Greenpeace

Colbert wants you to wipe with a hummer instead of an ancient forest.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
ThreatDown - Environmentalists, Kang Lee & Mountain Pine Beetles
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Michael Moore

Late last night the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private lending arm of the World Bank, withdrew the $90 million dollar loan to Brazil’s cattle giant Bertin. The loan was used for the company to further expand into the Amazon region, which was causing destruction of the rainforest and fuelling global climate change.  While on one hand Lula’s government was making commitments to reduce deforestation rates in the Amazon, on the other hand the IFC was helping to expand the Brazilian cattle sector which is now the largest single source of deforestation in the world.  

Globally forest destruction accounts for almost 20 percent of global warming causing emissions, which is more climate pollution than all the world's cars, trucks, trains, planes, and ships combined. Brazil ranks as the world’s fourth biggest climate polluter, largely because of Amazon destruction. Although the IFC published a benign statement on its website late last night about the terms of the cancellation, this announcement comes just two weeks after the release of the Greenpeace report “Slaughtering the Amazon.”

The Greenpeace report revealed how the financial backing of the Brazilian cattle industry by the IFC and President Lula’s government via its national development bank (BNDES) has led the industry to become the largest single source of deforestation in the world and a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions. The report also shows how cattle products from ranches involved in illegal deforestation in the Amazon rainforest --as well as in the invasion of indigenous lands and slavery--contaminates the supply chains of top brands such as Adidas, Reebok, Timberland, Geox, Clarks, Nike, Carrefour, Gucci, IKEA, Kraft, and Wal-Mart.

By helping Bertin to expand into the Amazon, the IFC has been driving further destruction of the rainforest for products that often make their way into global meat or leather products while undermining Brazil’s commitments to reducing deforestation. For a bank that portrays itself as the “knowledge bank”, this was a very ill conceived and thoroughly destructive use of international resources. The last $30 million dollar  hand-out from the IFC will no longer be given to Bertin and it is anticipated that the IFC will ask Bertin to return early the $60 million dollars it has already invested in the company. The World Bank Group is set to lend another $1.3 billion dollars to Brazil for “environmental protection.”

At Greenpeace we are calling for a commitment to Zero Deforestation and global solutions that will protect forests and reduce forest related emissions that are making global warming worse. In the fight to save the Amazon, every step will count so we are asking US consumers to join us in taking on companies like Nike, Timberland, and Adidas which cannot demonstrate that the leather in our shoes is not driving deforestation in the Amazon.

 -Lindsey 

As you may know by now, Greenpeace released a report June 1 called Slaughtering the Amazon, which demonstrated the connections between the cattle sector and deforestation. Today we saw one of our first major victories as Brazilian retailers banned meat from cattle that were raised in deforested areas in the Amazon.

As the Reuters piece points out:

"CBD, Wal-Mart and Carrefour will ban beef purchased from farms accused by the Para state prosecutors office of deforestation and will demand documents from slaughterhouses related to the transit of the cattle, Abras said.

The companies also intend to conduct an independent audit to assure that meat that they buy is not from deforested areas."

Here in the US we are not a large importer of Brazilian beef that could be driving deforestation in the Amazon but we do suspect ties to US companies using leather from illegal cattle ranching in the Amazon.  While we focus on the campaign to get Nike, Timberland, Adidas, and others to prove the leather in our shoes is not from destroyed Amazon, our colleagues in Brazil are keeping the pressure on the their domestic meat sector which is the other half of the cattle-related deforestation equation.

- Lindsey

 

*Update: Timberland has changed the email address used to reply to our supporters. Instead of GPeace@timberland, the responses are now coming from TCommunications@timberland

Although we are getting form responses, now is the time more than ever to write Timberland and ask, "Can you prove that my Timberlands are not destroying the Amazon?" Also, please note that if you complete our action “Tell top shoe brands to protect the Amazon and the climate,” you may receive formulaic responses from several of the companies that we're asking to help protect the Amazon and the climate. We'll have suggested responses for all of them shortly, in addition to a more complete response to Timberland's email response.

If you took our online action “Tell top shoe brands to protect the Amazon and the climate,” you might have received an email response from GPeace@Timberland.com that appeared to come from Green Peace and detailed the environmental commitments of the company. We all consider Timberland to be an environmental leader, and yet Timberland can not guarantee that the leather in their shoes isn’t driving deforestation in the Amazon.

