Paper prices continue to rise

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdane
  • Start date Start date
M

mdane

COMMENT
Recycle recycle they say! Yet paper continues to rise in price and yet
the price of scrap paper is just about worthless.
Mabon Dane

STORY
Paper prices to increase; Bilt, JK Paper hike costs

New Delhi, July 18 (PTI): Paper prices are headed for an increase again
with leading manufacturers Bilt and JK Paper revising prices upwards
due to rise in input costs and firm demand in the market.

"Already in the beginning of this month we have increased prices of
coated paper by Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,500 per tonne and now we are looking
at revising the prices for uncoated paper as well," JK Paper Managing
Director Harsh Pati Singhania said.

He said the company would finalise the increase in price of uncoated
paper by about Rs 500 per tonne next month.

The price rise was on account of rising input costs, mainly wood and
bamboo, along with other raw materials and chemicals, he said.

"Also, the demand for our products from the market has been firm and we
have to keep that in consideration while we revise the prices,"
Singhania added.

Another leading paper manufacturer, Bilt also said it was in the
process of implementing its price hike for both coated and uncoated
papers.

"For the uncoated paper we have increased prices by Rs 600 per tonne,
while that of the coated by about Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,100 per tonne," a
BILT official said.

In the beginning of this year, BILT had hiked the price of its uncoated
paper by Rs 750 per tonne. The BILT official also said strong demand
from markets coupled with rising input cost were responsible for the
price revision.

Asked if the revised prices would affect demand, Singhania said, "We do
not forsee any dip in demand. In the last 12 months the paper industry
has seen increased prices but the demands have been robust".

SOURCE:
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/006200607180323.htm
 
COMMENT
Recycle recycle they say! Yet paper continues to rise in price and yet
the price of scrap paper is just about worthless.
Mabon Dane

STORY
Paper prices to increase; Bilt, JK Paper hike costs

New Delhi, July 18 (PTI): Paper prices are headed for an increase again
with leading manufacturers Bilt and JK Paper revising prices upwards
due to rise in input costs and firm demand in the market.

"Already in the beginning of this month we have increased prices of
coated paper by Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,500 per tonne and now we are looking
at revising the prices for uncoated paper as well," JK Paper Managing
Director Harsh Pati Singhania said.

He said the company would finalise the increase in price of uncoated
paper by about Rs 500 per tonne next month.

The price rise was on account of rising input costs, mainly wood and
bamboo, along with other raw materials and chemicals, he said.

"Also, the demand for our products from the market has been firm and we
have to keep that in consideration while we revise the prices,"
Singhania added.

Another leading paper manufacturer, Bilt also said it was in the
process of implementing its price hike for both coated and uncoated
papers.

"For the uncoated paper we have increased prices by Rs 600 per tonne,
while that of the coated by about Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,100 per tonne," a
BILT official said.

In the beginning of this year, BILT had hiked the price of its uncoated
paper by Rs 750 per tonne. The BILT official also said strong demand
from markets coupled with rising input cost were responsible for the
price revision.

Asked if the revised prices would affect demand, Singhania said, "We do
not forsee any dip in demand. In the last 12 months the paper industry
has seen increased prices but the demands have been robust".

SOURCE:
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/006200607180323.htm
Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me at all. Here in the US everything is on the rise.
The culprit here is crude oil prices. Everything, from the chemicals
used to make the paper to the energy needed to produce and transport it,
is dependent on the price of oil. Worldwide demand for oil-based
products is on the rise, while production remains at best flat. There
isn't much the individual can do about it but grimace and bear it.

TJ
 
COMMENT
Recycle recycle they say! Yet paper continues to rise in price and yet
the price of scrap paper is just about worthless.
Mabon Dane
Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense. Oil is going to cripple out economy at some point if
nothing changes. Scrap paper must be taken to a recycling center,
transported to a paper processing plant, and they with some utility, it is
heated, ground, mashed, whatever to make new pulp from it. All of this
takes high priced energy.
 
Makes perfect sense. Oil is going to cripple out economy at some point if
nothing changes. Scrap paper must be taken to a recycling center,
transported to a paper processing plant, and they with some utility, it is
heated, ground, mashed, whatever to make new pulp from it. All of this
takes high priced energy.
Click to expand...

