It would appear that the answer is a probable yes...
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
In many other instance they go over the top, and not Greenpeace alone, and give the green movement a bad press and here they seem to have entirely caved in to the paper industry.
When it comes to any sort of environmental initiative, it is usually Greenpeace that is complaining that the effort is just not enough. They are more often than not the purists, demanding more than people are willing to give, out of a noble sense of urgency and responsibility. But after they suspended a recent campaign to stop Canada’s ancient boreal forests from being cut down for toilet paper, one ecologist says Greenpeace gave in too easily.
Dr. Glen Barry, environmental sustainability policy expert and founder of Ecological Internet, sent out a press release entitled ‘Greenpeace Wipes It’s Soft, Virgin Butt with Canada’s Ancient Boreal Forests’:
Greenpeace’s long-standing campaign against “ancient forest crimes” by Kimberly-Clark was suspended on the basis of promises that 40% of its North American tissue fiber will be either recycled or FSC certified by 2011. The company traditionally has used 3 million tones of virgin fiber a year, which will fall to 2.4 million tons if they are successful. This atrociously weak target will legitimize continued destruction of Canada’s ancient forest ecosystems for throw away paper products for decades.
Sorry, erm, how little? Just 40%... What is actually wrong with making toilet paper and paper towels from recycled paper? Does toilet paper really have to look snow white?
“In a world well past its carrying capacity, facing abrupt climate change and species and ecosystem collapse, we call upon Greenpeace to immediately disclose the ecological science that suggests primary and old growth forests can and should continue to be clearcut to wipe our asses,” questions Dr. Glen Barry. “It is just like Greenpeace to half carry out a campaign, achieve partial success, claim victory and move onto a more telegenic protest opportunity to fill their coffers.”
We also must call upon Greenpeace to embrace substance over style (for a change) and immediately disassociate itself from the Forest Stewardship Council’s ongoing certification of first time industrial logging of primary forests as being “well-managed” while implying sustainability.
The Forest Stewardship Council and its certifications have, in rencet times, show itself to be more then worthless and things are not as they should bere there.
“No one including Greenpeace can tell us how many tens of millions of hectares of primeval forest ecosystems are being destroyed under FSC’s certification label for, amongst other things, toilet paper and lawn furniture. Until Greenpeace and friends stop greenwashing FSC ancient forest logging, we call upon committed forest protectors to resign their membership from Greenpeace and other ancient forest logging apologists, and to stop using virgin toilet paper, no matter how sensitive their behinds,” explains Dr. Barry.
Wow. It is not often that Greenpeace is accused of not being tough enough on environmentally irresponsible companies. They are known for being among the biggest hard asses in the world of environmental activism, yelling “bigger, faster, more” like a drill sergeant when companies take baby steps toward better practices.
But Dr. Barry has one-upped them, saying “There is no such thing as ecologically sustainable or even mildly beneficial first time industrial primary forest logging, and Greenpeace should be ashamed of itself for legitimizing the trade. If you support Greenpeace, you support ancient forest logging that endangers our shared being.”
The greatest disaster as to destruction can be seen in the tar sands area of Alberta where it is said that Kimberly-Clark was the benefactor of the clear cutting of the forests there. Guess that has all gone the toilet.
There is, in my opinion, no need to use virgin forest for toilet paper (or anything else for that matter) and it would appear that the FSC label is not worth the paper it is printed on. In fact, in my view, the paper it is printed on is more valuable than the label.
Methinks a boycott is called for of Kimberly-Clark, the FSC and Greenpeace until all three clean up their acts.
© 2009
<>
Did Greenpeace cave in to Kimberly-Clark?
