back to article HP CEO: Help us save the world one tree at a time... by printing stuff (with our kit, of course)

The reputation printing has built over the decades is all wrong. It is actually good for the natural world – just ask the boss of HP, the planet's largest maker of print products. "Printing has a connotation of a technology that is not environmentally friendly, which is actually not the case and we are driving that message …

  1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

    "We are going to make printing forest-positive"

    So all the printing that has already been done is all good because of efforts that you promise to make in the future ?

    That's like a teenager saying that you can give him his allowance this week because he'll start cleaning his room next month.

    And what of all the cartridges in landfills ? Are you going to pledge to recycle that and make your entire line carbon-free with offsets ?

    Somehow I doubt that.

    Oh, and that "monitor the types of paper used" thing. Does that mean that we'll also have to buy HP paper or the printer will say no ? Now that's something that could happen - until the inevitable court case throws that toy out of the pram, that is.

    1. fidodogbreath Silver badge

      Re: "We are going to make printing forest-positive"

      "We're positive that there will be no more forests."

  2. Joe W Silver badge

    CO2 uptake

    Trees store carbon. Cut the trees down, store them. Plant new trees. Repeat. Presto: CCS (carbon capture and storage)

    1. deive

      Re: CO2 uptake

      How about the habitats for other life that continual logging destroys?

      1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

        Re: CO2 uptake

        That's only an issue if logging is clearing the land, which is generally a bad idea yes.

        On already cleared land plant, harvest, repeat. The lumber and/or pulp from harvesting is useful, saleable and keeps the carbon locked away out of the atmosphere.

        Best case is to use land that's been clear for a long time. Worst case is the original trees are replaced with managed forresty, which isn't a good as leaving the original trees alone but is better than slash and burn for livestock space.

    2. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: CO2 uptake

      If you landfill the paper, it releases methane which is far worse for the polar bears than co2.

      1. Joe W Silver badge

        Re: CO2 uptake

        Who said anything about "landfill"? Build libraries and stuff them full of books!

        (Re: habitat. Looking at the plantations they call forests here not too much will be lost, and they are really not clearcutting. Plus there are areas that are "unmanaged". This has been a long standing tradition, but when people e.g. from the US come to Germany they call the process "gardening"...)

        1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

          Re: CO2 uptake

          Or just, you know, recycle the paper.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: CO2 uptake

            >Or just, you know, recycle the paper.

            That's the worse thing you can do.

            It uses lots of nasty chemicals and stops people needing to plant new trees.

            What you should do is file the paper, for ever.

            1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

              Re: CO2 uptake

              Oh so now recycling is bad? I can't keep up.

              As to file the paper forever...? I don't really see how that's sustainable. Sounds more like a fire hazard waiting for a spark, thus returning all that captured carbon to the air from whence it came.

              By all means plant more trees though. Then harvest for lumber and repeat. Perpetual atmospheric CO2 removal, the more trees harvested and replanted the more CO2 gets removed.

              1. JohnFen Silver badge

                Re: CO2 uptake

                Recycling isn't bad, but it's the least effective remediation strategy. The most effective is to reduce use in the first place. followed by finding a way to reuse the material rather than recycle it.

                1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

                  Re: CO2 uptake

                  But with paper isn't the best strategy to vastly increase the amount of paper used, and hence the number of new trees planted, so long as you never destroy the paper ?

                  If we were to print the 500 page report on this and send it to everyone to put in the attic we could meet our climate goals.

                  1. JohnFen Silver badge

                    Re: CO2 uptake

                    No, because the paper-making process releases more carbon than the trees sequester.

    3. Frogmaster

      Re: CO2 uptake ... then takedown

      And more besides - including processing CO2 to remove it from the atmosphere. So your acronym should be CCSP (Carbon Capture, Storage and Processing). But....unfortunately this is all stopped when felling and pulping the trees.