On page 95 of our report, “Slaughtering the Amazon,” which we just released Monday, we note the links between Bertin and Timberland: "Bertin lists direct leather customers including Clarks, Eagle Ottawa, Gruppo Mastrotto, HTL International (Domicil), Natuzzi (Divani & Divani), Chateau d’Ax and Timberland."

We go on to describe the problem with Bertin: “Greenpeace has identified hundreds of ranches within the Amazon rainforest supplying cattle to Bertin’s slaughterhouses in the Amazon state of Pará. Where Greenpeace was able to obtain mapped boundaries for ranches, satellite analysis reveals that significant supplies of cattle come from ranches active in recent and illegal deforestation. Trade data also reveal trade with ranches using modern-day slavery. Additionally, one Bertin slaughterhouse receives supplies of cattle from an illegal ranch occupying Indian Lands.” (p. 66 of report)

And we are not the only ones calling Bertin and Bertin’s customers, into question.  

In a press conference yesterday, Brazil’s Environment Minister, Carlos Minc, said: “This ministry shares the ([Greenpeace] report's) view. Cattle ranching today is the main culprit of deforestation.”
 
We also have news that a Brazilian Federal Prosecutor has filed a $1,000,000,000 suit against Bertin, 20 farms, and 10 other companies within the cattle sector based in Para.  They are accused of avoiding forest regeneration in illegally deforested areas subject to previous fines. The billion-dollar suit also asks for the retention of the farm owners’ goods, payment of fines and compensations for environmental damage to society, as well as an embargo of any activity in the areas illegally cleared, and a demand 1,376,377 acres are recovered to be reforested with native species. Because they bought cattle from these farms, slaughterhouses and tanning companies are considered co-responsible.

Though Timberland has done good things, they are not taking responsibility for any role they must play in protecting the Amazon and our climate.

I am sincerely disappointed that a company that has made environmental commitments in the past has not requested a meeting with Greenpeace to better understand evidence that implicates their company. The cattle industry is responsible for 80% of deforestation in the Amazon, making it the largest single driver of deforestation anywhere in the world. And deforestation, in turn, contributes 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than all the world’s planes, trains, and cars combined.

Now is the time to save the Amazon and our climate, and every step will count. Ask Timberland to step up already.

We're disappointed with Timberland, but they can still do the right thing--especially if they hear from you. If you receive an email from Timberland, please respond with a question: Can you prove that my Timberlands are not destroying the Amazon? And please cc: Kking@Timberland.com so that you know they are getting your feedback. 

- Lindsey 

Today we announce news that at first blush is not good--we have found areas in the Amazon rainforest that have been deforested to grow soy in violation of the Soy Moratorium Greenpeace helped create in 2006.

The good news is that the coalition of traders have agreed not to allow any of this soy to enter their supply chain and plan to revoke the funding of the farmers who broke the agreement. This is big news. Since we found soy growing in newly deforested areas for the first time this year, it was a test for the moratorium and the commitment of our coalition parters in the Soy Working Group to make sure that this soy did not make its way into the mouths of consumers. For more information read on because I've included a blog sent to me today from Paulo the Director of our Amazon work in Brazil.

- Lindsey 

Today the soya trading companies operating in Brazil - this includes giants such as Cargill, Bunge, ADM, Dreyfuss, Amaggi and others - will announce that the monitoring of the current soya crop (2008-2009) found soya planted where it shouldn't be: in areas deforested in the Amazon after July 2006. This is the date when the soya industry announced a moratorium for buying soya coming from newly deforested areas in the Amazon – a direct result of a strong campaign led by Greenpeace and soya European consumers, including McDonalds and its allies.

The good news is that the volume of soya resulting in deforestation is pretty small and traders will finally enforce their promises of not buying soya from farmers who disrespected the moratorium. Additionally, traders will cut credits of these farmers or others who challenge the moratorium – the soya traders fund large part of the Brazilian soya production.

Last year, the monitoring found new deforestation in the surroundings of traditional soya farms but didn't find soya planted in those areas (only rice which is not part of the moratorium). It has been pretty easy and comfortable for traders to claim that they are respecting an agreement which was not welcomed by farmers – in fact, it was imposed to them. Now, we are happy to see the trading companies making good on their promises to protect the world’s largest tropical rainforest!

