Architecture firms produce SO much paper waste (especially when printing is billed to the client). Do any of you work at a firm that has a great way of reducing/reusing the paper you produce?
I have heard from a friend that she used to work at a firm that had a company that upcycled their old CD redlines into notepads that people could use in the office for scrap paper. That sounds great, but I haven't had any luck finding them. Any thoughts?
Non Sequitur
Feb 6, 18 12:04 pm
We send most of our drawings to the shredder. Someone in my office used to make old sketch pads from the lesser project sheets but I have not seen one of these in almost 10 years now.
Paper grows on trees anyways so, with all else considered, it's quite literally the least of my worries.
EmarieS
Feb 6, 18 1:39 pm
With all your worries, you still have time to respond to dumb Architecture forums at noon on a Tuesday?
Non Sequitur
Feb 6, 18 2:42 pm
I do. It's called time management and I'm a superstar at it. Happy to see you realize your question was dumb to start with.
randomised
Feb 6, 18 12:53 pm
OP Making crappy, crafty sketch pads or notebooks from horrible smooth printer paper that has stuff printed on them on the back doesn't reduce paper waste, it merely delays it by a fraction. Reducing the amount of printing will have a larger and more lasting impact...put your energy where it matters would be my advice.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 12:28 am
Nevertheless, it's a start.
randomised
Feb 7, 18 12:39 am
It's a false start only devised to make people feel they've made a difference when they actually haven't, thereby blocking or slowing down real impactful change.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 12:42 am
Beg to differ. Who says we can't do that whilst looking for new ways to recycle at a greater scale?
randomised
Feb 7, 18 2:03 am
Because by that you create a need for something cheap and almost free (those inferior notepads) which blocks any incentive to make a true change because you'll have to give up that notepad. Worst is when those are sold and your business relies on others wasting paper, you'll do anything to keep people wasting so you have plenty of resources to run your business.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 4:06 am
That wasn't what I was alluding to however. I meant while phasing out paper pads in favor of digitizing everything, in the meantime why not take the time to reuse old CDs? You know, instead of buying new sketchpads.
JLC-1
Feb 6, 18 2:52 pm
we've been using a lot less paper since the building dept. started taking applications digitally, but it's still a pain because their software doesn't tell you when they post comments or need more info.
Miles Jaffe
Feb 6, 18 5:01 pm
I'm still trying to figure out how to recycle all those old CAD files.
Maybe digital notepads?
archinine
Feb 6, 18 10:47 pm
We put our used papers into the recycling bin. Perhaps I have too much faith in the janitorial staff but I imagine it ends up in the right place and is repurposed appropriately. Scraps feel messy and are distracting from my note taking. A clean pad made of recycled materials e.g. My previously recycled drawings sets, is perfectly suffice.
Trees are renewable and paper is largely biodegradable. It's the plastic and the toner and the 3D printers and the take out boxes etc etc which are the detriment to the environment. Not to mention all the waste from a construction site that rarely gets recycled.
If you want to lower your carbon footprint start checking labels for clothes and products, recycle plastics and avoid products which contain them. If you really want to lower it go vegan / vegetarian.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 12:29 am
Trees are renewable but it takes a long time to grow them.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 12:44 am
My subsequent replies got lost in the system: Saying trees are renewable hence there's no need to recycle is tantamount to saying the water cycle is perpetual so it's alright to waste water freely. And associating care for the environment to going vegan is just false analogy...try harder.
You do know that the lack of trees isn't necessarily the entirety of the issue? Their age counts too if we were to factor in surface runoff too and the article neither addressed these.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 4:12 am
So what you're saying is...I have to put my health at risk (can of worms here) if my goal is to reduce emissions? Again, fallacious at best.
randomised
Feb 7, 18 4:38 am
If that land isn't used for growing trees for paper, it will be used as farmland or built developments etc. How's the runoff there? And you don't need to put your health at risk by not eating meat, there are options and alternatives if you're only willing to invest(igate)...
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 7:44 am
I may be wrong but I could've swore that's our job to find solutions for issues such as these? I'll leave the argument about vegans at the door, not gonna touch it with a 50 foot pole.
What's your problem with growing trees? I don't get that...and you're off by 10ft according to Jesus :-p
Non Sequitur
Feb 7, 18 8:38 am
Bacon is delicious. Should I recycle the pink butcher paper it's wrapped in?