But the solution is simple -) As our great leader said not so long ago
"Don't drive if you don't need to!" (Referring to the raising gas prices
as if that's only individual motorist's problem). <Sigh>
 
I have a few quick comments:

1) Demand for paper is still increasing world wide. Even though some
paper demand is reduced by some use of paperless offices and software,
the growth of computer usage into the developing world is creating
higher demands for paper product. Paper products are also used for
packaging, and replacement for Styrofoam and other plastics as more
environmentally sound alternatives.

2) The cost of high quality paper is not about the paper pulp source.
The process of cleaning, repulping, rebleaching the paper fibre, and
then processing it back into paper, and then coating it, is more costly
than the initial cost of the pulp.

3) The main reason for recycling paper is to save trees and energy.
Making paper from scratch is environmentally more hazardous, to the
forests, to other plants and animals, the use of chemicals, the use of
energy which is often provided by fossil fuel burning, etc.

4) If, over time, paper demand reduces, the prices may begin to drop,
but that's not the point in recycling. Reduce and reuse first, then
recycle, because it does help, even if it doesn't save money on paper
purchases.

Art
 
Arthur said:
2) The cost of high quality paper is not about the paper pulp source.
The process of cleaning, repulping, rebleaching the paper fibre, and
then processing it back into paper, and then coating it, is more costly
than the initial cost of the pulp.
Click to expand...

Good piece, Arthur.

Question: does recycling paper use more energy than making new paper?
Does recycling use more resources (chemistry, etc.)?
Does recycling actually create more pollution (acid in the water, etc.)?

Richard
 
Answer: It really depends.

In general paper used in recycling is not made back into high end paper
goods. Mixed paper is used to make lower quality paper products like
egg cartons, cardboard, cereal boxes, and similar products.

Higher end papers that is separated, usually at source, into high and
low paper types, may be made back into writing or photocopying paper can
be made without bleaching into a greyish or speckled paper without a
great deal of chemicals.

However, producing nice bleached white paper from post consumer paper
does involve a fair amount of chemical processes.

Overall, even that probably requires less energy and certainly less
processing (and trees) to create.

Starting with cutting down a log is certainly going to be much more
labor and energy intensive than working from process paper, even if it
does require some cleaning to make "fresh" paper.

Art
 
Arthur said:
Answer: It really depends.

In general paper used in recycling is not made back into high end paper
goods. Mixed paper is used to make lower quality paper products like
egg cartons, cardboard, cereal boxes, and similar products.

Higher end papers that is separated, usually at source, into high and
low paper types, may be made back into writing or photocopying paper can
be made without bleaching into a greyish or speckled paper without a
great deal of chemicals.

However, producing nice bleached white paper from post consumer paper
does involve a fair amount of chemical processes.

Overall, even that probably requires less energy and certainly less
processing (and trees) to create.

Starting with cutting down a log is certainly going to be much more
labor and energy intensive than working from process paper, even if it
does require some cleaning to make "fresh" paper.

Art
Click to expand...
Isn't it interesting then that at Office Max, for example, a ream of
Office Max brand ordinary copy paper, 92 brightness, costs $3.99 while a
ream of recycled copy paper, 92 brightness, costs $5.79?

Clearly, cost of manufacture isn't the only factor at work here.

TJ
 
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:49:10 -0700, Richard Steinfeld


Somebody has claimed that making a solar cell actually consumes more
energy than it produces.....if true so sad.
 
If the recycled paper is 92 brightness as is the original, then maybe
you are wrong....recycling actually costs more...
 
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:49:10 -0700, Richard Steinfeld

google cotton and resources.

Cotton...the natural product.

Then we have Hemp, which may well hide its complete ecoi-failure under
a haze of "we do not grow drugs" paraphernalia
 
COMMENT
Recycle recycle they say! Yet paper continues to rise in price and yet
the price of scrap paper is just about worthless.
Click to expand...


Sorry to thump a tub.

GOOD!

The ONLY answer is less people.......

......and yes it will mean things are more expensive.
 
