Is toilet paper really a factor in deforestation and climate change

Is toilet paper really a factor in deforestation and climate change?

Introduction

 

News articles, charities, environmental bodies and even celebrities have discussed the negative impact toilet paper is having on the environment and more specifically its role in global deforestation.

 

They argue that the extensive use of toilet paper per capita, in countries like the USA, UK and Germany is partially responsible for the ongoing decimation of some of the most important eco regions in the world, including the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil and the Boreal Forest in Canada.

 

Voices in the toilet paper industry however argue strongly that ongoing sustainability initiatives ensure that carbon emissions are managed carefully and one or more trees are planted for each one that is logged for toilet paper production.

 

They fall back on statistics that purportedly support their claims: The rate of deforestation in the amazon rainforest has reduced in recent years and the area covered by forests in Europe has actually increased by 10% between 1990 and 2023.

 

Others argue that whilst toilet paper production may increase carbon emissions and the rate of global deforestation, our fight against climate change must focus on greater priorities, including the fight against fossil fuels which, according to the UN, account for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

 

So is toilet paper production and consumption really that bad after all?

 

In this article, I look deeper under the statistics and statements of those on both sides of the aisle, with the hope of arriving at a fair conclusion.

 

The role of deforestation in climate change

 

Companies who specialise in the provision of eco friendly alternatives to normal toilet paper usually focus on the carbon emissions of toilet paper production itself. A popular statement in the bamboo toilet paper industry for example is that “Bamboo toilet paper produces 65% less carbon than regular toilet paper”. This may be true, as bamboo toilet paper production requires significantly less water and electricity than normal toilet paper.

 

At Bamboo Soft however, it is our view that it is much more important to look at the source material used in toilet paper production, and how the extraction of these materials impacts the environment rather than the production process itself

 

The production of normal toilet paper requires the logging of both hardwood and softwood trees, including oak, maples, pine and firs. In order to maximise the efficiency of the process, logging will typically occur in large forests, allowing tree harvesters to log a high number of trees before stripping the tree of its leaves, branches and bark so that it is ready to be cut into small pieces in a woodchipper before being processed into toilet paper.

 

Given the growing importance of ESG across all industries, including the paper/toilet paper industry, once a group of trees has been logged, another group will typically be planted with the hopes that it will be ready for a fresh harvest within 20 years.

 

This method of continuously replanting trees which have been logged may stem deforestation in the long term, but the question arises: what is the impact of large scale logging in the short term?

As noted in our introduction, fossil fuels account for over 75% of greenhouse gas emissions. Deforestation however, which involves the logging of trees on a large scale for use in the timber and paper industries or to clear space for land use in other industries, account for roughly 25% of greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Deforestation is therefore a significant cause of ongoing climate change. It follows that before normal toilet paper production has even started, the logging and processing of trees for use as a raw material in the production process has already had a significantly negative impact on the environment.

 

To accurately assess the damage toilet paper production has on the environment, focus should fall squarely on the issue of deforestation rather than the production process itself, and whether claims that this has begun to reverse are true or not

 

Are we winning the fight against deforestation?

 

Now that we have established the real culprit in toilet paper production, deforestation caused by the logging of trees for source material, we need to establish whether the global fight against deforestation is succeeding or failing.

 

In 2021, in a landmark moment at COP26, world leaders from 140 countries signed a declaration promising to help reverse deforestation by 2030. Only one year later, the World Wide Fund for Nature revealed that deforestation had actually increased, with global forest loss in 2022 4% higher than in 2021.

 

If it is seemingly so clear that we are currently losing the fight against deforestation, despite the best efforts of world leaders, what are the arguments posed by those in the toilet paper industry that state the issue isn’t so clear?

 

  • In its article “wiping out misconceptions” Georgia Pacific argues that “toilet paper doesn’t affect the environment the way people assume it does”. It goes on to say that deforestation does occur, but not in the US, and where it does occur, it is due to poor regulation

 

Bamboo Soft Response: In the same way that Georgia Pacific makes reference to the increase in forested acres in the US since 1920, other companies commonly make reference to the increase in tree cover in Europe, which as stated above has increased in the past two decades. Ignoring the fact that world leaders pledged to fight deforestation on a global scale, not just in particular areas, equating the increase in forested acres with a better environment is too simple of a claim.

