As you may know by now, Greenpeace released a report June 1 called Slaughtering the Amazon, which demonstrated the connections between the cattle sector and deforestation. Today we saw one of our first major victories as Brazilian retailers banned meat from cattle that were raised in deforested areas in the Amazon.
As the Reuters piece points out:
"CBD, Wal-Mart and Carrefour will ban beef purchased from farms accused by the Para state prosecutors office of deforestation and will demand documents from slaughterhouses related to the transit of the cattle, Abras said.
The companies also intend to conduct an independent audit to assure that meat that they buy is not from deforested areas."Here in the US we are not a large importer of Brazilian beef that could be driving deforestation in the Amazon but we do suspect ties to US companies using leather from illegal cattle ranching in the Amazon. While we focus on the campaign to get Nike, Timberland, Adidas, and others to prove the leather in our shoes is not from destroyed Amazon, our colleagues in Brazil are keeping the pressure on the their domestic meat sector which is the other half of the cattle-related deforestation equation.
Some corporations, employing the 'Dirty Business' greenwash tactic, create (or just buy) a boutique "green" brand in an effort to distract from the majority of their environmentally unfriendly products.
To find out which tissue and toilet papers are made from recycled content, and which aren't, visit the Greenpeace guide here.
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.
Used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.