OldNick said:
Somebody has claimed that making a solar cell actually consumes more
energy than it produces.....if true so sad.
Click to expand...
A Cornell professor has been claiming for years that making ethanol from
corn consumes more energy than it produces.

TJ
 
Regarding solar cells, or many of the energy technologies, often earlier
designs are not efficient, but that doesn't mean they remain so. Often
improvements come about to increase output, reduce cost and resource
required to produce the product, etc. but the old "specs" stick. I
imagine the improvement in solar cell output per square inch well covers
the energy involved in making them.

If you look at most technology of this nature (memory, CPU, digital
sensors, batteries, etc) cost, resource required lowers while density,
cost, speed, and reliability increase.

Art
 
Let's just put it this way, if recycled paper costs more to manufacture,
the problem is that the real cost of growing and harvesting trees isn't
being properly considered or paid for. Trees aren't just a free
resource. They are carbon sinks, they hold soils in place to prevent
erosion, they provide shade, process and clean water, they provide food
and shelter for wildlife, etc. They should be valued at a much higher
rate than they are, and then suddenly, virgin paper would be a heck of a
lot more costly than recycled.

Art
 
Cotton is hardly a "natural product"... look at charts on crops and
pesticide use... it usually rates number one. It's a very hard crop to
grow without massive insect destruction without considerable insecticide
spraying. Then it needs to be cleaned, bleached, etc.

On the other hand, hemp grows quickly in fairly adverse conditions, and
can be grown relatively pesticide free.

Again, the whole picture is sometimes more involved than it first appears.

Art
 
Arthur Entlich said:
Let's just put it this way, if recycled paper costs more to manufacture,
the problem is that the real cost of growing and harvesting trees isn't
being properly considered or paid for. Trees aren't just a free resource.
They are carbon sinks, they hold soils in place to prevent erosion, they
provide shade, process and clean water, they provide food and shelter for
wildlife, etc. They should be valued at a much higher rate than they are,
and then suddenly, virgin paper would be a heck of a lot more costly than
recycled.

Art
Click to expand...

Trees for paper are a crop. Yes, they do all the oxygen, shading, etc, but
they are still a crop.

Tomato plants are put into farmlandk the fruit is grown, harvested, sold for
food and the plant is destroyed and replaced. The same happens with trees
for paper. Many years ago, it was a problem with old growth trees
beingharvested, but so far, no one has taken any from my yard to haul off to
paper mills.

I'm sure that large mills are taking the cost of planting and harvesting
into consideration when they do a cost analysis on paper.
 
Arthur said:
I live right in the middle of one of the largest temperate rain forest
regions in the world, and trees are not just "a crop". They are grown
in areas that used to contain old growth forests that were "harvested"
earlier for both wood and pulp. The real cost of the environmental
impact of the harvesting and destruction of the land is not considered
at all, other than a "stumpage fee" which is usually next to nothing.

These lands are crown lands, "owned" by the people, and we receive a
mere pittance of the value of the land treed versus clear-cut.

The damage that tree harvesting does to land conservation, salmon
streams, wildlife habitat, not to mention the changes it makes
climatically, is hardly limited to "old growth forests". The majority
of old growth forests are long gone. The trees that should be replacing
them to make "new" old growth forests are areas that are replanted (if
that) with monoculture trees and end up harvested within 50-75 years if
not less. That hardly replaces the many functions of an old growth
forest. Many plant and animal species can't survive in anything but old
growth forest. And while those new trees are growing, older forests are
still being chopped down to keep up with the paper demands. That's why
recycling of paper is so important, as it buffers the need for new wood
pulp.

Tomato plants grow to maturity and die within 6-8 months even in long
cycle climates, so lets not make comparisons to trees that can take 1000
years to mature.

Anyway, we are going way off topic here, but I literally live in the
midst of a second growth rainforest and have so for over 25 years, on an
island that was covered with old growth forests 100 years ago, so I have
a bit of perspective on this issue.

Art
Click to expand...
I own a few acres of hardwood forest land. I also grow tomatoes, sweet
corn, oats, and alfalfa for a living, so I have a bit of perspective on
this issue, too.

