Greenpeace

Serious climate issues are often shrouded in complicated and arcane scientific and political language.  This makes it easy for corporate polluters to disguise their agenda and intentions when talking about climate and energy policy.  Below is a letter polluters sent to decision-makers this week urging them to increase the number of international offsets in climate legislation.  I’ve taken the liberty of translating it for you.  Read on to see what they’re really saying.

Also note the list of companies signing the letter.  Among them are many huge polluters such as Duke Energy, Dominion, Exelon and American Electric Power – the company that was a focus in the recent Greenpeace Carbon Scam report.

But also on the list is Intel, a company that strives to associate its brand with innovation and the future.  Why are they associating themselves with some of the biggest, most backwards polluters in the country?  Good question.  You can read more about how Intel stacks up against other tech companies on our Cool IT Challenge campaign site.

Anyway, read on…

=============

Re: The Importance of International Offsets for U.S. Climate Change Mitigation Efforts

Dear Senator Kerry, Senator Graham, and Senator Lieberman:

We, the undersigned, are companies that employ hundreds of thousands of American workers, and serve hundreds of millions of American consumers. We expect that our companies would be affected significantly by any greenhouse gas regulatory program. We write today to communicate our firm belief that in order for any such program to be both environmentally effective and economically sound it should be market-based and incorporate both domestic and international offsets. To this end, we are concerned about the further restrictions on use of international offset credits in S. 1733, reported last week by the Environment and Public Works Committee.

TRANSLATION: We are some of the biggest, richest polluters in the world and we have a lot invested in dirty business.  If you pass climate legislation without huge loopholes for us, we’re going to be very upset.  One of the most important loopholes we want are carbon offsets – cheap vouchers that allow us to side-step cutting our pollution with the rationale that someone else, somewhere else, will cut pollution instead.  Sure, the legislation in Congress already has massive subsidies for us and billions of tons of offsets in it, but we are still not happy.  We always want more.

The cost containment provided by international offsets is dramatic and critical. Every major study of greenhouse gas regulation has reached this conclusion. The Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill found that the costs of the cap-and-trade program would increase by 89% without international offsets. By cutting the costs of a cap-and-trade program almost in half, international offsets preserve U.S. jobs and U.S. competitiveness.

TRANSLATION: Outsourcing jobs saves us a lot of money.  Likewise, we want to outsource investments in green jobs and cleaner skies we would otherwise have to make to cut our own pollution.  It’s just so much cheaper for us to do it overseas.  If we have to do it here in the U.S., it will cut into our giant profits too much.  For example, the last American Electric Power quarterly profits rose 18% over last year to $443 million due to “higher rates charged its utility customers” despite lower demand for electricity.  We don’t need investments in green jobs and cleaner skies eating into that.  We want to keep our pockets well lined, thank you very much.

Until low-carbon technologies are widely available, U.S. companies need to have the ability to pay for low-cost, readily-available reductions wherever they may be found, which includes other countries. Put another way, allowing U.S. companies to invest in at least some reductions abroad, makes it possible to continue production here, allowing for a gradual transition of the U.S. economy to a low-carbon future. At the same time, international offsets give U.S. companies new export markets for low-carbon technologies made in this country.

TRANSLATION: We already have the technologies needed to dramatically reduce climate pollution, but we don’t want to pay for them.  We’d rather pretend that some miracle technology like “carbon capture and sequestration” will magically become effective and affordable in the future…and that we can’t take real action to clean up our acts until then.  Allowing U.S. polluters to buy their way out with cheap international offsets will allow us to slash investments in green jobs in the U.S. and continue to pollute American skies.  We want to avoid climate action as long as possible, so we can pass the buck to future generations of Americans.

International offset policies also offer an opportunity to address the serious problem of tropical deforestation, which causes 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions annually and threatens the survival of more than half of the world’s plant, insect, and animal species. International offsets therefore offer a win-win situation; they make it possible for the U.S. to address critical global environmental issues, while saving jobs here.

TRANSLATION: By taking credit for “avoided deforestation” projects, we can really side-step American green job/clean tech investments.  That’s because avoided deforestation offsets would be among the cheapest and most abundant in the world.  Why build windmills and invest green jobs in the American Heartland if we could – for much less – pay to keep trees standing in, say, Bolivia?  It’s super cheap, we get to keep polluting, and we’ll have money left over to run TV commercials showing pretty rainforest animals we’ll claim to be saving.  This is the ultimate greenwash, and if you’re lucky Senators, we’ll let you in on it.

