As marketers, we’re acutely aware of paper use—we handle all kinds of print projects for clients, and paper appears in nearly every aspect of modern life, in packaging, personal and home products, and so on. I even own a hat made of paper (recycled).

The bad news is, paper use is on the rise globally, and North Americans use more of it per person than anybody else. The good news is, per capita use in North America is on the decline, and we’re seeing more use of recycled content and production methods that don’t use harmful chemicals.

The Environmental Paper Network (EPN) chronicles every aspect of paper production and use in its new report, State of the Paper Industry 2011. The report, aimed at policy makers, the paper and forestry industries, and large paper users, shows why changing the ways we produce and use paper is one of the best opportunities we have to reduce environmental damage.

Much of the progress is due to concerted action by the paper industry itself and watchdog and certification groups, along with demand by users such as designers (who were on board early), the packaging industry (which came later to the party, but recently has started to make a big impact), and big companies’ environmental procurement policies. Pressure on our forests is growing, despite the prevalence of digital media, but more forests are being managed sustainably or even designated off-limits.

The EPN set the baseline for statistics with it’s first report in 2007. Here are a few quick stats from this year’s report:

• Paper accounted for 16% of waste in North American landfills in 2009, down from 26 percent in 2005.
• The United States recycled or reused 63 percent of paper in 2009, compared with 46 percent in 2000.
• The average North American consumed more than 500 pounds of paper per person, per year in 2010; the average European consumed just under 400 pounds a year. World average is 120 pounds per person.
• From 2005 to 2009, the volume of paper in U.S. landfills shrank by 16 million tons to 26 million tons. That’s the equivalent of a line of trash barges almost 400 miles long.
• In 2009, China surpassed North America in overall paper use.
• As of July 2011, there were 791 available papers certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (the FSC provides the only certification that the EPN and environmentalists recognize as legitimate). The EPN designated only 121 papers as environmentally superior in 2010, as evaluated by its Paper Steps project.

The EPN makes a number of recommendations for making more progress, which boil down to: use less paper, and when you must, use recycled paper made with low-impact processes. Fortunately, it’s relatively easy to find papers with 100 percent recycled content; many are just as handsome as their environmentally unfriendly counterparts. Good recycled papers are available through most printers and at big box stores (I’ve found Staples has the best options for everyday office use).

I don’t usually write about politics in this blog, but there’s a proposition on California’s November ballot that would be so damaging to green, sustainable, and clean tech businesses, I just have to speak out: if you’re a California voter, please vote no on Prop. 23, aka the Dirty Energy Proposition.

If passed, Prop. 23 would essentially repeal AB 32, California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. (Technically, it would suspend implementation of AB 32 until unemployment reached 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters—but that has occurred only three times in the last 40 years, and it’s highly unlikely to occur in the next several years.) Prop. 23 is funded largely by Texas oil companies that don’t want to clean up their act in the state or face competition from clean energy sources. The companies and others have engaged in a long-term, multipronged effort to delay, repeal, or disable AB 32 (we covered this back in March, before the proposition qualified for the ballot, in the newsletter we produce for the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition).

Prop. 23, their latest effort, is a cynical and dishonest effort portray AB 32 as a job killer. UC Berkeley researchers Carol Zabin and Lisa Hoyos do a good job of explaining why that isn’t so in their op-ed in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, “Setting the record straight on AB32 and jobs.”

The real job killer is Prop. 23—if it passes it will stall California’s clean energy and clean tech sector, which is growing 10 times faster than the state’s economy as whole and enabling California to attract 67 percent of clean energy venture capital invested in the United States. (Get even more facts on the Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition website.) Prop. 23 will also lead to increased air pollution, threatening public health.

But the effects of Prop. 23 would extend beyond California and its sustainable businesses, bad as its results for our state would be. The passage of AB 32 spurred other states to adopt climate regulations and it jump-started the Western Climate Initiative. It also put pressure on the federal government to at least consider climate legislation, an uphill battle that almost certainly will be lost if California backs off its commitment. And if the United States continues to do nothing, other major greenhouse gas emitters will follow suit, leaving us in an ever-deepening climate crisis.

Many of us feel helpless in face of climate change and environmental disasters. Here’s something positive and incredibly easy you can do: vote NO on Prop. 23. And tell your friends.

The phrase “put your money where your mouth is”  has been coming up a lot here lately—in part due to our work with New Resource Bank, which lets sustainability-minded businesses, nonprofits, and individuals do just that, and in part due to our decision to join 1% for the Planet.

If you’re not familiar with it, 1% for the Planet is an alliance of businesses of all sizes that commit to give one percent of their yearly revenues to environmental nonprofits. And the organization holds members to it–you have to submit tax documents and proof of donations to maintain membership.

We’d been thinking of doing this since learning of 1% via a Fast Company interview with Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard, who co-founded the organization with Craig Mathews, fisherman and owner of Blue Ribbon Flies. What finally kicked us into gear was hearing Hunter Lovins give her “The Business Case for Sustainability” speech at New Resource’s bimonthly speaker/networking event, re:think.

Lovins includes an apt quote from Interface chair Ray Anderson: “What’s the business case for destroying the planet?” But what really got to us was her parting question, “What are you doing?” Somehow, “helping sustainable businesses and environmental nonprofits” didn’t sound like enough. So here’s another chip on the table.

Try it—it feels good.