Kimberly-Clark, the company that owns the Kleenex brand (along with Huggies, Cottonelle, Kotex, Scott, Depends, etc), thinks it's cool to use old-growth trees in the United States and Canada to manufacture their paper tissues. Yup. They think it's Ok to kill 100+ year old trees for the sake of your incontinence, menstrual flow and buggers.

This from Greenpeace's Kleercut.net website :

Kleenex, one of the most popular brands of tissue products in the world, contributes to the destruction of ancient forests. Its manufacturer, the Kimberly-Clark corporation, has been unwilling to improve its practices, continuing to rely on paper and pulp made from clearcut ancient forest including North America's Boreal forest. Kimberly-Clark clears these ancient forests, essential in fighting climate change and providing home to wildlife like caribou, wolves, eagles and bears,into products that are flushed down the toilet or thrown away.

If you want to read Kimberly-Clark's environmental policy they, technically, don't have one. They have a "sustainability" policy, instituted in 1990.

Companies like Kimberly-Clark would never set up an environmental policy --that would be tantamount to "letting the terrorists win". In their corporate-induced truthiness, "sustainability" has nothing to do with keeping (as in sustaining) the environment the way it is. Sustainability is about bending the environment to the company's bottom-line and to the company's shareholders will (read: the big corporate stockholders, not the little people), while looking like they care about the environmental crisis they helped create in the first place.

The money companies like KMB move is massive --if they were countries, their GNP would be larger than most Third World companies. For example, KMB's 2005 revenue was around $15.9 billion.

Organizations like Greenpeace have to make do with whatever they can to raise awareness. Guerrilla performance is one of the tricks of their trade. I kind of like this video, if it weren't for the lack of improvisational chops among some of the actors.

Yet, I am not that happy with Greenpeace. The biggest problem I have with Greenpeace is it's core advocacy focus.

As per the last annual report posted on their US site, it raised close to $16 million dollars from about 250,000 members and organizations. The money was used for advocacy that was focused on the trustworthy "save the whales" or to the latest hip environmental cause, global warming.

Where is their unabated focus on the environmental racism blighting communities right here in the United States? I feel GPUSA focuses waaay too much on what's happening in other countries. Not that it is not unnecessary given that, indeed, it is usually environmental blight created by a US-based corporation. Yet, I feel they need to go more native these days.

Anyway, take a look at were some of those millions are going with this guerrilla Kleercut.net campaign. Tell us what you think.