This decision of the traders shows that companies can really play a fundamental role in fighting deforestation and join the global effort to stop climate change.

cheers,
paulo

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

Each year Kimberly-Clark hosts a shareholder meeting full of Execs, Boardmembers, and key investors in Dallas.  Given this is the company's most important meeting of the year we have a few things up our sleeve to remind Kimberly-Clark that destroying ancient forests doesn't pay.  From now until the shareholder meeting on April 30th keep an eye out for all the ways you can help us convince Kimberly-Clark that it is time to stop wiping away ancient forests for Kleenex!

In February we released the Greenpeace Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide and the story traveled the globe in The New York Times, The Guardian, The International Herald Tribune, and hundreds of other media outlets.

One of the questions that I was asked time and again was Do my tissue and toilet paper purchases really make a difference?

The answer is YES, but don't take my word for it.  Here is what is in your box of Kleenex...

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

According Fast Company, Kimberly-Clark's recognition by the EPA for the company's energy use falls flat given Kimberly-Clark continues to wipe out massive expanses of ancient forests for products like Kleenex.  We fully agree and we couldn't have said it better ourselves so here are a few excepts of the blog available here.

"It seems strange that a company which cuts down 200-year old greenhouse gas-absorbing trees should be praised for its reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And if Kimberly-Clark can take the time to use sustainable energy, why can't it use sustainable resources--i.e. recycled fiber? Because as we recently learned, soft, fluffy recycled tissues are possible."

"Sustainability shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum--every aspect of Kimberly-Clark's operations should be taken into account. We're all for companies being justly recognized for their environmental efforts, but in this case, the EPA's praise falls flat."

As Kimberly-Clark's greenwash train picks up speed you can look for more posts from us on the truth behind the green screen.  

- Lindsey 

 

 

 

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

Major newspaper outlets today are buzzing about how Americans' “preference” for soft toilet paper is an absolute environmental travesty. But is it really a preference, or something that has been sold to us by pulp and paper heavies like Kimberly-Clark?

Tissues, toilet paper, and other disposable products are responsible for unspeakable destruction of ancient forests around the world. And, in today’s New York Times, tissue maker Kimberly-Clark (K-C) has probably given us a bit more information than they meant to about the extent of the destruction they're causing despite their green claims.

Today, the NYT ran an article that said:

The national obsession with soft paper has driven the growth of brands like Cottonelle Ultra...

But fluffiness comes at a price: millions of trees harvested in North America and Latin American countries, including some percentages of trees from rare old-growth forests in Canada.

The article doesn’t mention Kleenex, the Kimberly-Clark brand that is so ubiquitous it has become synonymous with “tissue” itself. But one assertion, fittingly enough by a Kimberly-Clark spokesman, says all you need to know: “ Dave Dickson, a spokesman for Kimberly Clark, said that only 14 percent of the wood pulp used by the company came from the boreal forest.”

He does not dispute that they’re cutting down ancient boreal forest, just the percentage of their product made from a 10,000-year-old ecosystem.

That percentage is nothing to crow about, by the way. According to Kimberly-Clark’s 2005 Sustainability Report, the company used 3,113,000 metric tons of virgin fiber in 2005, an increase from the 3,067,000 metric tons of virgin fiber used in 2004 (this was the last time they publicly reported this tonnage in their sustainability report – I wonder why??). Even assuming K-C is only meeting 14% of worldwide pulp need with pulp from the Boreal, this amounts to over 435,820 metric tons of Boreal pulp used by Kimberly-Clark in a single year. This has a disastrous impact on an ecosystem, and all for products that the company could be making from recycled paper.

And hang on, I recently saw somewhere a very different figure from Kimberly-Clark. The company’s 2009 Sustainable Fiber Fact Sheet reads: "In fact, at the end of 2008, our use of fiber from the Canadian Boreal forest had been reduced by nearly 50 percent from 2004 levels."

What were those 2004 levels again? According to page 31 of the 2004 Kimberly-Clark Sustainability Report: "Less than 15 percent of the fiber we use globally is sourced from the Canadian Boreal Forest."

