By Martin Bayliss
Some
25 years ago, Greenpeace waged one of the most successful
campaigns in its history. In a speech at a PPI pulp symposium,
the Greenpeace spokesperson told the dumbstruck delegates: ”If
you don't stop using chlorine voluntarily, we will stop
you.” She was as good as her word. Within a very
few years, largely thanks to Greenpeace, elemental chlorine
had virtually disappeared from bleaching plants around
the world.
Since then, sadly, Greenpeace has compensated for a
lack of genuine issues by increasing silliness, substituting
tubthumping for reasoned argument. The fact is that,
with few exceptions, the pulp and paper industry worldwide
is a strong environmental performer.
For many years now, it has planted more trees than it
cuts. The percentage of plantation timber it uses has
continued to increase, as has the percentage of recycled
fibre. Regulation and consumer pressure have combined
to force the industry to take tough decisions, so that
today it is one of the most sustainable worldwide.
This has not deterred Greenpeace from pursuing the industry
with ever shriller criticism, ever less justification
and with a worrying tendency to distort facts to support
its message..The campaign against tissue producers and
retailers in the UK market is a good case in point.
For example:
Greenpeace gives P&G’s Charmin, Bounty and
Tempo brands an ‘F’. because the company "fail[ed]
to report". What Greenpeace does not say, though
it knew, was that P&G was divest thing its western
European businesses (a process now complete – see
news in this issue) and is therefore no longer responsible
for the products cited in the report.
Even Greenpeace recognizes that SCA, which has taken
over the P&G brands in Europe, is one of the strongest
environmental performers. Thus the claim that the former
P&G brands justify an ‘F’ is absurd even
under Greenpeace’s own terms of reference.
Misleading for consumers
Greenpeace gives Kimberly-Clark an ‘E’. for
reasons that are not obvious. As announced on 16 October
and discussed with Greenpeace prior to that, Kimberly-Clark's
Kleenex range and soon after that the Andrex range will
become FSC certified in the UK. “For Greenpeace
to publish a tissue league table without acknowledging
the details of this is misleading for consumers,” K-C
responds.
Greenpeace's approach is not only distorting the facts.
It is also a simplistic approach to the question of environmental
friendliness. To suggest, as it does, that recycled fibre
is always better than virgin pulp from well managed forests
is nonsense. Many other factors need to be added in to
make the picture complete: transport; water and chemical
use; energy consumption overall; etc.
Indeed, there is a case for cutting more forest. This
is not to condone the indiscriminate felling of old forests;
they have enormous value as eco-systems full of irreplaceable
life forms.
Let us be clear, though: they absorb far less carbon
dioxide than younger, fast-growing stands. And at a time
of increasingly rapid global warming, we desperately
need to increase CO2 absorption.
Tissue World cannot be sure why Greenpeace continues
to target pulp and paper as it does. A cynic might suggest
that it sees the industry as a soft option. There are
certainly more important issues but few targets offer
a more trouble-free campaign than paper, where the media
are pliable and there are no powerful lobbies to scream
foul.
Ignorant campaigners
The ignorance, whether apparent or real, of the Greenpeace
campaigners, is well illustrated by the foolish comments
they make about the UK’s “traditional” fibre
suppliers – Canada, Russia and Finland – countries “where
environmental and social concerns are often of little
interest to logging companies.”
Tissue World cannot speak of Russia (anyway a very minor “traditional” supplier
to the UK), but few countries in the world are more environmentally
and socially conscientious that Finland, which has been
at the forefront of responsible forest management for
decades. In Canada, too, the strength of the environmental
lobby and public opinion, as well as extensive regulation,
ensure logging companies cannot neglect their duties.
I leave you with one of the gems that lend a little
light entertainment to the distortions pervading Greenpeace’s ‘report’.
The headline to its on-line posting reads: “Are
your tissues wiping away the last remaining forests?”
Well – no, in fact. According to FAO, there are
4 billion hectares of forest worldwide. Tissue production
uses perhaps 60-80 million tons/yr of wood, representing
an estimated 250,000 hectares of trees. So tissue industry
consumption represents no more than 0.006%/yr of forest,
or, to look at it differently, a very small percentage
of annual wood growth worldwide.
The sad thing is that consumers are taken in by Greenpeace’s
factoids. Two well-educated and informed women worry
in our Consumerspeak article this issue (page 22) that
using virgin fibre or bleached tissue might be environmentally
damaging. They, of course, get their information from
the newspapers, which are prepared to publish Greenpeace
material unquestioningly.
The industry has a big job to do if it is to counter
campaigns such as this. First, of course, by ensuring
its house is in order. No doubt it can make more progress
but generally it has a pretty good story to tell. Second,
by making sure it puts out its own story to the media.
A little proactivity would be a welcome start. TW
