FAQs
- Frequently Asked Questions
Study
Overview
1.
What do you mean by "environmental paper"?
2.
There are an awful lot of questions. How do you expect
people to answer all of them?
3.
Some of the questions seem to be slanted, or already
assume an answer. How, then, can you be unbiased about
responses to them?
4.
Conservatree is known for opinions on a lot of the Listening
Study questions. How can you possibly give a fair hearing
to others' opinions with which you might disagree?
5.
How do you choose the quotes to publish?
6.
How do you ensure that the quotes in the reports fairly
represent people's views?
7.
Do
you intend to quantify them?
8.
I just use recycled paper. I don't have any particular
technical expertise about it, so would my comments even
be useful?
9.
How is this study different from other studies that
have tried to accomplish similar goals?
10.
How can I find out when reports or updates are published?
11.
I thought you were going to publish this a year ago.
Why is it so late?
Study
Specifics
12.
You don't have a huge long list of responses for some
of the questions. Doesn't that mean those questions
weren't covered well?
13.
Why don't you list the names of papers that people said
didn't perform well?
14.
You say that some of the technical information in these
reports conflicts with other statements and that some
people might consider some statements debatable or inaccurate.
Then how are readers supposed to make sense of them?
How can they know what information to trust?
Confidentiality
15.
If I answer a question, will my name and company/organization
automatically appear in a report?
16.
Why are some people identified and others not?
17.
If you will honor requests for no public identification,
why do you want any at all?
18.
Will EPA have access to all the responses to this project,
and could they then become public property?
Funding
Questions
19.
What is the nature of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's support?
1.
What do you mean by "environmental paper"?
This
term can mean different things to different people,
depending on their point of view. We deliberately want
to leave it ultimately undefined, both because we expect
this field to evolve further, with new understandings
of what makes a paper "environmentally sustainable,"
and because we want to leave the door open to new arguments.
Initially,
we are referring to recycled paper, "tree free"
or "non-wood" (agricultural crops and agricultural
residues), chlorine free (TCF, PCF, enhanced ECF, and
unbleached), and "sustainably forested" (certified
and non-old growth), and combinations of these, both
within these fiber categories and with virgin wood fiber.
Some of these, such as ECF, are considered "environmental"
by the paper industry but not by many environmentalists,
and we intend to explore these differences of opinion.
We
also expect that these categories may expand. For example,
someone may make the case that another source of fiber
enhances environmental sustainability, or that a particular
production method sharply reduces energy or water use
or significantly reduces pollution and should be considered
"environmental."
Return
to Top
2.
There are an awful lot of questions. How do you expect
people to answer all of them?
We
do not expect people to answer all of them. Rather,
we want people to choose the questions that they are
most interested in - which ones do you know most about,
or which ones concern you the most, or which ones make
you angry or hopeful? Feel free to answer any, and as
many, questions as you want to.
We
also are asking people specific questions, when we know
they have the background to give us particular perspectives
and explanations. But if we don't reach you, please
let us know what you think, anyway.
Return
to Top
3.
Some of the questions seem to be slanted, or already
assume an answer. How, then, can you be unbiased about
responses to them?
While
we tried to word the questions in as unbiased a manner
as possible, some are worded in the ways we usually
hear them asked. Those wordings seem to represent the
ways that people often think about them, so we felt
they would be best expressed in those words. However,
the wording is not intended to limit the responses.
If you find the wording slanted, tell us about it and
how you think of it differently. That's what we want
to hear!
Return
to Top
4.
Conservatree is known for opinions on a lot of the Listening
Study questions. How can you possibly give a fair hearing
to others' opinions with which you might disagree?
You're
right, we have opinions on a lot of these questions.
We also have a great desire to understand these questions
in greater depth. We recognize that others have a lot
to teach us and we have a lot to learn. Our observation
has been that it is only people who have been involved
in this field for quite a while, and have been in the
midst of many of these debates, who understand the nuances
and dynamics of these arguments well enough to help
sort them out. We believe that we can listen to and
present all sides. You can help keep us on the right
track. Please tell us if you feel we're not listening
well enough.
Return
to Top
5.
How do you choose the quotes to publish?
We
want to publish as broad a range of discussion on each
issue as possible, and include all points made on each
issue. In some cases, we know of people or reports that
address each particular question and we ask for them
specifically. In other cases, we have asked questions
on list-serves or publicized the Listening Study in
public media and received a number of answers. Some
responses are not specifically solicited and also welcome.
Return
to Top
6.
How do you ensure that the quotes in the reports fairly
represent people's views?
