Tetra Pak reconfirms its strategic priority in driving the sustainability transformation by setting an ambition for net zero emissions across the value chain by 2050, supporting this with an intermediate 2030 target of net zero carbon emissions across its own operations. The company will also set emissions reduction targets in line with 1.5°C according to the Science Based Targets (SBT) initiative across scopes 1, 2 and 3. Tetra Pak was founded on the idea that a package should save more than it costs, with sustainability always at the core of how the company operates as a business. Since 1999, the company has been collecting data on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from across the organisation on an annual basis, with its GHG accounts audited by an independent third party since 2013.

Myths about the sustainability of the North American paper industry and its products are common media fodder in today’s world of sensationalized, headline-driven journalism. This time it was the turn of Popular Science to weave together a collection of standard anti-paper tropes into your “Modern paper use is wildly unsustainable” article. Shouldn’t a publication dedicated to reporting on science resist the easy narrative, hold up a submission to the illuminating glow of real authoritative data and pick up the phone to ask industry scientists or a school of forestry if any of what the authors claim makes sense? After all, paper is not only the most recycled material in North America. It is a material whose industry grows and regrows its own feedstock (wood fiber), derives most of the power to drive its processes from carbon neutral biofuel, and recycles more than 95% of the chemicals it uses to turn trees into pulp. This is not “wildly unsustainable.” This is a description of some of the world’s most sustainable products.

Over the past five decades, China has planted 66 billion trees in a massive wall that spans the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts. This reforestation effort intended to stop the deserts’ spread is working — but, it turns out, with a surprising twist. In a new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, researchers found that the trees planted in the so-called “Great Green Wall” appear to grow faster than trees in natural forests, possibly because they respond to the rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere better. The Great Green Wall project began in 1978 and is expected to be completed by 2050. The original intent was to slow the desertification of the country’s grasslands, of which the Gobi devours over a thousand square miles every year. In its early stages, the initiative struggled to get off the ground, as some of the trees chosen for their quick growth turned out to be poorly suited for the environment and died off. But Chinese scientists pushed on. In a monumental feat of planning and perseverance, the verdant barrier has continued to grow instead of dying off — a fate that commonly befalls other green wall initiatives that learned that you can’t brute force your way into planting as many trees as possible. Forest cover in the regions the wall touches has ballooned from 5 percent in 1978 to 14 percent in 2023, according to a Nature article, which has helped cut down on dust storms and improve the air quality in downwind cities, including Beijing.