Hachette Book Group has been one of the most steadfast publishers in reporting its annual progress on meeting its environmental goals—and late last week, the company reported it had made steady, if small, gains towards its targets. During 2017, HBG reduced its carbon footprint by 2%, slightly below its annual reduction goal of 2.5% for the 2017 to 2020 period. The company noted that expansion at the publisher—which included the integration of Perseus, the growth in title output, and the growrth in number of employees and office locations—had played a role in the slight miss of the 2.5% carbon reduction goal. Click Read More below for additional information.
A recent article in The New York Times, (“Maine Will Make Companies Pay for Recycling. Here’s How It Works.” 7/21/21) explored Maine’s dramatic new recycling law. But it also missed the point on paper recycling. In a letter to the editor, AF&PA responded to set the record straight:
Telling readers the U.S. “recycling rate for plastics and paper products” is 32 percent is like telling them the average elevation of Denver and Death Valley is about half a mile. It may be technically true, but it clouds over more than it reveals. Whatever is true of plastic, the fact is that for all paper, the recycling rate was 66 percent in 2020. The recycling rate for paper-based packaging specifically—like cardboard boxes and corrugated containers—was a whopping 89 percent. In fact, more paper is recycled by weight from municipal waste streams than plastic, glass, steel and aluminum combined.
In the context of a story about proposals in several jurisdictions that would turn our current recycling system on its head, these distinctions matter a great deal. Extended producer responsibility programs would disrupt the most effective recycling streams in the interest of improving the least effective, while imposing large new costs on producers who are already being responsible by investing capital to innovate and use a highly renewable and recyclable material—paper.