It is important that any international offsets are as environmentally rigorous as domestic offsets, which means that offsets from other countries should be subject to review by the relevant agencies. International offset credits subject to such review should not be subject to any arbitrary discounts or other barriers, which can only diminish their cost containment potential.

TRANSLATION: For years, evidence has mounted showing offsets often don’t deliver what they’re supposed to.  So, we have to pretend to be really concerned about the quality of offsets.  But, what we really want is universal green stamp of approval that will make people believe our offsets are 100% reliable so we can trade them in carbon markets and make buckets of money.  Don’t set up standards that are too tough -- just tough (and confusing) enough for people to believe in them.  Carbon markets could be worth trillions of dollars in coming years!  We want our carbon cake and want to trade it too!

Finally, we believe that well-designed international offset policies can play a vital role in encouraging other countries to adopt appropriate limits on their emissions, which will further limit the competitiveness impacts of climate legislation on the U.S. economy. International offsets are a necessary component of our diplomatic efforts.

TRANSLATION: Polluters in developing countries don’t want to change their ways either.  By counting offsets as a replacement for real U.S. pollution cuts AND counting them as cuts in developing countries, we really game the system.  It’s called “double-counting.”  Nothing like a little creative accounting to confuse the situation and make it look like we’re doing more than we are to address global warming.  And, if anyone asks you, just tell them you’re doing this to “protect American competitiveness.”  That always works.

For these reasons, we strongly urge you, as you consider cap-and-trade legislation, to ensure that the program protects the vital cost-containment role of international offsets, and avoids any arbitrary barriers to the use of such credits.

TRANSLATION: We’re watching you.  And the 2010 elections are right around the corner.  We’re making our campaign contribution list right now.  Don’t mess this one up for us, or there will be hell to pay!

Sincerely,

Alpha Natural Resources, American Electric Power, DTE Energy, Dominion, The Dow Chemical Company, Duke Energy, DuPont, El Paso Corporation, Exelon, Southern Company, FPL Group, Intel, International Paper Company, NRG Energy, National Grid, PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, Rio Tinto

This week in Barcelona, Spain, the United Nations climate change negotiations are tasked with setting the table for the long-awaited talks in Copenhagen. A lot of preparation needs to happen to create a fair, ambitious, and legally binding international treaty in December.

However, halfway through the week-long talks, that important work is not getting done. And the biggest impediment to progress in Barcelona is the United States. There are three main things the U.S. needs to do to move things forward:

1. Make ambitious science-based commitments to reduce its climate pollution (between 25-40% below 1990 levels by the year 2020).
2. Commit to deliver its share of funding to developing countries so they can slash climate pollution and deal with the effects of global warming.
3. Agree to an international treaty that will be legally-binding and enforceable.

But the U.S. delegation is claiming it cannot negotiate important issues without climate change legislation first being passed by Congress. There are three big problems with that excuse:

First, the bills have been corrupted by big polluters. They simply do not deliver anything close to what scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. Low emissions cuts targets and loopholes in the bills allow for dirty business as usual.

Second, even if the legislation was science-based and effective, Congress does not time before December to pass the bills. 

Third, the President is charged with leading U.S. foreign policy and negotiating treaties, not Congress. President Obama should not take the back seat as a slow-moving Congress drives U.S. climate policy towards failure.

The clock is ticking towards Copenhagen. We have about thirty days before those talks begin. Our climate and our future are too important to let political excuses get in the way of real action. 

Please call the person in charge of the U.S. delegation in Barcelona — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — at 202-647-5291 and tell her the U.S. needs to lead climate talks, not drag them down.

If you cannot get through on the number above call the lead U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern: 202-647-9884.

Use your own words, but here is a sample call script you can work from:

My name is _______, calling from ________. I'm calling because I think climate change is the single most important issue facing the world, and I understand that the US is continuing to obstruct real progress at the U.N. talks in Barcelona. This is outrageous, and it's not what the American people voted for when they elected President Obama a year ago.

It's time for U.S. leadership to stop listening to industry and start listening to science. We need a fair, legally enforceable treaty at Copenhagen, not more foot-dragging in Barcelona.

Spread the word — tell your friends and family to make a call today. You can use that retweet button on the top right of this post, or use those little icons up under the title of this blog to post a link to your Facebook, send an email, or post to most any other social network.

