Are We Really Environmental Friendly?

[Dmact]

I'm also curious about the ink manufacturing process re pollution... That hasnt been touched on yet here. I know SOME environmental impact there but just how much? And of course how toxic is the ink itself when we pour it down the sink during a pen flush?

 

I do try to wring every last microdrop out of my pen before a flush but of course that water gets PRETTY murky with ink. I also flush using a glass of water and generally will flush multiple pens at a time, so basically i do multiple water changes in that glass and each pen takes a turn in each batch of slightly fresher water until the water stays clear. Then THAT glass full gets set on my desk and used to wash my dip pens. But that still consumes up to a gallon of water (if I'm flushing my kor-i-nor which is a piston filler, or my osmiroid which is a lever fill... My pilots are cartridge fill and i just flush the cartridge with a squeeze bulb and flush the nib section by filling with the squeeze bulb and blow through it to flush that, so my pilots i can flush with a single glass of water)... So water consumption can be made fairly minimal depending on pen style.

 

Obviously any pen made of any form of plastic has toxic biproducts involved in manufacturing... Those of yall who havent seen resin casting would have a stroke to see the amount of waste alone... Let alone all the VOCs.

[OMASsimo]

It's all a question of proportion. Seriously harmful materials are highly regulated, at least in EU, so that they cannot be contained in relevant amounts in everyday products. But of course we use countless products that are not really environment friendly. I'd think that ink is probably at the same scale as our detergents regarding environment. So, how many pens can we fill for the amount of detergent we use for a load of laundry, a shower, or one run of the dish washer? I just use these comparisons because they all pollute our waste water and also to point out that there is a lot that could be done for our environment.

 

Now, excessive flushing of pens in my opinion is mostly a waste of water because in my experience it's mostly unnecessary. But otherwise I don't think it's really harmful because the dyes used are not toxic or harmful.

[Honeybadgers]

I mean... Yes, I'm contributing towards BUYING things that didn't need to be made in the first place...

 

But I also haven't thrown away anything but a few empty glass bottles which were recycled. I don't even throw away boxes. For nice pens, I keep them for holding onto resale value, and for cheap pens, I reuse them as shipping packages.

 

So my landfill footprint has technically gone down a smidge!

 

But I'm also not TRYING to be environmental. If I was, I'd just use my mom's waterman phileas with big 350mL bottles of pilot blue black and never buy another pen. So by THAT measure, I could easily be saving some resources.

 

It's like someone keeping an old diesel car going on biodiesel for a long time with good maintenance instead of buying the environmentally less great to build tesla model 3, versus someone like me who keeps his old car going with a 560 horsepower turbo four that gets 0.3MPG at full boost. I'm not buying a new car either, but my reasons are decidedly more enthusiast than environmentalist.

Edited August 4, 2019 by Honeybadgers

[Bo Bo Olson]

If it ever comes to actually throwing away a glass bottle, like all glass bottles there is a container for them, so they can be re-cycled.

 

I even buy old, old used ink bottles from the '30-40's and am sure as soon as I get off my dead A, I will fill that empty Pelikan 4001 ink bottle with something I have in plastic.

 

I have a very bad habit, as soon as the ink gets low....I save it, by not using it......instead of using it up and buying new. Being cheap at the wrong end.

[txomsy]

A-ha! having a frame of reference, simplifies things.

 

If the goal is to check whether FPs are less damaging than disposable/refillable pens, the answer can be also better defined. I have some experience on Risk Analysis in CBRN contamination, so let's have a "quick-and-dirty" go at it.

 

The pen itself is composed of a metal writing end and a body. I'd roughly guess that with normal use, an FP requires only one end (nib) while the ballpoint/felt-tip/etc. will require new ones with each recharge. Even if it is recharged 10x less, it still will require more. The FP wins here. Note that a dip pen, on the contrary would have no advantage as nibs need to be replaced often too.