In
some cases, people have written e-mail responses and
we choose the portions most directly related to each
question, always using their own words. In other cases,
we have interviewed people over the phone, then sent
them a written transcript of our notes for them to verify,
edit and correct. We do not publish their responses
until they have returned an approved version of these
notes.
Return
to Top
7.
Do you intend to quantify the information in the Listening
Study reports?
We
do not intend to quantify the answers. It may turn out
to be appropriate to indicate that a particular perspective
is strongly held by many people, but even in that case,
opposing viewpoints will be fully represented as well.
The study is not a "popularity contest" and
we are not conducting a statistical survey, so the fact
that many respondents may make a particular point does
not mean that it is necessarily more persuasive than
other points. In fact, it could just as easily represent
a widely-held misunderstanding.
Return
to Top
8.
I just use recycled paper. I don't have any particular
technical expertise about it, so would my comments even
be useful?
Please
tell us what you think! You may have heard that all
paper has recycled content, or you may have trouble
using recycled paper in your copier, or you may think
that manufacturers should take care of getting environmental
contents into their papers without bothering consumers
to have to learn all about it. These are all valuable
comments to us.
There
are a number of obstacles to environmental paper development
that seem to grow out of generalized public beliefs
about the papers. The more that anyone can articulate
these, the more comprehensive can be our understanding
of what's behind them.
Return
to Top
9.
How is this study different from other studies that
have tried to accomplish similar goals?
Some
studies have looked at only one issue, or one type of
environmental paper, such as recycled. Others have surveyed
a wide range of issues and then published decisions
about which answers they believe are best. There is
also a great amount of literature on some of these questions.
The
Listening Study is designed to be comprehensive, covering
as wide a range of environmental paper issues as possible,
and yet not decide "answers" to the issues
under debate. Rather, the Listening Study is focused
on process. Through listening to as many perspectives
as possible, we hope to understand WHY these issues
are so contentious, and then suggest methods for finding
ways to work on them so that they do not remain obstacles
to developing enviornmental paper markets.
Also,
we believe that many people interested in these issues
are not aware of all the reports and studies that may
be relevant. We include references to the relevant literature,
so that people become aware of what research has been
done.
Return
to Top
10.
How can I find out when reports or updates are published?
As
they become available, we will announce them to relevant
media and list-serves. We will also list them on the
View All PDF Documents
page, with their new or updated status, so check that
page to keep track.
Return
to Top
11.
I thought you were going to publish this a year ago.
Why is it so late?
Alas
or thank goodness (depending on your perspective), Conservatree's
legacy has always included taking on projects that others
have deemed "impossible." There's something
about the challenge . . . plus, many of these "impossible"
projects are really necessary, as well. It probably
helps that we always underestimate the challenge - otherwise,
who in their right mind would do this?!?
In
any event, when we started the Listening Study, many
people told us, "This is a REALLY BIG project,
you know." Yes, we said, we knew . . . but little
did we know! Well, it IS big . . . but it is also fascinating,
intriguing, and fun. We get to talk to a lot of interesting
people about issues we care about. We're working with
some terrific partners. And we increasingly see critical
roles this study can play in helping to move environmental
paper issues forward.
This
project was designed to break new ground. We knew it
would not be predictable and that we would be creating
something new as we went along. We have always had our
focus on the conflict resolution and understanding that
we believe this project can lead to, but the way to
get there is always under construction.
The
process of doing the interviews and research we've conducted
to date has helped us understand better how to go about
this, as well as how to present it. We struggled for
quite a while with how to present in the vertical format
required and constrained by computer screens and paper
what we really wanted to present in a horizontal, non-hierarchical
format. We think that the format we've come up with
- a synopsis arrangement, followed by the whole body
of actual quotes - will help people make sense of each
part of the study without getting lost in it, while
also maintaining their ability to analyze the issues
raised in the quotes themselves. Now that we've worked
out the format and have seen so many more potential
applications for this work, we are able to cut more
quickly to the core of the questions.
Part
of this also involves identifying and delving more deeply
into "hot spot" issues, some of which have only developed
over the past year or so as issues have progressed to
new stages beyond when we first envisioned the questions.We
have developed a way of conducting "round robins"
of questions when answers indicate that there are more
complex issues beneath the original questions to explore.
So
yes, we thought we'd be able to start publishing this
information a year ago, although it was projected to
take at least two years. We think what we're able to
begin providing now will be more in-depth and useful
than what we would have been able to provide on too
fast a timetable last year. Especially, though, we appreciate
people's support and patience in waiting for these reports.
Return
to Top
12.