For the climate,

-Rolf

Greenpeace activists in two inflatable boats intercepted a ship, the Izmuir Castle, as it carried more than 15,000 tons of palm kernel oil into the French port of Montoir-de-Bretagne this morning.  Palm oil plantations are a leading cause of forest destruction in Indonesia and other southeast Asian nations.  The activists painted "Climate Crime" on the hull of the huge cargo ship.  Eleven activists climbed on top of three cranes that were unloading contents of the ship and unfurled banners reading "Funding for forest protection, not their destruction."

This happened while the European Union leaders met to discuss if they’d put on the table to help developing countries fight and deal with global warming.  It’s also on the eve of United Nations climate negotiations in Barcelona next week.

The action is part of an international Greenpeace effort to get world leaders to invest in tropical forest protection for our climate.

While everyone seems to agree that tropical deforestation must be tackled to deal with global warming, few world leaders seem ready to actually do anything about it...and forests continue to fall.  Most conspicuous is President Obama who needs to show the world that the U.S. is ready to lead the fight against global warming.

What needs to be done?  Simple.  Developed nations should pool money together, mostly from their polluting industries, and create a financial incentive for countries with tropic forests to protect forests for our climate.  In the lead up to the United Nations climate negotiations in Copenhagen, Greenpeace created a proposal to do just that.

To motivate Obama and world leaders, Greenpeace launched a Climate Defenders Camp this week in the Kampar Peninsula peat forests of Indonesia.  Check out photos of the Kampar Peninsula here.

The Climate Defenders Camp has attracted international media attention as they deployed giant banners calling for forest funding, began damming illegally-drained peatlands, and worked to amplify the voice of local communities.  The action at the Climate Defenders Camp is just warming up.  You can read more first-hand accounts, see videos and get daily updates here.

The peat soils of the Kampar, which have built up over ages, store an estimated 2 billion tons of carbon, forming one of the world’s largest carbon stores on land.  When these forest are drained and burned to make way for tree farms and palm oil plantations, the consequences for our climate, and the rainforest species that depend on them, is devastating.

Learn more about peatland forests and global warming in the video below.  And stay tuned as we continue to defend forests for our climate!

-Rolf

Once you’ve witnessed a wildland fire, you’ll never forget it.  The haze that filters sunlight, casting a strange, darkened light.  The dramatic flare-ups that consume trees like matches.  The massive plumes of smoke that mimic mushroom clouds.  And maybe most of all, the pervasive smoke that gets everywhere, creeping beyond closed doors and sticking to clothes.

While fires are an important part of the natural balance in some American ecosytems, scientists tell us global warming is setting up hotter, drier conditions that could lead to more large, dangerous fires. Weather and climate are very complicated phenomenon, so there's plenty of science being to understand this; you can read more here and here.

This means more people and property at risk, more firefighter lives on the line, and more taxpayer dollars sapped by expensive emergency responses.

What can be done?  Fire experts tell us we need to spend more money on preventative measures – things that improve our safety, save money, and lower the likelihood of dangerous conflagrations in the future.  There is a long list of those measures, from creating fire-resistant “defensible space” around buildings, to the controlled burning of fire-dependent wildlands.

However, one of the most important preventative measures is receiving less attention: fighting global warming.  We can, and should, stop run-away temperature rise from making droughts, heat waves and fires worse.

The moment to do this is now.  Away from the smoke-shrouded mountains of southern California, international leaders are struggling to create a climate treaty.  The deadline for this is rapidly approaching in December when UN climate talks wrap up in Copenhagen.

The main problem preventing progress is a lack of leadership from developed countries in two key areas: (1) commitments to serious cuts in pollution and (2) substantial funding to fight global warming and its effects in developing countries.

The first one is pretty straightforward.  In order to fight global warming, developed countries need to cut climate pollution aggressively.  So far, few have shown any real commitment to this.  Instead, countries like the U.S. have set weak targets, then filled them offsets to outsource green jobs, cleaner skies elsewhere.  In a recent media interview, Representative Rick Boucher (R-VA) summed up the effects of offsets on pollution reductions succintly: “…an electric utility burning coal will not have to reduce the emissions at the plant site.  It can just keep burning coal.”  Needless to say, loopholes and outsourcing won’t get us where we need to go.
 
The second commitment, providing funding, does not mean another big bailout fueled by taxpayer dollars.  If properly designed, cap and trade systems make big polluters pay for their pollution instead of lining their pockets with windfall profits.  For a total of $140 billion worldwide, this funding would allow us to protect the world's most vulnerable people from the worst impacts of climate change, help developing countries “leapfrog” dirty energy development and stop deforestation (a leading source of climate pollution).