 

FP >>> DP (the FP is much more environmental friendly than disposable pens)

 

i.e. FP is a lot more environmental friendly

 

For the body, assuming both are plastic, the FP may require some extra plastic that the disposable pen doesn't. Yet, once again, you only need one for the FP, and will renew the body on a disposable pen with each charge. However, if it the body is to be reused with refills, then the

difference vanishes

 

FP >>>= DP (depending on whether DP is refillable or not)

 

i.e. may be from much more env. friendly to approx. equally in some cases. Still, on average, FP wins.

 

Let's get to the ink refilling system. In most FPs you "reuse" the ink container (piston fillers, vacumatic, snorkels, eyedropper, converters, etc..), so you only need one container in a very long time (in some cases, like piston-fillers and eyedroppers not even one, the body is the container and we have already considered it). For DPs, in BIC-likes you still have a plastic ink contained separate from the body, and for refillable DPs, you still need a new contained with each refill. However, if the FP uses cartridges, these are broadly more or less same in plastic quantity but last (in my experience) less than a DP refill (depends on nib size), unless you refill cartridges with a syringe, which many cartridge users do.

 

FP >>= DP

 

Time to consider ink. In principle one may assume that if one writes the same, ink consumption should be similar. There are oil-based permanent and water-based inks for DP. You also have mainly IG and water-based inks for FPs. Let's keep it simple and assume

 

FP = DP

 

Same would apply for paper.

 

FP = DP

 

Now, let's move on to cleaning, an FP needs cleaning, while a DP needs not. How contaminating is the ink washed out? I'd say it depends. In principle, one would expect it to be like any other "chemical". In practice... we'd need a trip into inks. Not much is known. What I know

 

Traditional inks where mainly IG, made with oak galls, gum arabic, wine, tea and water, and occasionally some dye from also natural (plant, animal or mineral) sources. They are slightly acidic but washed out with lots of water, would hardly affect the environment, most of the components are natural in the sense they are of animal or vegetal origin and readily biodegradable. The minerals would not be much contaminating either. For traditional inks, and in the quantities used normally I wouldn't worry much.

 

Modern inks tend to contain biocides and may use nanoparticles and chemicals. These may be more contaminating, but I don't know much. I also guess that if ink stays attached to the pen, it will do so in FPs and DPs. The difference being you can clean FPs with excess water diluting any pollutant and reducing its impact while you don't clean DPs nor refills, which you throw happily away with any remnants of ink drying inside and actually concentrating instead and becoming more dangerous. I'd say FPs are less contaminant, but OTOH you also waste water. So let's call it a tie

 

FP = DP.

 

All other things being equal (if we compare only FP vs. DP).

 

So, if the comparison is FP vs. DP, I would say that, on the average the FP is more env. friendly, although in some cases (an FP used only with cartridges which are never refilled, vs. a DP repeatedly used with refills) its edge is minor to marginal (the FP might still win in requiring less metal for the writing tip, and remnant ink is poured washed out instead of dry and concentrated).

 

Well, that was it.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE: this is only a partial, approximate, sleigh of hand, qualitative assessment of the environmental risk. Modern Environmental Risk analysis of chemical contaminants is usually quantitative and can be more precise. But I only have partial information to work with. A full and formal ISO30001 family of standards analysis would be better. From my experience, I doubt its conclusions would be much different.

 

DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN FP, DP OR INK TECHNOLOGY, SO ANY ESTIMATE MAY BE TOTALLY ABSURD. DO NOT RELY ON THIS FOR ANYTHING. IT IS ONLY A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AND THEREFORE PURE SPECULATION.

[bogiesan]

Of all the horrible things that happen to my world as a direct result of my presence on it, the impact of my fountain pen usage is WAY down the list. Way down. Not even on my radar.

[catbert]

Well, I’m keeping vintage plastic out of landfill, so that’s something.

Actually, I’m keeping pretty much every pen-related thing I’ve ever purchased, but the new stuff had to be made — and everything, new or vintage, had to be shipped.

And, while it’s good to avoid single-use plastics (cartridges, disposable pens), after the hoard reaches a certain size, some pens are inked so rarely they might as well be single-use.

So, are we really environmentally friendly? Probably not. Consumption beyond necessity almost defines the opposite.

That said, there are bigger climate impacts than the kind of pen one uses or how many one has.

