Paper bills: You and me are through.
"Can you [stop] my bills?"
Can you stop my telephone bills, can you stop by automo’ bills, if you did then maybe we could chill
By Zaren White
It's Easy Being Green
Bills—we hate them and everything they stand for. Considering their unwanted nature, it’s safe to say that this is one use of paper that is very wasteful. Since I don’t advocate going back to stone tablets (although think of the novelty!), the reality is we have to use some amount of paper in our daily lives. Environmental conscientiousness involves deciding which uses are worthwhile and which are wasteful.
You don’t need paper bills. I really doubt you keep your bills—phone, Internet, and cable—and bank statements, so they’re probably being sent, on a monthly basis, on a one-way trip to the shredder and into the recycling bin. Or, even worse, into the trash can.
One thing that humans are fabulously adept at is making our own living almost embarrassingly easy and convenient. Drive-through food, drive-through banking—our existence is defined by how much we can accomplish with the least possible effort or energy expenditure. Call it evolutionary adaptation if you want, but we have used technology to simplify (or complicate) every facet of our lives.
We are a technologically savvy species and there’s nothing a paper bill does that the Internet can’t. If you’re reading this now, you can use a computer and the Internet. If you even own a cell phone for which to have a paper bill, you’re tech-literate enough to be billed electronically.
Many of us have long since switched to online banking and e-accounts for just about everything imaginable, but we’re still receiving paper bills. You may shred and recycle, but we know that recycling, as important as it is, isn’t the answer. Avoiding wasting the paper in the first place should be the priority.
Opt out of paper billing for everything. I admit to having let the monthly barrage of bills go on way longer than I should have, and it was a relief to finally take the time to cancel paper billings of my bank account and credit card account statements. That’s three sets of paper—and their envelopes—that are now spared each month.
That may sound insignificant, but that’s 36 pieces of mail a year that I won’t get now. If every single MUN student opted out of three pieces of paper mail per month, that’s 612,000 envelopes full of paper that didn’t have to be created and sent to you only to be quickly discarded.
And let’s not forget about flyers and junk mail; putting a sign on your door/mailbox that says “no flyers please” and calling the post office to request opting out of flyers can remedy that issue.
You make think receiving your cell phone bill online doesn’t make a huge dent in paper use and waste, but when we collectively make an effort to change our habits, the results are enormous. We’ve created the technology to not only make our lives convenient, but more environmentally sustainable. Let’s use it.
Share
4 comments
Anonymous on Jun 9, 2010 at 1:17am
Isn't The Muse, when it's printed, a huge waste of paper (more than necessary because you deliberately print more than you have to) that isn't kept by anyone and ends up in the garbage anyway? If the Muse really cared about recycling, it would go paperless all year round.
Matt on Jun 14, 2010 at 6:03pm
Yeah, far as I know. The Muse talks a big game about recycling, but willingly prints thousands of extra copies every week they know won't be used, all in the name of advertising money. Worse than the companies they complain about! The only thing that makes sense is to end the Muse's hypocrisy, and go all-online.
Zaren on Jul 4, 2010 at 12:39am
Your concerns - and they are important - don't necessarily belong in the comment section of my article. As I represent myself, as a writer, and not the Muse as an organization, my views on the importance of reducing paper wastage (such as receiving e-bills) are not compromised by whether or not the Muse goes only online. I have always been concerned about the quantity of papers produced. However, in addition, to valuing environmental education and awareness, I also value the existence of an independent student media, and whether or not it's because of an intrinsic love for the printed word, I support the existence of a physical paper. Still, the number of papers being produced does need to be reduced and I believe and hope that measures will be taken to ensure this. As for "talking a big game" about recycling, well the Muse has always been (in the three, going on four years that I've been involved) very conscientious about recycling the papers(or reusing them, such as by giving left over copies to schools for art class and such).
I recommend distinguishing between the ideas and concerns in my (opinion) column and the idea that the Muse, by virtue of being a newsPAPER, is hypocritical about sustainability. I think those two things are related but not the same. As I say in my article, "the reality is we have to use some amount of paper in our daily lives." I'm of the opinion that it matters how we choose to use that paper. While reduction is the goal, I'm not ready to encourage abolishing newspaper indefinitely. And as all organizations, and some that are completely based on sustainability, continue to use paper to some extent, then perhaps everyone is very hypocritical. I'd simply think twice before describing the Muse as "worse than the companies they complain about" when, to my knowledge, "The Muse" doesn't complain about companies - I write about concerns and ideas in my column.
But, thanks for reading my column in the first place :)
Danny on Jul 4, 2010 at 10:09pm
For the Muse, doesn't recycling mean that they use the energy and resources to print thousands of papers (they know won't be read), then spend even more energy to make it re-usable? The Muse could be the main student publication at MUN (since it's the best we've got), without wasting all that paper week after week. I'm a big fan of the word myself, but I'm a bigger fan of the world.
Also, I think when people say "The Muse" has said things, they mean that writers, like you, have said them in articles in the Muse. After all, the paper itself expresses no opinions, it's just the sum of the articles of varying quality written by its contributors. It seems hypotrical for an organization that overprints thousands of copies to run a story in its Science section about reducing paper.
Add a comment