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 9:08 am
No problem with trees if you read my comment, what's yours? I'm not jesus ^^
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 9:17 am
My issue is with deforestation. Older trees have a better runoff absorption rate, which is 1st year 101 actually.
randomised
Feb 7, 18 10:46 am
My issue is with reforestation. Younger trees have a better runoff absorption rate than no trees at all, which is just common sense 101 actually.
randomised
Feb 7, 18 10:47 am
And Non Seq, you should make notepads of that pink butcher paper, obviously.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 11:10 am
Why reforest when you can reduce deforestation at all? Common sense ain't that common after all.
Non Sequitur
Feb 7, 18 11:12 am
^because we need wood for various things. Not every tree cut is cause for deforestation panic.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 11:19 am
We were talking about paper tho? Why the need to take it out of context? ;)
randomised
Feb 7, 18 1:19 pm
When you are talking about commercially used/owned land, I really don't see why you are against growing trees on that land to eventually produce paper. If there's no need for paper, those trees wouldn't even be there in the first place, so why do you hate trees so much that you are against growing them?
Wood Guy
Feb 7, 18 2:24 pm
Land that was once used for growing trees for paper does not automatically become strip malls or corn fields once the demand for paper is gone. I live in Maine, near the largest contiguous forest in the lower 48--once used extensively for paper production, an industry that is now gone here. The forests are now managed for other uses, including Huber's engineered wood products, framing lumber, chips for boiler plants and pellets for pellet heaters. Some areas are being clearcut for wind farms and mining, but for the most part the forest is remaining intact. Paper companies plant monocultures, which are not healthy ecosystems any more than any other monoculture.
randomised
Feb 7, 18 2:33 pm
But those same forests now used for lumber are the same monoculture...my point is, when the economic incentive is gone to have a production forest, it will be turned into something else with economic value, like a strip mall or a field full of solar panels or wind mills, whatever...Still think for the runoff "a" forest is better than "no" forest.
archietechie
Feb 7, 18 9:41 pm
No one said those commercial plots can't be used for other sustainable purposes though rando, sounds like a strawman to me. But if your demonstration for the "love" for trees is to plant and deforest them then... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
randomised
Feb 8, 18 1:53 am
As long as it is a biodegradable and renewable strawman...my demonstration for the love of trees is appreciating commercial enterprises that plant and grow trees.
archietechie
Feb 8, 18 5:01 am
^ So...you do hate trees.
randomised
Feb 8, 18 5:30 am
No I don't...I support giving them a life and letting them grow for us to have nice paper, you don't want to give the trees that chance, so you're the tree hater ;)
archietechie
Feb 8, 18 5:38 am
That's half of it...convenient. You support their growth only for them to die because of paper. I want to reduce paper and by extension, their futile deaths :)
randomised
Feb 8, 18 6:09 am
A short and meaningful life with a purpose is better than never have been given the chance to live at all, that's why I support the growing of trees in any way, shape or form.
archietechie
Feb 8, 18 8:56 am
Doesn't quite beat a long, fulfulling life unaffected by anthropogenic means tho...but kay.
Non Sequitur
Feb 8, 18 9:24 am
since I'm getting spammed with all these replies, let me remind people that trees are not sentient and could care less if they are alive, dead, chopped up and pressed into shitty sketchpads, or on fire.
randomised
Feb 8, 18 10:27 am
But I care, for the sake of all peoplekind!
archietechie
Feb 8, 18 10:34 am
Me too, yay! In all seriousness though, they should at least implement a fb-esque "turn off notifications" function.
Wood Guy
Feb 7, 18 12:33 pm
At a very environmentally conscious design/build place where I used to work, we tried adding shredded paper to the cellulose we installed in our products (we made foam-free panelized Passivhauses). Unfortunately it didn't work very well.
I applaud your concern for the environment. It's a complex issue. I'm about as environmentally minded as a practical person can be, but I have stopped worrying about my use of paper, until bigger problems are solved. I save clean cardboard to put under garden paths (great weed suppression and encourages earthworms) and have considered having clean white paper baled to scatter around my farm, for mason bee nesting, and to provide nesting for rodents which feed foxes and coyotes (critical members of the ecosystem). But that's a rural solution to a largely urban problem, and a drop in the ocean in terms of actual effect.
x-jla
Feb 7, 18 7:02 pm
farming trees used to produce paper and wood helps the environment. It’s called carbon sequestration.
archinine
Feb 7, 18 8:34 pm
What a turn.
You also have to think about the marginal output of your time. How many hours are spent sifting thru paper to put together little packets and how little does that help in the grand scheme?