The Pen Economics blog had a go at quantifying all this a while back: http://www.peneconomics.com/blog/2016/9/16/are-fountain-pens-good-for-the-environment?

[Wahl]

By the way, I only have vintage pens, purchased at penshows,

 

All my ink comes in glass, purchased at B&M shops which I keep or give to friends.

 

No comparison possible as to use of disposable bics or whatever.

[Mr5x5]

If you rescue a vintage pen before it has been tossed that would be recycling it so you would have a gain on the environmental scale and if you make your own ink from naturally occurring products you are ahead there. I would say FP have the potential to be much more environmentally friendly than a disposable ballpoint. Paper manufacture would be far more environmentally harmful than the pen and ink so maybe it would make sense to quite using pens and pencils and stick with electronic communication.

[Bibliophage]

I would remove the paper from the equation, at least the source of the paper. Paper processing has always been messy - but the bulk of our paper products in the US are from tree farms. Yes, fifty years ago, the preponderance was from clear cutting, but having control of the tree process is important for the paper producers _here_. Don't worry about recycled paper - most of that isn't used for writing paper, because it's not in good enough shape. Mostly it's for backing board/chipboard, cardboard filler, and so forth. Toilet paper in a few cases.

 

As for making our own ink? You _can_, if you want to collect the soot from your fireplace. Oh, wait - that's right. Most of us don't have fireplaces, or use fires to cook. (if you want to research it, it's called lampblack, and the original shoe polish as well as the original carbon ink. )

 

https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/47912

https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/47881

[txomsy]

Nice pics. But I suspect these were inks for dip pens as soot is used to make India ink, which cannot be used on an FP.

 

The old recipes for FP ink are mostly IG-based. There are many around and they call for ingredients that should be available to most people --if they were able to know what oak galls are. The process was not woo harmful for the environment (save for the fire needed to boil the mix) which would have its own CO₂ imprint. Yet, if you are to do it, it is probably better to do it in a large amount once. And then you could sell/share the surplus. Wait! Isn't that like buying from Noodler's, KWZ, Troublesome or many like others?

 

At any rate, you also need ink for disposable pens. So not much to be saved there.

 

Computers? Which ones? The ones I worked with 30 years ago? Seeing as to how in the last 30 years, I have been switching computers every 8-10, they do not last as long as an FP. And most people swaps them every 3-4 years. Like cell phones. And they are larger and have more components, so it is not only the amount of plastic, also the making process which is more contaminant. And the remnants... less prone to be recycled, more expensive to as well. Oh, and energy! They are consuming electricity (which today is still mostly from non-renewable sources) all the time. Plus they demand an electric infrastructure that needs to be maintained. An FP only needs you hand movement, and if I were to bet, I'd say that that movement requires less calories than you own brain thinking what to write. Colpan? Gallium arsenide? and so many more components that are nor recycled but highly contaminating.

 

On a quick assessment I think that FPs are probably more env. friendly than computers too. Yeah, snail mail has its own demands as well, so maybe not. But it isn't so easy.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Send your guilt money directly to me; cutting out the middlemen....if you don't feel that guilty, watch guilt shows until you are ready to become guilt free. The indulgence suitable for framing will be E-mailed.

 

There is good money to be made in Global Warming, Global Climate Change , which covers when or if Global Cooling starts.

Had your or anyone's government really wanted clean air, China and India would be lands that could not export....same with the US.

 

German TV is odd, they have informative programs on it.....like the great pollution caused by the newest generation of batteries. But that's OK, it's only a small part of South America. The people living there were marginal as is; having been pushed into a desert by those with better weapons, or owning the government..................oh....just like now..............we need dirty batteries so our air will be clean.

Yep, every 7-8 years will cost you half the price of the new electric car for new batteries. Suddenly small efficient gas motors are more economical.

 

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago, how someone around 1905 just loved the clean smell of gasoline motors and the lack of horseflies the car brought. In vacant lots in NY City, HS was piled up 2-3 stories high. Horsefly Heaven.

[Wolverine1]

I think this post by the original poster is nothing but an exercise in virtue-signalling.

I use my fountain pens, and I fill them with ink, I flush my pens. And I dont care a damn about the so-called environmental impact of my actions.

