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

 

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!

As we all know, Kimberly-Clark (largest tissue maker in the world) still refuses to stop destroying ancient forests for Kleenex.  

In April I attended the company shareholder meeting and when called to speak I highlighted the fact that I have worked on this campaign for over three years.  Every year in front of shareholders, the Kimberly-Clark (K-C) CEO stands to speak about company accomplishments and yet when it comes to issues of sustainability, K-C takes the tiniest of baby steps.  The baby steps don’t cut it when you look at the impact of Kimberly-Clark.  Each year they remove 342,000 metric tons of fiber from the Boreal forest--most of which was removed by clearcutting the forest.

Today activists decided to show how concerned they are with K-C’s ancient forest destruction for Kleenex, Scott and Cottonelle brands that are used once and then flushed.  Three activists launched a blockade of the New Milford, CT Kimberly-Clark facility that produces 40% of the American supply of Kleenex and Scott products.  While locking down to the gate used by large transport trucks another group of activists descended on the parking lot to distribute messages to employees.  On each car the activists left a fact sheet on the Kleercut campaign and a tree sapling with an attached note that read: “We know Kimberly-Clark can do better. Here is a start.”

We do know that Kimberly-Clark, at its core a paper company, can do better and it is time they start by working with us to protect the North American Boreal forest.  

- Lindsey

If you are interested in learning more please visit our Kleenex Free Schools project and take a look at our latest report on Kimberly-Clark’s destruction of the Kenogami forest in Ontario, Canada.