Now is the time for President Obama to step up and provide leadership.  In gatherings later this month at the United Nations in New York and the G-20 in Pittsburgh, world leaders will have an historic opportunity to make real progress towards a climate deal.  If they act like poll-watching politicians instead of real leaders, our future may be left out high, hot and dry.

Good news!

Today a federal court reinstated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.  This means about 40 million acres of pristine roadless forests are protected from destructive logging and road-building.  Greenpeace was part of the successful lawsuit supported by many conservation groups and several western states.

Read more about the case here.

This is great news, but it is not the end of the story.  Because of a complicated legal and administrative history, the roadless wildlands in America’s largest forest – the Tongass in Alaska – and National Forests in Idaho, do not benefit from this court decision.

Created in 2001 by the Clinton administration, the “Roadless Rule” is extraordinarily popular with Americans.  Support for roadless conservation isn’t a partisan issue: polls have shown Americans from all backgrounds supported the protection of our last best wildlands.  And, as the Roadless Rule was being created, they spoke up in record numbers in favor of it.  But, it didn’t take long for the Bush administration to join with industry groups to attack the rule and attempt to make it a divisive political issue.

 In 2005, the Bush administration replaced the Roadless Rule with a watered-down version requiring governors to “petition” the federal government to protect Roadless Areas in their state.  This allowed partisan state governors to tamper with protections for public lands belonging to all Americans.  In addition, pro-roadless area governors were saddled with new red-tape and expensive bureaucratic requirements to essentially beg for forest protection.  Even if a governor filed a petition, the Bush administration – and the former timber industry lobbyist overseeing the Forest Service – reserved the right to turn down requests for roadless area protection.

The Bush administration did this switch without conducting required environmental review.  They claimed it was merely a “paper” exercise that had no effect on endangered species or the habitat they depend on.  The three judge panel today slapped down that ridiculous assertion, saying they had violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

To me, this is more than an abstract legal case.  I watched roadless forests in Oregon’s North and South Kalmiopsis Roadless Areas fall to the saw during the Bush administration.  When you feel the earth shake when a huge tree hits the ground, and see messy stump-fields replace beautiful wildlands it’s hard not to be moved.  These forests are real places important for clean water, wildlife, recreation and local communities.  And they deserve real, permanent protection.

 

I've witnessed brave activists stand in the way of roadless area logging, putting their bodies and freedoms on the line to call out Bush admininstration policies that turned out to be illegal. Dangling from bridges and blocking logging roads, their courage moved faster than the courts.  In the meantime, forests that should have remained standing fell to the saw.

Now the big question is: what will Obama do?  While candidate Obama made commitments to “support and defend” roadless forests, his administration has a mixed record.  Earlier this year, the administration declared a one-year “timeout” on destructive activities in roadless areas, barring logging and roadbuilding without case-by-case approval by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

Unfortunately, Vilsack recently used his power to green-light the Orion timber sale in the Tongass National Forest.  That logging project includes road-building and clearcutting in temperate rainforests bordering the Misty Fjords National Monument.  While chainsaws move in on the rainforest, Greenpeace is challenging the project in court.

Enough already.  It is clear Americans want their last roadless forests protected, and it is clear these pristine forests need help to keep them standing for future generations.  Now is the time for Obama to put petty politics and court battles behind us and ensure protection for all of America’s Roadless Areas.

-Rolf

Biodiversity.  It’s hardly a word you hear around dinner tables and water coolers in America.  It’s a wonky word, but what it stands for – the diversity of life on the planet – is the basis of human life and prosperity on Earth.  Pretty darn important!

Biological diversity is intimately linked to both cutting climate pollution and adapting to a changing climate.  While we debate the best way to save our climate, we also need to safeguard biodiversity.  In particular, we need to pay attention to how different proposals to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) affect biodiversity.

According to a new report commissioned by Greenpeace, a fund-based approach to REDD is much better suited to protect biodiversity than offset-based REDD schemes.  You can read the summary of the report here.

To understand why, we need to look at the big picture.

Most political observers believe the U.S. is moving towards a “cap and trade” system to manage carbon pollution.  The idea is pretty simple: issue a limited number of certificates to pollute, then lower that number over time so it becomes more attractive to invest in climate-friendly ways of doing business.  At the same time, let companies trade credits for flexibility and to create potential profits for those that conserve.  Cap…and trade.