 

The reason that forest sizes are growing in the US and Europe is mainly due to sustainability initiatives by timber and paper/toilet paper companies, who plant and grow 2 or 3 trees every time a single tree is cut down. In the long term, this will cause the growth of new trees to outstrip the loss of old ones.

 

This is not the full story however. As explained by the World Resources Institute, “tall forests are being cleared at a faster rate than new forests can regrow, leading to a gradual decline in forest height and a reduction of forest services such as carbon storage over time. So while Europe isn’t losing tree cover overall, the health of its forests is declining.”

 

Moreover, many sustainability initiatives across all industries focus on planting trees in Asia and Africa so that companies in Europe and the US can claim to “carbon offset” their way to net zero. Ecologi is one of the most popular non-profit organisations that help companies achieve this goal.

 

Most of the time however, destroyed forests, which may have had thousands of different tree species, are replanted with one/two types of fast growing trees. One such fast growing tree often replanted by non-profit organisations is the Eucalyptus tree. This tree is native to Australia, and other than feeding koalas, is not very useful to common wildlife. Despite this, the Eucalyptus tree is one of a few species being planted across plateaus in Africa and Asia so that companies in the US and Europe can claim to be carbon negative and policy makers can claim to be effectively fighting deforestation.

 

It seems that the negative impacts of deforestation cannot be wholly reversed by simply planting new trees every time one is cut down, or by growing single specie trees across entire plateaus in Africa and Asia. The consequences of deforestation are extensive, and the solutions must be equally comprehensive and wide ranging. Stating basic statistics about the increase/loss of tree cover appear to miss the more nuanced perspective offered by those who study the issue of deforestation in more depth, often arriving at the troubling verdict that sometimes, the impact of logging trees in natural forests are irreversible.

 

  • The forests used by toilet paper companies are carefully managed by entities such as the FSC, and ensure no harm to water and wildlife

 

Bamboo Soft Response: It is true that when forests are grown from scratch, by planting trees on unused land or land that was previously used to raise cattle or grow crops, companies are effective at managing these forests sustainably. This does not however decrease the impact on these companies logging trees in natural forests, which they continue to do in a significant way

 

  • Companies in the industry or working towards the reforestation of areas previously damaged by either natural disasters or paper/toilet paper production

 

Bamboo Soft Response: As above, reforestation initiatives are to be lauded, however do not decrease the impact of continued logging of natural forests.

 

  • Toilet paper and related products are responsible for improved hygiene and convenience, and make a positive impact to society.

 

Bamboo Soft Response: Society can just as effectively benefit from toilet paper products that are made from either recycled or alternative pulp materials such as bagasse or bamboo

 

Some in the toilet paper industry seem to deny the existence of deforestation altogether. A report by Kimberley Clark in 2021, one of the largest toilet paper producers in the world, argued:

 

  • “Deforestation is not a threat to Canada’s boreal forest, given strong laws and regulations”

 

Bamboo Soft Response: Despite the existence of regulations, the boreal forest in Canada continues to feel the significant impact of deforestation. Many independent reports suggest that the level of deforestation is much higher than that reported by government officials. Whilst the Natural Resource of Canada suggests the level of deforestation is near to zero, the Wildlands league suggests that 1.6 million acres of the boreal forest have been converted into scarred and barren land, unlikely to easily regrow trees again.

 

  • Important in the fight against deforestation was reducing the reliance on natural forests, which Kimberley Clark stated they were decreasing by 50%.

 

Bamboo Soft Response: To begin to win the battle against deforestation, logging in natural forests must stop immediately, and initiatives to simply slow this down over time as suggested by Kimberly Clark will continue to harm our environment for the next few generations to come

 

Conclusion

 

Toilet paper production relies heavily on the substantial logging of trees for use as a source material. This is causing us to lose the fight against deforestation globally, despite the promise or world leaders to reverse this trend

 

The continued loss of tree cover from deforestation significantly decreases the ability of forests to absorb carbon, which when released back into the atmosphere will harm efforts to stem the impact of climate change.

 

Toilet paper production is therefore both a significant cause of deforestation and in turn climate change. Efforts to stem the issue are working on a surface level, with increases in forested acres in both Europe and US. However, a greater focus on recycled and non-wood pulp alternatives must be considered by the world’s largest toilet paper companies, as otherwise, toilet paper production will continue to devastate our environment. And none of us want that!

Back to blog