Hmmm... Is it 14%, like they said in the NYT today? Or half of 15%, like they claim on their website? Whatever the real number may be, if you really care about preserving forests, it comes in handy to actually have a stated policy to protect 100% of ancient forests.

Kimberly-Clark was also taken to task today by the UK newspaper The Guardian, which was not as polite to the paper product industry as the NYT, and chose to go with this lede:

The tenderness of the delicate American buttock is causing more environmental devastation than the country's love of gas-guzzling cars, fast food or McMansions, according to green campaigners. At fault, they say, is the US public's insistence on extra-soft, quilted and multi-ply products when they use the bathroom.

Americans already consume vastly more paper than any other country — about three times more per person than the average European, and 100 times more than the average person in China.

The article also states that, “Barely a third of the paper products sold in America are from recycled sources — most of it comes from virgin forests.”

So is using recycled really a difficult choice for Americans or is it just something we’ve been told by big tissue companies? The Guardian article also points out that,

Paper manufacturers such as Kimberly-Clark have identified luxury brands such as three-ply tissues or tissues infused with hand lotion as the fastest-growing market share in a highly competitive industry. Its latest television advertisements show a woman caressing tissue infused with hand lotion.

The New York Times reported a 40% in sales of luxury brands of toilet paper in 2008. Paper companies are anxious to keep those percentages up, even as the recession bites. And Reuters reported that Kimberly-Clark spent $25m in its third quarter on advertising to persuade Americans against trusting their bottoms to cheaper brands.

So maybe softness is not a preference of Americans, maybe someone’s been spending $25 million a year to whisper in our ear that recycled isn’t good enough. Although, on the other hand, I seem to remember something Kimberly-Clark said in this article about the quality of recycled content: “Using a K-C proprietary technology, Kleenex Naturals brand facial tissues contain 20 percent high-quality recycled fiber and provide the product softness and quality consumers have come to expect from the Kleenex brand.”

So when K-C spends $25,000,000 in a single year to sell us the expensive virgin stuff, then recycled products don’t make the grade. And yet Kimberly-Clark admits that recycled fiber can be used to provide the softness we expect.

Kimberly-Clark claims that the problem is American consumers (again in The Guardian piece):

Dave Dixon, a company spokesman, said toilet paper and tissue from recycled fibre had been on the market for years. If Americans wanted to buy them, they could.

"For bath tissue Americans in particular like the softness and strength that virgin fibres provides," Dixon said. "It's the quality and softness the consumers in America have come to expect."

If you’d like to tell Dave Dickson that Americans expect products that don't destroy ancient forests, send a message to the company here. And if you're looking for those products that don't destroy ancient forests, please download our pocket guide at www.greenpeace.org/tissueguide.

If you need any more convincing you can also take a look at this Fast Company article that explains how, together, we can improve the practices of Kimberly-Clark.

Hopefully some day carrying a box of Kleenex or Cottonelle to the check-out counter will be considered as ridiculous as driving around town in a Hummer.

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!


I know it’s a funny concept to consider, the sustainability of the tissue you use to wipe your nose. But the humor wears off pretty quick once you realize that the company that makes Kleenex brand tissues is wiping out vast expanses of ancient forests for tissues we will use once and then throw away.

We have worked on the Kleercut campaign for ages now, so I imagine the humor is long gone for most of us. To everyone that has helped us pressure the makers of Kleenex to protect ancient forests like the North American Boreal, let me just say that we here at Greenpeace are very grateful for your support. With this post, I’m going to answer the question I’m asked by concerned individuals and activists more than any other: If Kleenex should be avoided until they protect forests and use recycled content, then what should I buy?



The answer: there are a lot of good choices to choose from! So we have made it easy for you to find the products most available at your grocery store by creating the Greenpeace Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide. Now you can scan the guide online or print the pocket version and carry it with you to the store. Not only will the guide compare most major brands of tissue, toilet paper, paper towels, and paper napkins, but the guide can also be shown to the manager at your local store if they are interested in carrying environmentally friendly paper products.

I hope this gives you all a nice and easy way to blow your nose without wiping out forests. If you find a brand you are curious about or if you have another pressing question about our work to protect the Boreal and reform Kimberly-Clark, you can email us at usa@kleercut.net.

Here’s another one for the trees!
Lindsey