.

Trees are greatly underutilized as an eco-technology. "Working trees" could absorb some of the excess phosphorus and nitrogen that run off farm fields and help heal the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. In Africa, millions of acres of parched land have been reclaimed through strategic tree growth.

Trees are also the planet's heat shield. They keep the concrete and asphalt of cities and suburbs 10 or more degrees cooler and protect our skin from the sun's harsh UV rays. The Texas Department of Forestry has estimated that the die-off of shade trees will cost Texans hundreds of millions of dollars more for air-conditioning. Trees, of course, sequester carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that makes the planet warmer. A study by the Carnegie Institution for Science also found that water vapor from forests lowers ambient temperatures.

A big question is, which trees should we be planting? Ten years ago, I met a shade tree farmer named David Milarch, a co-founder of the Champion Tree Project who has been cloning some of the world's oldest and largest trees to protect their genetics, from California redwoods to the oaks of Ireland. "These are the supertrees, and they have stood the test of time," he says.

Science doesn't know if these genes will be important on a warmer planet, but an old proverb seems apt. "When is the best time to plant a tree?" The answer: "Twenty years ago. The second-best time? Today."

Advanced Image Direct Joins Two Sides

Advanced Image Direct is the premier West Coast production environment for many Fortune 500 companies across the United States.

FULLERTON,
Calif. (April 24, 2012) – Advanced Image Direct (AID) today announced that it has joined Two Sides,
the fast-growing non-profit organization established to promote the responsible
production, use and sustainability of print and paper.

“As one of the largest and most secure
print/production manufacturing platforms in the United States, Advanced Image
Direct’s commitment to the highest green manufacturing and product standards is
a perfect fit with Two Sides’ mission to promote sustainable business practices
in the print and paper industry and to dispel misconceptions about the medium’s
sustainability,” says AID Owner Frank Verrill. “The Two Sides’ focus on factual information
from credible sources will help Advanced Image Direct enhance our own efforts
to spread the word about the many environmental, social and economic benefits
of print and paper.”

“Print
and paper have a great environmental story to tell, and Two Sides is pleased to
have Advanced Image Direct join our growing U.S. effort to get the word out to
as many people as possible,” says Two Sides President Phil Riebel. “Made from one of the earth’s few truly
renewable resources – responsibly managed forests – print and paper is the most
recycled commodity in the world. In the
United States, the paper recovery rate reached an all-time high of 66.8 percent
in 2011. In addition, the demand for
responsibly grown wood fiber to make print and paper products provides a long-term
financial incentive for private landowners to manage their land sustainably
instead of selling it for development,” he says. “And in the United States, the
print, paper and forest products supply chain supports hundreds of thousands of
jobs.”

About Advanced Image Direct

Advanced Image Direct is the premier West Coast production
environment for many Fortune 500 companies across the United States. AID has
positioned itself as a market leader by deploying and integrating the latest
imaging equipment and personalization solutions available to enhance customers’
critical direct mail needs, continually striving for ways to enhance ROI while
expediting direct mail processes to ensure timely deliverables with proven
production methodologies. For more
information visit the AID website at www.advancedimagedirect.com

About
Two Sides

Two Sides is an independent,
non-profit organization created to promote the responsible production, use and
sustainability of print and paper.
Started in Europe in 2008, Two Sides is now active in 14 countries, with
links to similar projects in Japan. The organization has more than 1,000
members that span the entire print and paper supply chain, including pulp and
paper producers, paper distributors, ink and chemical manufacturers, printers, converters,
equipment manufacturers, publishers and others. For more information about Two
Sides, please visit the website at
www.twosides.us.

Two Sides is officially launching in Australia

Print and paper campaign Two Sides is officially launching in Australia. In the lead-up to the official launch GEON Group Chief Executive Graham Morgan interviews Two Sides Director Martyn Eustace for ProPrint magazine.

Two Sides grew out of a need to dispel the myths about the environmental credentials of print and paper. Originally driven by the paper industry, it was quickly embraced by printers and others members of the supply chain. 

Over the past three years, the movement has continued to expand, with activities across Europe and the US. This year, Two Sides Australia has officially launched, bringing to our shores the message about print’s positive environmental story and its relevance as a communications channel. 
Download the fully ProPrint interview below.
SHARE BECOME A MEMBER SUBSCRIBE