Is Laser-Erasing Ink Better than Paper Recycling?
And do we need actuaries to help us decide?
Dear Human of Planet Earth,
This morning on BBC World I learnt of a machine that uses lasers to erase ink - making paper re-usable without recycling.
This new tech was contrasted with piles and piles of wood, destined for paper at a Swedish plant. Sure, plenty paper gets recycled in some parts of the world, but with our new preference for paper over plastic, the demand for wood, even from ‘sustainably managed forests’ is massive.
Is laser-erasing of ink the solution?
Maybe.
But here’s what’s missing from the discussion: an emissions comparison for the CO2e comparing recycling paper to erasing ink.
New technology is always exciting, but just because we can imagine and create it, doesn’t always mean it’ll be useful, or better than whatever it replaces.
Building these laser erasers (the one on the programme was massive and seemed to be for office or industrial scale usage), has a carbon footprint too. Using electricity to power the laser erasure adds to emissions.
Don’t get me wrong - recycling paper uses a lot of energy too. And on that note, all the junk mail delivered daily is criminal. Even if it does not go to landfill, we’re basically emitting more carbon, to recycle rubbish that should never have been printed.
But back to our question. How do we work out whether this new technology beats the old one?
Well, first we need to estimate the emissions involved in producing the laser erasers, both at the industrial level and for personal and office use. Then we need to estimate the energy costs of running them for the amount of re-usable paper they deliver.
Then we compare the emissions involved in building and running paper recycling plants, for delivery of similar amounts of paper.
We consider energy usage using various mixes of fossil fuel and green energy.
That way we have the information we need to determine whether the new tech should be used and where best to place it: Is it better in the office than sending paper off for recycling? Or is it only useful in areas where setting up paper recycling plants is too inefficient to be practical? Or is it always more energy efficient than recycling, and should become our target approach?
Maybe it’s brilliant. Maybe it’s not. But first we have to do the Math.
Could we apply the fundamentals of actuarial science to our environmental challenges and to guide public policy more generally?
Math, like every discipline, is here to serve us. It’s not all about the profits.
With Love,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Radical,
Croydon,
London,
That patch of earth known today as the United Kingdom
Lat +51.51 Long, -0.118
PS, I’ve been wondering for years why we don’t put actuaries to better use. Sheesh. Every political party should be scrutinised by independent actuaries, working to serve the nation, not the markets. We should be able to look at policy outcomes by measuring everything that matters. Our journalists need to do better than shooting from the hip with the obligatory, ‘And how do you intend to pay for that?’
Maybe actuarial science is too specific and can’t be re-purposed. I can barely keep track of my children’s pocket change, so I’m not one to really know.
But either way, we need to do the Math. Even if we call the folks doing it Environmental Mathematicians and not Environmental Actuaries.