      1. Jimmy2Cows Silver badge

        Re: CO2 uptake ... then takedown

        Only if you don't replant more to compensate. Forest management. It's a thing.

        Replant fast-growing species to maximise short-term CO2 absorbtion, and minimise the time to harvest for lumber/pulp. Fast growing doesn't necessarily mean low-quality grain structure. Use drone-planting techniques to massively increase the planting rate.

        https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/09/climate-change-silver-bullet-from-massively-improved-tree-planting.html

        1. Frogmaster

          Re: CO2 uptake ... then takedown

          Quite agree - forest management is a thing. but I don't think it's a core competency of HP management practice, although they often seem to specialise in dead wood.

    4. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: CO2 uptake

      The problem with that equation is that the GHG production (primarily CO2) resulting from papermaking process exceeds the amount "stored" by the trees.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "...forest-positive..."

    Just when I thought HP lacked the capacity to surprise me. How desperate must the company be to try and sell printing as a good thing for the environment? Fairly desperate I'd say. Oh, and that extra 25% they'll charge for the paper, "lets give customers a reason to feel all warm and fuzzy about being overcharged".

    Spin worthy of a politician, from a company lacking the drive and innovation to stay relevant in a competitive and evolving industry.

  4. katrinab Silver badge
    Big Brother

    "He said HP will monitor the types of paper used in its printers"

    And how exactly is that going to work?

    I definitely won't be buying HP while their instant ink thing still exists, because I don't like my printer phoning home. I have a Canon multifunction printer/scanner, and it mostly gets used for the scanner. I've used 30% of the toner that came with it in three years, and I suspect it will last about as long as the machine.

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: "He said HP will monitor the types of paper used in its printers"

      >And how exactly is that going to work?

      The $30 printer will come with a 'starter drawer' of 100 sheets

      After that you can buy 500 sheet drawers for only $50

      Refilling the paper drawer with non-HP paper will brick the printer

  5. Frogmaster

    Must consume more.....

    So his answer to being carbon-friendly is to consume, consume, consume ignoring all other factors involved in the printing process? I might ask on what planet is he living on (pun intended)?

    1. katrinab Silver badge

      Re: Must consume more.....

      He lives on a planet where lots of money is made if people buy his overpriced ink.

      Making money is a Good Thing™ for him.

      Selling ink makes him money, therefore it is a Good Thing™

      Anything else associated with selling more ink is also therefore a Good Thing™, including chopping down rainforests to make paper to apply this ink to.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The ONLY thing...

    ...HP Inc senior management are really interested in is "shareholder value", and the consequential huge bonuses they get if they increase it. If they say anything else it is pure BS.

  7. Mage Silver badge
    Coat

    Save trees?

    I changed from ink jet to laser years ago.

    I "print" to ebook and read on an ereader if possible. Web pages, & Wordprocessor are OK. I use Calibre to convert.

    A 6" ereader isn't much good for PDFs and spreadsheets, though the 7" 300 dpi model is better. I use 10" LCD tablet for PDFs as I can't afford a 13" Sony Digital Paper.

    I've saved about 6,000 pages so far. Also Annotation is computer readable!

    Coat has ereader and 6" phone.

    Stop printing so much, not HP paper.

  8. JohnFen Silver badge

    Almost total bullshit

    The environmental problem with paper is not the fact that it uses trees -- almost all paper comes from trees specifically farmed for that use, after all.

    The environmental problem comes in during the manufacturing of the paper itself.

  9. fidodogbreath Silver badge

    Green?

    Hmm, let's see. 15ml of ink in a plastic housing big enough to hold 200ml, that's equipped with a microchip that makes you throw the cartridge away when it still has 7ml of ink; manufactured from and with petroleum products, then packed in a box and shipped halfway around the world using bunker-fuel-powered container ships and diesel trucks.

    Yeah, HP is like Greenpeace and the f--king Sierra Club rolled into one.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019