You don't have a huge long list of responses for some
of the questions. Doesn't that mean those questions
weren't covered well?
We
welcome more responses on any of the questions, but
we are not looking for quantity. Rather, we want to
represent all the different experiences and perspectives
on each question. For some, there are many. For others,
there may be fewer. If readers feel we've covered their
concerns, that's great. If they feel we haven't, we
want them to tell us what their concerns are so we can
add them to the list.
Return
to Top
13.
Why don't you list the names of papers that people said
didn't perform well?
Because
they varied so much. For every paper that someone said
didn't perform well, someone else said it performed
great. Since these responses do not represent a quantifiable
study, we did not want readers to make assumptions from
them that certain papers do not perform well. There
has been no paper that has been consistently reported
as performing poorly.
Return
to Top
14.
You say that some of the technical information in these
reports conflicts with other statements and that some
people might consider some statements debatable or inaccurate.
Then how are readers supposed to make sense of them?
How can they know what information to trust?
This
study is about laying out the different sides to the
debates about these questions, not about figuring out
definitively which one is right. In some cases, some
may believe respondents are misinformed. But if they
are, that misinformation is part of the obstacle that
needs to be identified and resolved. In other cases,
who's to say what is misinformation and what is a difference
in approach or belief? We think that even misinformation
is informative because it rests on underlying beliefs,
processes or concerns that are the true issues we need
to identify and work out.
But
we do think that when readers see the different answers
and note the responder, they can make some judgements
for themselves about which they might find more helpful
in giving them guidance on the question.
Return
to Top
15.
If I answer a question, will my name and company/organization
automatically appear in a report?
Not
unless you approve that. There are a number of ways
you can be identified - or not identified. See Join
the Discussion for options.
Return
to Top
16.
Why are some people identified and others not?
Some
respondents cannot make a statement for publication
without their company or organization's approval. At
the same time, many people in the paper and allied industries
have a great deal of experience with many of our questions
and could provide explanations and valuable perspectives
if they could speak frankly without their comments being
represented as their company's official position. Purchasers
might be reluctant to talk about their full range of
opinions or experiences with environmental papers if
their government or company would be identified with
their comments.
That's
why we believe this study will have great value even
without identification of each comment. Since we are
most interested in the range of perspectives, and want
to gain a solid understanding of what's behind each
one, we are not concerned with "who's on what side"
of an issue. In fact, in many cases we think it will
help discussion of the issues if people's personalities
and company or organizational affiliations are taken
out of the equation.
At
the same time, we know there are cases in which companies
certainly WILL want to be publicly identified with particular
comments. At the very least, we would like to be able
to identify a respondent's experience or sector in order
to help readers evaluate the applicability of their
comments.
Return
to Top
17.
If you will honor requests for no public identification,
why do you want any at all?
First,
so we know how to make sense of the comments we receive.
For example, is a criticism of recycled paper in copiers
coming from an end-user, a purchaser, a service technician
or an equipment manufacturer? Each will have a different
angle on the experience.
Second,
so that we can verify details that might be most helpful.
For example, with a description of a problem using recycled
paper in copiers, we might want to contact the commenter
to ask for details such as when the experience happened
(was it recent or ten years ago), what kind of paper
was involved (e.g. was it a copier paper or other grade),
what type of copier (e.g. high-speed, double-siding,
small quantity), did it happen to the respondent personally
or did they hear about it from others, how did they
narrow the cause down to recycled paper, etc.
Third,
because after gathering comments on particular questions,
we might want to go back to some of the commenters to
ask for their response to additional information.
However,
if it's important to a respondent to be anonymous, we
still welcome their comments. Sometimes it's especially
those types of comments that shed the most light on
an issue.
Return
to Top
18.
Will EPA have access to all the responses to this project,
and could they then become public property?
No
to both questions. If this were a contract, that might
be a concern. But EPA has instead given Conservatree
a grant to do this project and therefore is in the position
of any other grantmaker. Conservatree is free to carry
out the project as we see best, without direction from
EPA. We will welcome suggestions and introductions from
EPA, just as we seek and welcome them from AF&PA,
TAPPI, environmental groups, you, and all other interested
parties. EPA will not see any unpublished responses,
only the same reports that Conservatree publishes for
all to see.
Return
to Top
19.
What is the nature of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's support?
EPA's
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program, within
the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (Pollution
Prevention Division), provided a grant to start this
project. The EPP office provides information and advocacy
for environmentally sustainable products, but does not
have regulatory functions.
Additional
funding has been provided by the Weeden Foundation.
Return
to Top
Is
your question answered here? If not, ask
us and we'll add it.
|
