Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
The Daily Photoist: November 23, 2009
Urban Planner: November 23, 2009
This morning, according to a Greenpeace press release, four activists "locked themselves down" (sat down and chained themselves to each other) in the Toronto head office of Kimberly-Clark, makers of such things as Kleenex and Huggies. Other Greenpeace members walked the halls of the office, throwing down woodchips, playing chainsaw sounds and generally trying to be as disruptive as possible. They are demanding the company stop using wood from Canada's Boreal Forest, and instead use a combination of recycled fiber and wood from forests that are FSC certified. There's no word yet on whether or not the protesters are wearing Huggies to help prolong their stay.
This is the first major Toronto iteration of the Greenpeace Kleercut campaign, which began in the United States in 2005. Kimberly-Clark responded to the campaign in their 2006 "sustainability report," arguing that they have a corporate policy against logging British Columbian rainforests. Greenpeace then later pointed out that Kimberly-Clark has totally been using BC rainforest pulp since 2004, to which Kimberly-Clark replied with something to the effect of, "oops, yep, you got us."
Torontoist's first reaction to this story was a swift and decisive slap to the forehead, followed by a long, heavy sigh. This action comes at a time when environmental sanity is just beginning to get serious attention from politicians, business leaders, and individuals. It's taken the environmental movement decades to earn credibility. The goals of the protesters are admirable, but protests of this nature aren't likely to be as effective as making economic and moral arguments in compelling ways to people who have the power to change.
That being said, Ken Strassner, Kimberly-Clark's VP of Environment (now there's an important sounding job) has (according to Greenpeace) refused to meet with Greenpeace since April of last year. During that time, the company has continued to log in Canada's Boreal forest, which not only makes up a full quarter of the world's remaining intact ancient forests, but also serves as a carbon sink and helps to mitigate global warming, which, like, threatens our survival. So we can understand Greenpeace's frustration.
Plus, this protest admittedly got our attention, and if you didn't know that Kleenex is made of ancient trees, now you do. (By the by, a lot of green-type stores around Toronto carry the Seven Generations brand of 100% recycled facial and bathroom tissue, which isn't nearly as uncomfortable as it sounds.)
If you sympathize with Greenpeace, they would like you to call or email Ken Strassner and tell him what's what. If you object to Greenpeace's methods, you can let them know too.
Or, if you're reasonable, balanced, and have a lot of time on your hands, you might want to do both.
Photos by Greenpeace.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I wipe my ass with Greenpeace's concerns.
I have done my share of non-violent protests and I have been around the block once or twice. There are many facets to an issue like tissues. First let me mention that trees are living things that have a purpose on this planet. Having said that I also have to mention that as they are living, they have a lifespan and it isnt a million years. Harvesting ancient trees doesnt bother me, and most trees are farmed and farmers arent so stupid as to harvest something that will never grow back. Trees are being planted as fast as they are coming down here in Canada. Canadians like paper products and thats ok too. Hug a tree then go wipe your ass. Who am I to say...www.amyroger.com.
yes, trees grow back but not fast enough to mitigate the damage we are doing to the planet.
and have you ever seen a farmed forest? UGLY. unsuitable for animal life too. it's destruction of a good source of oxygen, the environment for our furry friends, and amazing natural beasuty...
use recycled
thanks for a pretty balanced article about this. to my knowledge, Greenpeace actually spends most of its staff time doing less radical things like negotiating with companies and working out plans to help them make a transition to more sustainable operation. they do these "stunts" for the publicity, and your article is precisely proof that this works. it doesn't really matter that people see this and think "oh, those damn hippies," because the point is for people to make the Kleenex-Boreal connection. an article on Torontoist with a bunch of odd pictures will reach a good number of people.
(and for the record, i do not work with greenpeace)
There's a lot more to old growth forests than just old trees. Really, I'm a little shocked anyone would suggest as long as the trees are replanted it's all the same.
These companies are aware that as the planet warms, it is likely that the forests that they own the land under will dry out and become less profitable because of forest fires. They are cutting the trees down as fast as they can, because of the uncertainty in the future of the forests.
This is at odds with the fact that these same forests are protection against global warming. Rather than doing something to solve the problem, they are going for the easy dollar.
It is done purely for profit. They have said that they won't use recycle fibers because they are not as soft. To me, they come off like pathological liars.
I would not be so quick to malign these activists. What they are doing is very important.
Buy a hanky. :)
This article is really poorly written. There is clear bias (albeit to both sides).
The writer attempts to put more emphasis on their writing style, and poor attempt at humor than the actual story.
Back to journalism school you go!
"Torontoist's first reaction to this story was a swift and decisive slap to the forehead, followed by a long, heavy sigh. This action comes at a time when environmental sanity is just beginning to get serious attention from politicians, business leaders, and individuals. It's taken the environmental movement decades to earn credibility."
I'd do a bit more research into the history of this campaign, and current Greenpeace methods before i'd make a statement like this. But once again, I don't believe the writer of this article has any credibility.
The writer is a member of the Green Party of Canada and ran as their candidate for Toronto Centre in the 2006 election, for the record.
I totally love this action and I am glad people are still doing non-violent activism.
Hopefully the public will clue in and a real boycott can begin.
I thought the article was well written. Not sure how you can have a clear bias to both sides though.
Yeah, the whole concept of bias is that something is slanted towards one side. I'm pretty sure having bias towards both sides is called balance.
The new bias is balancing the article to make all sides appear equally valid.
I flew out of Kelowna in a prop plane a couple of years ago and was gobsmacked. Seeing a massive clearcut in person, especially from the air, did more for my understanding than anything I've ever read or heard. It was sickening -- especially how they leave a little strip by the road so people never get to see it when driving through the beautiful evergreen landscape.
I've been following this story for some time, and I'm continuously amused by the antics of protesters. In Quebec recently, a group played chainsaw sounds in the middle of a clear-cut and "felled themselves". It reminds me of theatre-arts groups in highschool. Few people had any idea what they were doing, but were amused anyway.
Lets inject a couple facts into the discussion:
The boreal forest is a forest of natural disturbance and high fire cycles. "Ancient" in most parts amounts to about 100 years old (as opposed to "ancient" in BC rainforests of 600+ years). As you move east into Quebec, some pockets get older (200-300 years) because it gets wetter.
Clearcuts are ugly, but ugly is not necessarilly bad (unless you consider your kid sister at 6 years old unequivocally "bad"). Recent research has shown that sub-boreal clearcuts become carbon sinks around 8 years after harvest. Wildlife also returns to clearcuts in time (for most forest birds to return takes about 30-40 years), and clearcuts actually provide habitat for young forest (e.g. clearcuts) species.
And flying out of Kelowna one can see LOTS of clearcuts, owing to efforts to control mountain pine beetle, and salvage some of what's already been eaten.
Good article!
This mindless decimation of the pristine forest should be stopped at all cost, of course by non-violent means.
After the steady Savannization of Amazon now it's the turn of the Boreal forest.
With the globe getting warmer by the day, Mother nature's patience on humanity will soon run out.
-Madhav