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

Tissue giant (and forest destroyer) Kimberly-Clark is trying to convince Spanish speakers in the US to buy its products – Huggies and Pull-ups in particular.  To do so, they’re touring southern California, handing out sample diapers.  If you’re a regular Treehugger blog reader, you know that they’ve had some weird marketing tours in the last year, including an ugly dog-bus and a fake café.  This time, it is a diaper-train tent.  I’m serious.

On Saturday, Kimberly-Clark advertisers set up in shopping center parking lots in the San Diego area.  Everything was going according to plan…until Greenpeace activists showed up again.

The diaper-dealers didn’t realize that Saturday was the start of the Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead), a holiday of Mexican heritage that celebrates those who have passed with a variety of activities – including the building of commemorative altars.

Our team sprang into action, setting up a Day of the Dead altar to honor the animals and ancient forests that have been destroyed for Kimberly-Clark’s throw-away products.  The display was complete with Boreal animals, posters of clearcut ancient forests, and placards that explained in Spanish and English: Dedicado a la memoria de los bosques eliminados por KC (In Memory of Forests Destroyed by Kimberly-Clark).

The team also passed out bilingual fliers to hundreds of shoppers, educating them about Kimberly-Clark’s role in ancient forest destruction.  The response was enthusiastic.  It seems ancient forest destruction stinks no matter how you say it.

The diaper-dealers tried to scare away our activists by threatening to “call Kimberly-Clark” and “take pictures” of them.  The activists were delighted by this news, since they’d been working hard to get people to call Kimberly-Clark and had been taking pictures of themselves all afternoon!

Stay tuned as our creative activists turn up the heat on K-C.  In the meantime, visit our take action center to use your own creativity to make a statement for ancient forests.

-Rolf