Is wood really eco-friendly? Only to a point

You leave a shop carrying a paper bag. Maybe you picked it deliberately because it felt “more eco” than plastic. It has a natural texture, often a green slogan or a leaf printed on it. And it makes sense — paper reminds us of forests, and forests represent nature.

And that instinct isn’t entirely misguided. The problem is that the world of materials is rarely straightforward. Many products we instinctively label as eco-friendly are “green” only under specific conditions. That’s why it’s worth stepping back from simple assumptions like “paper good, plastic bad” or “wooden = natural = eco.” Not to criticise anyone, but to better understand what truly shapes a product’s environmental impact.

In this article, we’ll take a closer look at two popular myths surrounding wood and paper, and then introduce a material that breaks the usual pattern of typical “eco alternatives.”

 

Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Myth #1: Wood and paper are automatically eco-friendly
3. Myth #2: “Just switch plastic for paper and the problem disappears”
4. A material that doesn’t require cutting down trees
5. Summary
6. FAQ

 

Myth #1: Wood and paper are automatically eco-friendly

This is one of the most common assumptions: if something is made of wood or paper, it must be “better for the planet”. These materials are natural, renewable, and associated with forests and biodegradability. But when you look more broadly, the reality becomes much more nuanced.

What really determines the footprint of wood and paper?

The material is only the starting point. Whether a wooden or paper product is truly eco-friendly depends on its entire life cycle:

• the origin of the raw material,

• forest management practices,

• energy and water required for production,

• the product’s lifespan,

• and what happens at the end: recycling, composting, incineration, or landfill.

Wood certainly has advantages: growing trees absorb CO₂, and that carbon stays “locked” inside the wood as long as the product exists. So when lumber comes from responsibly managed forests and is used for many years, it can be an excellent sustainable option.

But poorly managed forests and single-use wooden or paper items erase that benefit. Then the environmental downsides begin to dominate: habitat destruction, soil degradation, reduced biodiversity, and disturbed water retention.

Paper vs. plastic: the uncomfortable reality

Here’s a point that often surprises people: paper doesn’t always outperform plastic environmentally.

Lifecycle comparisons of plastic and paper bags reveal that paper can score worse in several categories. Why?

Reasons paper bags can have a higher footprint

1. High energy and water use
   Producing paper requires significant energy and large volumes of water. Trees must be pulped, fibres separated, bleached, and dried — all resource-intensive processes.

2. Weight and bulk
   Paper bags are heavier and bulkier than thin plastic ones.
   Consequences?

   • higher fuel consumption during transport,

   • fewer bags per truckload,

   • a larger transport-related footprint.

3. Durability and practical use
   Paper tears easily, doesn’t handle moisture, and weakens under heavy loads.
   If it’s used once and discarded, its environmental cost is “spent” on a single use.
   Plastic, although problematic after disposal, often gets reused simply because it lasts longer.

This doesn’t mean plastic is harmless — far from it. Its impact as waste and as a source of microplastics is enormous. But switching materials without changing user habits often fixes nothing. It only shifts the environmental burden somewhere else.

 

Myth #2: “Just switch plastic for paper and the problem disappears”

Because paper seems “more natural,” it’s tempting to assume: replace plastic with paper and the problem is solved. This mindset drives many everyday decisions: paper straws, paper bags, paper packaging replacing plastic. But nature doesn’t operate on such a simplistic scale.

The issue doesn’t disappear — it simply changes form and location.

Why a one-to-one swap rarely works

In many applications, plastic wasn’t chosen to “harm the environment,” but because it offered useful properties:

• low weight,

• resistance to moisture,

• strength and durability,

• low transport costs.

Paper replaces plastic without adapting the surrounding system, so to fulfil the same role, it must be:

• thicker,

• made of several layers,

• often coated (e.g., moisture or grease barriers).

Which leads to:

• higher raw material use,

• lower recyclability due to coatings and adhesives.

So the paper version of a product isn’t necessarily more sustainable. Sometimes it’s simply a different kind of compromise.

 

A material that doesn’t require cutting down trees: natural cork

When we talk about eco materials, we often bounce between trade-offs. Some resources are renewable but require logging (like wood). Some are durable but energy-intensive to produce. Others appear natural but leave a large environmental footprint. Natural cork avoids many of these contradictions from the outset: it comes from a tree, yet harvesting it doesn’t cost the tree its life.

How cork is harvested — and why it benefits the tree

Natural cork is taken from the outer bark of cork oak trees. Harvesting is done manually and very carefully: only the outer layer is removed while the trunk remains unharmed. The tree keeps growing, and the bark regenerates. This is the critical difference compared with wood or paper — no logging, no removing the tree itself.

Interestingly, this regeneration process works like natural training for the tree. The cork oak rebuilds its bark intensively, increasing biological activity. From an ecological perspective, this isn’t exploitation but a harmonious interaction with the tree’s natural cycle.

Regeneration rhythm and longevity

The bark regrows at nature’s pace. Harvesting can be repeated every 9–12 years, and a single cork oak can produce cork for up to 150–200 years. That means one tree can supply cork again and again across many generations.

This creates unusually stable ecosystems. Cork forests aren’t short-term “plant–cut–replant” systems — they are long-lived landscapes that thrive for decades. The longer they remain intact, the more benefits they provide: carbon storage, soil and water protection, and habitats for a rich variety of species.

 

Summary

If there’s one message to remember, it’s this: a material itself is neither automatically sustainable nor harmful. What matters is how we source it, how long it serves us, and what happens to it afterwards.

Wood and paper can be great materials — they’re renewable, they store carbon, and they can circulate effectively in long-term use. But none of these benefits happen by default. Their real sustainability depends on forest management and responsible sourcing.

In contrast, natural cork shows that some materials follow a different sustainability logic: no tree felling, cyclical regeneration, durability, and natural compatibility with long-term circular systems rather than single-use throwaway models.

 

FAQ

1. How many times should a paper bag be reused to be worthwhile?
In short: more than once. The longer its lifespan, the more its production footprint is spread out. If a paper bag is discarded after a single shopping trip, it’s more symbolic than genuinely sustainable.

2. Does harvesting natural cork damage the tree?
No — the bark is removed without harming the living trunk. The tree continues to grow, and the bark naturally regenerates. That’s why natural cork is considered a renewable material that doesn’t involve cutting down trees.

3. Can natural cork be recycled?
Yes. Most often by grinding it into granules and compressing them again or using them in composite materials. Recycling natural cork is straightforward and resource-efficient.