Probably the same amount of time as planting a tree? Or recycling a bunch of plastic? Or washing a dishes vs using disposable ones?
randomised
Feb 8, 18 8:21 am
Don't forget all the resources spent to enable and facilitate this discussion alone about recycling some stupid CD sheets, all those devices only able to work with their precious little metals mined by little children in toxic conditions, plugged into their plastic sockets, made from dirty oil, all those servers humming intercontinentally using Gigawatts of power and producing heat, my god the heat!, all while drinking a hypothetical soy-latte made from beans that were grown on a plantation in the jungle where a precious rainforest used to be. What's the carbon footprint of this reply? The paperless studio was going to save the planet, in a few years most of our energy will be consumed by keeping up with the cloud, disappearing into thin air, zeros and ones...zeros and ones.
Hi there -
Architecture firms produce SO much paper waste (especially when printing is billed to the client). Do any of you work at a firm that has a great way of reducing/reusing the paper you produce?
I have heard from a friend that she used to work at a firm that had a company that upcycled their old CD redlines into notepads that people could use in the office for scrap paper. That sounds great, but I haven't had any luck finding them. Any thoughts?
We send most of our drawings to the shredder. Someone in my office used to make old sketch pads from the lesser project sheets but I have not seen one of these in almost 10 years now.
Paper grows on trees anyways so, with all else considered, it's quite literally the least of my worries.
With all your worries, you still have time to respond to dumb Architecture forums at noon on a Tuesday?
I do. It's called time management and I'm a superstar at it. Happy to see you realize your question was dumb to start with.
OP Making crappy, crafty sketch pads or notebooks from horrible smooth printer paper that has stuff printed on them on the back doesn't reduce paper waste, it merely delays it by a fraction. Reducing the amount of printing will have a larger and more lasting impact...put your energy where it matters would be my advice.
Nevertheless, it's a start.
It's a false start only devised to make people feel they've made a difference when they actually haven't, thereby blocking or slowing down real impactful change.
Beg to differ. Who says we can't do that whilst looking for new ways to recycle at a greater scale?
Because by that you create a need for something cheap and almost free (those inferior notepads) which blocks any incentive to make a true change because you'll have to give up that notepad. Worst is when those are sold and your business relies on others wasting paper, you'll do anything to keep people wasting so you have plenty of resources to run your business.
That wasn't what I was alluding to however. I meant while phasing out paper pads in favor of digitizing everything, in the meantime why not take the time to reuse old CDs? You know, instead of buying new sketchpads.
we've been using a lot less paper since the building dept. started taking applications digitally, but it's still a pain because their software doesn't tell you when they post comments or need more info.
I'm still trying to figure out how to recycle all those old CAD files.
Maybe digital notepads?
We put our used papers into the recycling bin. Perhaps I have too much faith in the janitorial staff but I imagine it ends up in the right place and is repurposed appropriately. Scraps feel messy and are distracting from my note taking. A clean pad made of recycled materials e.g. My previously recycled drawings sets, is perfectly suffice.
Trees are renewable and paper is largely biodegradable. It's the plastic and the toner and the 3D printers and the take out boxes etc etc which are the detriment to the environment. Not to mention all the waste from a construction site that rarely gets recycled.
If you want to lower your carbon footprint start checking labels for clothes and products, recycle plastics and avoid products which contain them. If you really want to lower it go vegan / vegetarian.
Trees are renewable but it takes a long time to grow them.
My subsequent replies got lost in the system: Saying trees are renewable hence there's no need to recycle is tantamount to saying the water cycle is perpetual so it's alright to waste water freely. And associating care for the environment to going vegan is just false analogy...try harder.
Maybe care to read this: http://www.twosidesna.org/US/Paper-grows-trees..quite-fast
And yes, the carbon footprint of vegans is considerably smaller than meat eaters, it is a perfect analogy: http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-carbon-footprint-diet
You do know that the lack of trees isn't necessarily the entirety of the issue? Their age counts too if we were to factor in surface runoff too and the article neither addressed these.
So what you're saying is...I have to put my health at risk (can of worms here) if my goal is to reduce emissions? Again, fallacious at best.
If that land isn't used for growing trees for paper, it will be used as farmland or built developments etc. How's the runoff there? And you don't need to put your health at risk by not eating meat, there are options and alternatives if you're only willing to invest(igate)...