But polluters want to keep polluting, and to do it at a cheap price.  This is where offsets come in.

An “offset” is a permit polluters buy to continue business as usual.  Instead of cleaning up their act, polluters “outsource” their climate responsibilities to other places, usually overseas.  In these other places, the offset activities are often very different from the polluting activities they are supposed to excuse.  Problems with quality, measurement and longevity of offset activities can actually result in more climate pollution, not less.

Offsets based on forests create very cheap offsets.  By the ton of calculated carbon value, they’re a bargain compared to solar panels or other clean technologies.

Because polluters want the cheapest offsets possible, and because only some tropical forest nations have the capacity to participate in international carbon markets, offsets would tend to protect certain forest areas, but not others.  This means other forests would be vulnerable to the drivers of deforestation (logging, agribusiness, etc) which can jump from country to country in today’s global economy.

This problem, called “leakage” in climate circles, can actually increase pollution since it cancels out climate benefits of offsets while the pollution the offsets are supposed to compensate for (like coal burning in Ohio) continues.

It also means big problems for biodiversity, since we could end up protecting one forest and losing another.  Saving orangutans in Indonesia and driving gorillas to extinction in the Congo?  Not a good idea.

Instead of offsets, Greenpeace supports a flexible fund approach to REDD that can be used to protect tropical forests worldwide.  The fund would minimize leakage and would achieve cuts in climate that are in addition to – not in place of – climate progress in industrialized nations like the US.  By applying incentives to protect biodiversity, a well-managed REDD fund is a real win-win for the climate and life on Earth.

-Rolf

Everyone is talking about the urgent need for climate action and it seems like the Obama administration and Congress are moving towards a “cap and trade” system to limit US greenhouse gas emissions.  However, there is a big devil in the details that could make the whole system useless.

The basic idea behind a cap and trade system is to set a limit, or "cap," on overall greenhouse gas pollution, then sell “allowances” to polluting industries.  The allowances can be traded to provide flexibility, but they never add up to more pollution than the cap.  Over time, the cap is lowered to reduce greenhouse gas pollution – as the supply of allowances gets smaller, the price to pollute gets more expensive.  Basic supply and demand.  This sets up financial incentives to switch from polluting activities to clean and renewable technologies.

In theory, pretty simple, right?

Well, it gets more complicated when big polluters and special interests find ways to mess it all up…and when their friends in Congress start listening to them.

One of the biggest threats to the effectiveness of a cap and trade system is the inclusion of cheap carbon “credits” generated from, strangely enough, the protection of forests overseas.

Why?  Well, first of all, deforestation is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than all the cars, trucks, planes, trains and boats in the world -- combined!

Second, protecting forests is a much cheaper way to keep greenhouse gas pollution out of the atmosphere than, say, building fleets of electric cars.  After all, we don’t really have to build anything new to keep forests standing – we just need to refrain from burning them up or chopping them down!

The fact that forest protection is a relatively efficient way to take action for the climate is a good thing.  And Greenpeace thinks the US and other countries should make investments in tropical forest protection for our climate.  You can read more about our plan to do that here.

But if you mix low-cost forest credits into a trading system and make it cheaper to pollute…well, you make it cheaper to pollute!

And if it’s cheap to pollute, polluters – from coal companies to car companies – will continue to do so instead of investing in new ways of doing things and building the greener, healthier economy we so desperately need.

Plus, scientists are clearly telling us that to tackle global warming, we can’t pick and choose between saving forests and continuing polluting business as usual.  It’s not either / or.  The science shows it has to be BOTH to avoid catastrophic climate change.

A new economic report, commissioned by Greenpeace and released recently at the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany, shows why.  Among other things, it documents that including “avoided deforestation” credits in international carbon markets could:

1. decrease the cost of carbon between 60%-75% under various scenarios
2. increase the overall cost of fighting global warming in the long term
3. reduce clean technologies investments in developed nations (like the US) & developing countries (like China)

I recommend reading the Greenpeace report summary here.  If you want to dive into the wonky details, download the full, technical report, here.

Stay tuned – as politicians continue to develop plans to fight global warming, we’ll need your help to make sure they protect tropical forests overseas AND invest in clean technologies here in the US.

For the forests (and the climate),

-Rolf

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!

Kimberly-Clark has invested mountains of money in a new advertising campaign to promote Kleenex tissues.  And, all that money got them a new slogan.  First they wanted you to “Let it Out” – which people from coast to coast did.  Now they are telling us, curiously, that “It Feels Good to Feel.”  As opposed to not feeling, I guess.  Ok, I'll agree with that self-evident statement.

