Cup-a-Joe

Just finished meeting with our Clean Air Committee to discuss the upcoming regulations which impact our industry in Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston next year.  The industry if facing some significant changes next year and I’m always amazed how much willingness there is for the industry to try to do the right thing.  The challenge is trying to get the regulators to understand that documentation for documentation’s sake is not the solution.

Our biggest issue is not the requirements to use chemistry that helps reduce ozone — which has a dramatic impact on a company’s productivity/profitability.  It’s the regulatory hoops which must be jumped so the regulating community can “document” that the “rules” were followed.   It’s one of the major frustrations between the regulated community and the regulators.  If it’s not documented, it didn’t happen.  Yet, if one makes the rules so onerous — businesses are less willing to comply.  It’s a fine balancing act.  It’s also an argument at the heart of the recent litigation between Texas and the EPA.  Ah, such a tangled weave.

“The printing industry is the single largest air polluter and the third-largest consumer of fossil fuels in the world after automobiles and steel manufacturing,” stated Re-nourish Founder and University of Illinois Design Professor Eric Benson. “On a typical day, [printers] use trillions of gallons of water that must be treated for its toxic chemical content and released back into our waterways.”

Meanwhile, adhesives, bindings, and foils used in printing and packaging can render the final product un-recyclable, virtually guaranteeing that it will end up in a landfill. There, petroleum-based inks can cause lasting damage to the environment, leaching volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which can cause cancer and birth defects into the ground, contaminating soil, groundwater, and, upon evaporation, the air.”

Did I get your attention?  read more »