Paper politics.

Thank you for your excellent cover story he Politics of Paper" (May/June 2004). I was surprised by the substantial weight given to the apparent opposing views of the recycled and tree-free paper advocates. Having spent twelve years in the paper business my experience has not bore this out as a major point of contention. Although it is true that the term "tree-free" is very popular with green consumers, the thickness or weight of most hemp and kenaf papers makes them better suited for stationery or brochures, while general purpose white paper is readily available with a high post-consumer recycled content. Additionally, most of the alternative fiber papers we sell are manufactured by the blending together of both tree-free and post-consumer fibers.

Utilizing the thousands of tons of wastepaper produced daily in this country and spurring the development of alternative fibers can and should take place simultaneously. As your article explained, there have been some setbacks for the environmental paper industry in recent years but the effort to move forward is strongly underway. Eventually environmentally conscious consumers will drive the paper industry in the right direction just like we did with expanding organic foods.

Stephen E. Baker, President

GreenLine Paper Company, York, Pennsylvania 

I wanted to thank E for devoting so much space to exploring paper alternatives. I have been in book publishing for more than 15 years, yet I'm still surprised by my industry's lack of awareness and innovation. We recently published MoveOn.org's book, MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country, and we naturally printed it on recycled paper. I was again surprised by how difficult it was to get significant quantities of recycled paper quickly, and how resistant printers were. Thanks for the inspiration.

Karen Bouris, Publisher

Inner Ocean Publishing, via e-mail

Your article on paper is timely, thorough and thought provoking. But as a member of the Southern Forests Network and the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), I have some comments. A future of 100 percent recycled and/or tree-free paper is as mythical as the paperless office. Even before recycling and alternative fiber sources, we should consider pressures to reduce consumption. Developed, well-read countries seem to manage with less paper (and petroleum) than the U.S.

But also, I would like to make the case for virgin fiber. Some kinds of papers are best made totally or partially from virgin fiber, so it is likely there will always be a demand. The second law of thermodynamics and common sense indicate that there are limits on how many times a piece of paper can be recycled.

More importantly, the use of trees for making paper is not intrinsically bad, from either an ecological or an economic perspective. Obviously, the current demand for paper cannot be sustained from the world's natural forests, especially with clear-cutting. But the thinning of managed forests can also yield pulpwood, and bring critically important income to non-industrial forest owners engaged in long-term saw timber production. Restoration of longleaf pine ecosystems in the Southeast involves removal of large volumes of timber suitable for pulpwood.

Further, while plantations that replace natural forests are bad, plantations on lands that have proven marginal for agriculture are better, as long as corporate interests do not jeopardize the well being of the local community. If the very effective advocates for recycling would also insist that when virgin fiber is called for that it be from FSC-certified sources, they will be assured that the forest, natural or planted, is being managed in accordance with globally accepted ecological, social and economic criteria.

Joshua C. Dickinson

The Forest Management Trust, Gainesville, FL