The place I differ with the tissue giant is on ancient forest destruction.  The Kleenex they’re pushing with the new ad blitz has no recycled content in it.  And, as a company, Kimberly-Clark continues to eat up ancient forests for their products.  Sorry Kleenex, ancient forest destruction doesn’t “feel good.”

Kleenex marketeers are on yet another tour.  This time, they’re not sitting on a blue couch, riding a bizarre dog-bus, or setting up a pretend “diva café.”  This time, they’re going a bit abstract with a white, curvy walk-in display featuring “hanging displays of rug cutouts and other items that encourage people to feel.”  If you crossed a kid-oriented “please touch” exhibit with an IKEA living room set, you might get this thing.  They call it the “Feelspace.”

Ok, whatever.  When the Feelspace thingy showed up at a mall near Denver, Colorado, Kleercut campaign activists were there to meet them.  Activists started by intercepting shoppers and sharing the new Greenpeace green tissue guide with them.  When informed that Kimberly-Clarks’s leading brands don’t have any recycled content, shoppers pledged not to buy Kleenex.

Then, to make their point really clear, they unfurled a banner in front of the Feelspace thing.  Mocking the feely-hand logo used by Kleenex, they held out their hands with “S-T-O-P” written on their palms.  Shortly afterwards, one keen-eared activist overheard mall-goers in the bathroom saying: “OMG – you just missed the coolest thing!  These people came out with a banner that said something about Kleenex destroying ancient forests...it was so cool and crazy!”

By the time mall security (was that Paul Blart?) escorted them from premises, the activists had spoiled Kleenex’s day and changed a lot of minds.  In fact, activists even elicited sympathetic comments from surprised Kleenex marketers -- many did not know Kleenex is made without recycled content.  One Kleenex rep openly said that Kleenex should “stop clearcutting and start using recycled fiber.”  I’m glad we’re starting to get on the same (post-consumer, recycled content) page with Kimberly-Clark!

Let’s hope the same sort of agreement can trickle-up to Kimberly-Clark executives.  Until then, activists will continue to have fun punking Kleenex advertising efforts and standing tall for ancient forests.

-Rolf

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!

Ok, let’s get it out there: Fox News is not known for going easy on environmental advocates.

True, green is the new black, and everyone from fashion designers to members of Congress are rushing to catch up with the green trend which finally feels like it’s here to stay.

That said, when I agreed to do a live spot on Fox News about our new green tissue guide, I didn’t expect them to go soft on me. Exaggerations, interruptions, and even name-calling are just par for the course if you’re a “treehugger” on Fox.

So, what happened when I showed up?

Sitting on the proverbial hot seat in a filming room by myself, staring at a blank screen, I listened closely to the chatter in the earbud in my left ear.  Then it began.  Though host Megyn Kelly playfully poked, prodded and gave me a hard time, by the end of the segment it was the Greenpeace tissue guide – and the call to buy quality recycled tissue products – that came out on top.

Click below to watch, rate and comment on the video on YouTube!

 

 

If you're having trouble viewing the video on YouTube, click here.

The outcome wasn't that much of a surprise.  After all, most people agree that making disposable products from ancient forests doesn’t make a lot of sense…especially when we can make the same products from quality recycled paper.  However, the most remarkable part came when co-host Bill Hemmer was challenged to feel the difference between recycled toilet paper and a non-recycled brand…and he picked wrong.  As the host said, they "proved my point."

Is there really a difference between recycled tissue and tissue made from virgin fiber?  Definitely.  Non-recycled tissue products come with a much heavier price tag for the Earth.  And, in many cases, it comes with a heftier price tag, period.  Many of the brands that failed our tissue guide ranking, including Kleenex, Cottonelle, and Viva – are so-called “premium” brands that companies like Kimberly-Clark want you to pay more for.

So much so, that in the face of the recession, Kimberly-Clark spent $25 million MORE on advertising those expensive, unsustainable brands in just the third quarter of 2008 alone.  They did so in a desparate attempt to keep Americans from switching to more affordable brands.

That begs the question: do Americans really prefer those expensive, ancient forest-destroying products?  Can people really tell the difference?  Or, are they being duped into buying pricey stuff with imaginary benefits and larger impact on the planet?

I hope you’ll use our new tissue guide, make up your own mind, and ultimately vote for ancient forest protection with your hard-earned dollars.

-Rolf