I may be wrong but I could've swore that's our job to find solutions for issues such as these? I'll leave the argument about vegans at the door, not gonna touch it with a 50 foot pole.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpPvGlrqhdA
What's your problem with growing trees? I don't get that...and you're off by 10ft according to Jesus :-p
Bacon is delicious. Should I recycle the pink butcher paper it's wrapped in?
No problem with trees if you read my comment, what's yours? I'm not jesus ^^
My issue is with deforestation. Older trees have a better runoff absorption rate, which is 1st year 101 actually.
My issue is with reforestation. Younger trees have a better runoff absorption rate than no trees at all, which is just common sense 101 actually.
And Non Seq, you should make notepads of that pink butcher paper, obviously.
Why reforest when you can reduce deforestation at all? Common sense ain't that common after all.
^because we need wood for various things. Not every tree cut is cause for deforestation panic.
We were talking about paper tho? Why the need to take it out of context? ;)
When you are talking about commercially used/owned land, I really don't see why you are against growing trees on that land to eventually produce paper. If there's no need for paper, those trees wouldn't even be there in the first place, so why do you hate trees so much that you are against growing them?
Land that was once used for growing trees for paper does not automatically become strip malls or corn fields once the demand for paper is gone. I live in Maine, near the largest contiguous forest in the lower 48--once used extensively for paper production, an industry that is now gone here. The forests are now managed for other uses, including Huber's engineered wood products, framing lumber, chips for boiler plants and pellets for pellet heaters. Some areas are being clearcut for wind farms and mining, but for the most part the forest is remaining intact. Paper companies plant monocultures, which are not healthy ecosystems any more than any other monoculture.
But those same forests now used for lumber are the same monoculture...my point is, when the economic incentive is gone to have a production forest, it will be turned into something else with economic value, like a strip mall or a field full of solar panels or wind mills, whatever...Still think for the runoff "a" forest is better than "no" forest.
No one said those commercial plots can't be used for other sustainable purposes though rando, sounds like a strawman to me. But if your demonstration for the "love" for trees is to plant and deforest them then... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As long as it is a biodegradable and renewable strawman...my demonstration for the love of trees is appreciating commercial enterprises that plant and grow trees.
^ So...you do hate trees.
No I don't...I support giving them a life and letting them grow for us to have nice paper, you don't want to give the trees that chance, so you're the tree hater ;)
That's half of it...convenient. You support their growth only for them to die because of paper. I want to reduce paper and by extension, their futile deaths :)
A short and meaningful life with a purpose is better than never have been given the chance to live at all, that's why I support the growing of trees in any way, shape or form.
Doesn't quite beat a long, fulfulling life unaffected by anthropogenic means tho...but kay.
since I'm getting spammed with all these replies, let me remind people that trees are not sentient and could care less if they are alive, dead, chopped up and pressed into shitty sketchpads, or on fire.
But I care, for the sake of all peoplekind!
Me too, yay! In all seriousness though, they should at least implement a fb-esque "turn off notifications" function.
At a very environmentally conscious design/build place where I used to work, we tried adding shredded paper to the cellulose we installed in our products (we made foam-free panelized Passivhauses). Unfortunately it didn't work very well.
I applaud your concern for the environment. It's a complex issue. I'm about as environmentally minded as a practical person can be, but I have stopped worrying about my use of paper, until bigger problems are solved. I save clean cardboard to put under garden paths (great weed suppression and encourages earthworms) and have considered having clean white paper baled to scatter around my farm, for mason bee nesting, and to provide nesting for rodents which feed foxes and coyotes (critical members of the ecosystem). But that's a rural solution to a largely urban problem, and a drop in the ocean in terms of actual effect.
farming trees used to produce paper and wood helps the environment. It’s called carbon sequestration.
What a turn.
You also have to think about the marginal output of your time. How many hours are spent sifting thru paper to put together little packets and how little does that help in the grand scheme?
Probably the same amount of time as planting a tree? Or recycling a bunch of plastic? Or washing a dishes vs using disposable ones?
Don't forget all the resources spent to enable and facilitate this discussion alone about recycling some stupid CD sheets, all those devices only able to work with their precious little metals mined by little children in toxic conditions, plugged into their plastic sockets, made from dirty oil, all those servers humming intercontinentally using Gigawatts of power and producing heat, my god the heat!, all while drinking a hypothetical soy-latte made from beans that were grown on a plantation in the jungle where a precious rainforest used to be. What's the carbon footprint of this reply? The paperless studio was going to save the planet, in a few years most of our energy will be consumed by keeping up with the cloud, disappearing into thin air, zeros and ones...zeros and ones.
Speaking of using wood...