[Tonhao5]

I think we're doing the world a favor by buying up 50-year-old fountain pens (and its box and papers) back from the dead.

 

Also, metallic ballpoint cartridges seem a lot more wasteful than ink bottles.

[Karmachanic]

A strange species, humans are generally environmentally unfriendly, particularly the modern variety. I'll happily continue using my handful of fountain pens for as long as I am able.

 

Far more vintage pens than toasters around.

[Mr5x5]

I would remove the paper from the equation, at least the source of the paper. Paper processing has always been messy - but the bulk of our paper products in the US are from tree farms. Yes, fifty years ago, the preponderance was from clear cutting, but having control of the tree process is important for the paper producers _here_. Don't worry about recycled paper - most of that isn't used for writing paper, because it's not in good enough shape. Mostly it's for backing board/chipboard, cardboard filler, and so forth. Toilet paper in a few cases.

 

As for making our own ink? You _can_, if you want to collect the soot from your fireplace. Oh, wait - that's right. Most of us don't have fireplaces, or use fires to cook. (if you want to research it, it's called lampblack, and the original shoe polish as well as the original carbon ink. )

 

https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/47912

https://libwww.freelibrary.org/digital/item/47881

I wouldn't remove paper from the equation at all. The paper is not from tree farms. Some of the trees are of course but not the paper. I went to school with paper science engineering students and lived in a town with a paper mill. We always contacted the PSE Alumni for donateions early in their career as they had a high rate of early death. The environmental and human health costs, while better now than 30 years ago, is still very high. Just don't use paper and you will reduce your environmental impact far more than wondering about FP vs disposable pens. While people say that computers have a high environmental cost, and they do, nobody says you have to get a new one every few years. We just recently replaced my wife's computer she got in 1995.

[Bibliophage]

I wouldn't remove paper from the equation at all. The paper is not from tree farms. Some of the trees are of course but not the paper. I went to school with paper science engineering students and lived in a town with a paper mill. We always contacted the PSE Alumni for donateions early in their career as they had a high rate of early death. The environmental and human health costs, while better now than 30 years ago, is still very high. Just don't use paper and you will reduce your environmental impact far more than wondering about FP vs disposable pens. While people say that computers have a high environmental cost, and they do, nobody says you have to get a new one every few years. We just recently replaced my wife's computer she got in 1995.

Even as an IT person, I tend to conserve computers for as long as they can possibly work for customers. The problem isn't the hardware, it's that the software companies are more and more abusive about resources, rather than pushing performance and stability. Microsoft is of course the biggest offender, but Adobe and Autodesk are immediately behind them. All of their main programs _don't need to be updated_. Their main purposes haven't changed in 15 years - the only reason to push newer versions is for the income stream; not to benefit the buying public.

 

As for paper? You wipe your butt your way, I'll wipe my own my way.

 

[OMASsimo]

I wouldn't remove paper from the equation at all. The paper is not from tree farms. Some of the trees are of course but not the paper. I went to school with paper science engineering students and lived in a town with a paper mill. We always contacted the PSE Alumni for donateions early in their career as they had a high rate of early death. The environmental and human health costs, while better now than 30 years ago, is still very high. Just don't use paper and you will reduce your environmental impact far more than wondering about FP vs disposable pens. While people say that computers have a high environmental cost, and they do, nobody says you have to get a new one every few years. We just recently replaced my wife's computer she got in 1995.

 

Mortality in the paper industry is not to be confused with it's environmental impact. Wood dust by now is known to be highly carcinogenic to mankind but it's not generally harmful to nature. The environmental impact comes more from water consumption (and polution), bleaching, and special (surface) treatments to achieve the desired properties. But I doubt that a computer is better in any way.

[praxim]

In any event the invited comparison is specifically between ballpoints and fountain pens, so items like paper are assumed constant between those.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Hair shirts sold here. Vintage Saint Used hair shirts on sale. Used flagellation whips also.

 

Just remember the whole idea is to make money off of global warming...........and all politicians are paid off somehow, by those who can make or fear losing money.

 

Rest of rant deleted.........twice.