Trees ARE a crop, just like tomatoes and alfalfa. Forests need to be
managed for best production, just like other crops. The management is
just different, that's all. Tomatoes and corn are annuals in my area.
Alfalfa lasts 5 years without management, up to 10 if handled properly.
Alfalfa requires a different management than tomatoes, and trees are
different yet.

Sadly, some are not as good at management as others. Trees do not have
to be clearcut to be harvested. My trees, mostly maples, black cherry,
beech, and ash, haven't been harvested in over 60 years, and they're
long past due. The trees that have matured can be removed selectively
every five years or so, leaving room for the younger trees to grow.
Mature trees don't have the growth rate of younger trees, and they don't
collect carbon or produce oxygen as much as younger ones. (Yes Arthur,
mature trees "store" more carbon than the younger ones. Until they die
and rot, that is.) Diseased trees should be removed, so the diseases
don't spread through the whole forest.

Trying to "preserve" the environment as it is is impossible, because the
environment is not a static thing, and never has been. Environment is an
ever-changing balance, controlled mostly by factors far beyond Man's
control. Things like Earth's orbit fluctuations, and the output of the
Sun. Man's influence pales in comparison. The best we can do is ride
that balance, and try not to fall one way or the other.

So Arthur, what is the answer? Do we stop making paper and other wood
products and let the trees all grow? Or might it not be best to find a
balance that serves all purposes in some fashion?

TJ
 
Arthur Entlich said:
Many plant and animal species can't survive in anything but old growth
forest. And while those new trees are growing, older forests are still
being chopped down to keep up with the paper demands. That's why
recycling of paper is so important, as it buffers the need for new wood
pulp.
Click to expand...
Anyway, we are going way off topic here, but I literally live in the midst
of a second growth rainforest and have so for over 25 years, on an island
that was covered with old growth forests 100 years ago, so I have a bit of
perspective on this issue.

Art
Click to expand...

I respect your perspective, but life must have balance. Sure, paper,
metals, and whatever should be re-cycled when possible. Some, but not all,
areas of the earth should be preserved.

Many species of animals have gone out of existence with no help from
mankind. That does not mean we should hasten their demise, but some will go
away no matter what we do.

There are the vegans that say we should not kill any animals for any reason,
but there are people that have killed animals as a matter of survival for
thousands of years. They use the animal for both food and protection from
the elements because there is nothing available to them but a few seals and
a polar bear. .

What about heating our homes? Oil? Coal? Gas? Wood? All have downsides
and dangers, but so does living with no heat. Perhaps we should not have
6,000 square foot homes for only two people though.

It took a long time, but the paper industry has come to realize they must
plant and sustain a crop of trees for their future. Same with the building
industry so we have a supply of 2 x 4's when needed. Balance and care, but
we have to use what is available to survive, but with care, not just grab
what all you can..
 
The answer is balance.

Your reply suggest some of the answers, but living in an area where
pulping tree are grown as 'crops', I can tell you that selective logging
is a rare occurrence in all but the most private of forests. Paper and
lumber companies can't be "bothered" with selective logging. As I
mentioned, they grow monoculture forests that are all of the same age.
If, as has been occurring here, a pest or virus should come along, it
happily jumps from tree to tree, killing off thousands of acres at a
time, same for fires.

The answer is recognition that an old tree is not always a decadent one.
That old trees not only house many species that otherwise do not
reproduce successfully, but that they support soil placement, molds and
fungi necessary for healthy forests, and so on. Some old logs become
the platform for new ones to grow (nurse logs).

I am not suggesting we go without paper and wood products. I am
suggesting that in terms of paper, we need to spend the cost of proper
recycling to reuse as much pulp as possible, without going to the virgin
pulp because it is "less costly". As I stated previously, and this is
my main point, virgin pump is cheap because we do not properly value
pulp trees. If they were, the recycling process would be considered
"cheap" relative to harvesting new trees to make paper. That is my main
point... that we can reduce use, (as we already are, recent studies
indicate our paper use is dropping now) and recycling diligently, and
probably value live trees to make them too valuable to waste for paper
production when recycled fiber is readily available.

We also need to recognize that replanting seedlings doesn't eliminate
the obligation to make sure that enough forest are left "natural"
because no replanted forest will even emulate a real old growth one.

Art
 
Back
Top