Tag Archives: Deforestation

Girl Scout Cookies and Rainforest Destruction: Teens Working to Break the Connection

Posted on by
1

Why two Girl Scouts are campaigning against Girl Scout Cookies — and how their efforts have taken America by storm.

Four years ago, Girl Scouts Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen were doing research for their bronze award project. Their subject of choice was the endangered orangutan and the threats it faces from deforestation. They discovered a little-publicized fact about Indonesian rainforest destruction: Acres upon acres of orangutan habitat are being cleared for plantations to produce palm oil, an ingredient in about 10 percent of consumer products. Madison and Rhianon decided that their goal would be to raise awareness about palm oil and its impact on endangered species.

Girl Scouts Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen

If that had been the end of it, the project would have been commendable. But the girls’ focus shifted when they found that the Girl Scout Cookies they sold every year contained palm oil. Suddenly, they weren’t just working toward a badge; they were campaigning to change one of the country’s most well-known nonprofits.

Now fifteen and sixteen, Madison and Rhiannon have partnered with Rainforest Action Network (RAN) to bring their message to a wider audience. Their PR efforts paid off in May with a front-page Wall Street Journal story, followed by a flurry of TV interviews on ABC, CBS, and Fox News (yes, even Fox).

The responses from Girl Scouts USA have been more defensive than sympathetic. In early May, for instance, RAN and Change.org helped Madison and Rhiannon launch a social media campaign to put pressure on the Girl Scouts administration. After about fifty messages had been posted on the Girl Scouts Facebook page, GSUSA deleted the comments and added a statement assuring viewers that “our bakers source palm oil exclusively from members of the Roundtable of Sustainable Palm Oil.”

The claim is true but misleading. RAN calls the RSPO “more of a pay-to-play organization than a serious watchdog group:”

There is a very important distinction between RSPO membership and RSPO certification. RSPO certification is a seal of approval that is given to palm oil grown on a plantation that has been certified through a verification of the production process by accredited certifying agencies. In theory, the “certified sustainable” palm oil (RSPO oil) is traceable through the supply chain by certification of each facility along the supply chain that processes or uses the certified oil.

RSPO membership, however, does not require companies to follow sustainability guidelines. In a letter to GSUSA CEO Kathy Cloninger, RAN explained,

[RSPO} member companies have been documented clearing forest, peatland and critical wildlife habitat while ignoring human rights — all of which are prohibited in the RSPO principles and criteria. In essence RSPO membership does not ensure that deforestation, orangutan extinction, and climate change are not found in Girl Scout cookies.

For instance, one RSPO member, IOI Group, is illegally operating a palm plantation on the ancestral land of the Long Teran Kenan people, in Malaysian Borneo. A court ruled that the plots in question were, indeed, on indigenous land, but the conflict has not yet been resolved, and the RSPO has failed to take decisive action against IOI.

Returning to the Girl Scouts, the organization’s executives did finally meet with Madison and Rhiannon while the girls were in New York for their media interviews. The meeting was a step forward, with GSUSA leaders verbally agreeing to address concerns about deforestation and human rights abuses.

The bakers of Girl Scout Cookies began using palm oil in 2006, in an effort to rid the cookies of trans fats. (Palm oil is the cheapest “healthy” oil.) A spokesperson for the Girl Scouts has insisted that the group has little or no say in the cookies’ ingredients — it’s up to bakers. But if GSUSA demanded a recipe change, the bakers would have to comply, or else lose the Girl Scouts business. With 200 million boxes of cookies selling per year, the idea that GSUSA has no influence is a bit hard to believe.

Part of the mission of the Girl Scouts is to empower girls to “make the world a better place,” and the idea seems to be working. Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen are making a difference; they’ve already brought as much attention to the palm oil-deforestation issue as any environmental group has so far. Their biggest challenge, ironically, is getting the Girl Scouts leadership to follow its own credo.

This story should serve as inspiration for any young person who hopes to spark positive change. If and when Girl Scouts USA does make its cookies rainforest-friendly, the impact will be huge. And two teenaged girls will be responsible.

How to get involved: Sign up for RAN’s Girl Scouts e-mail list here. Learn how you can take action online and offline.  

The power of palm oil: Is your breakfast fueling rainforest destruction?

Posted on by
1

Food products we consume every day are driving deforestation on the other side of the world.

Indonesian rainforests are among the most biodiverse, providing critical habitat for endangered species like the Sumatran tiger, Sumatran elephant, and orangutan.  Many humans also rely on the rainforest for their livelihoods.

Yet millions of acres of Indonesian rainforest are being razed.  Besides destroying habitat, deforestation produces the majority of Indonesia’s CO2 emissions and makes the country the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The culprit is palm oil.  Long found in cosmetics, palm oil is now used in a variety of consumer products.  It’s popular with snack food companies since its lack of transfats makes it healthier than the ingredients it replaces.  In fact, General Mills is a major buyer of palm oil, using it in over 100 of their products.  Trusted brands like Betty Crocker, Chex, Green Giant, Pillsbury, and, yes, Cheerios (full list here) are contributing to rainforest destruction.

General Mills does not produce the palm oil; they rely on Cargill, a U.S. agribusiness giant that owns five palm oil plantations in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea and buys about 11 percent of Indonesia’s palm oil output.

To supply the surging market for palm oil (U.S. demand has tripled over five years), Indonesia has plans to double production.  This is bad news, since the Indonesian government may be the only entity that can control deforestation in Indonesia.  But palm oil, like many destructive industries, is big money.  More palm plantations produce more jobs and higher tax revenue — hard benefits for any government to walk away from.

What can we do, way over here in the States?  We can build a movement putting pressure on General Mills to switch to sustainable palm oil sources.  Companies like Unilever and Seventh Generation have taken the initiative, and I don’t see any reason General Mills shouldn’t follow their lead.  In a time when corporations like Wal-Mart are trying to put on a progressive  image, a food company shouldn’t miss the chance for some positive PR.

But consumers must let General Mills know that we care about sustainability and that we know Cargill palm oil isn’t sustainable.  Publishing a yearly report doesn’t make a corporation responsible; they have to back up their claims with action.  For a company that “strives to stand among the most socially responsible consumer food companies in the world” that shouldn’t be a problem.

Read/learn/act:  Rainforest Action Network, Mongabay, Scientific American.


Blog Action Day Post: Save the Forests, Save the Climate

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve said before that climate change is not just an environmental issue, but it turns out that a famous tree hugger cause has a big role in global warming.  Deforestation is responsible for about 20 percent of global GHG pollution — more than all the world’s cars, trucks, planes, and ships combined.

There is some good news on this front, though.

Indonesia, the third biggest carbon polluter in the world, has pledged emissions cuts of 26 percent below “business as usual” levels by 2020. These cuts would be achieved by reducing deforestation, which produces 80 percent Indonesia’s emissions.  Interestingly, the President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, has said that the country could even achieve a 41 percent reduction with international support.

luiz-lulu-da-silva-WI-1008-lgBrazil is also willing to reduce deforestation.  AFP reports:

President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Tuesday he will offer to reduce the pace of deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rain forest by 80 percent by 2020 when he attends December’s global climate talks in Copenhagen….

“We’re in the process of preparing our proposal for Copenhagen,” Lula said on his weekly radio program, Coffee with the President.  “I foresee that by 2020 we will be able to reduce deforestation by 80 percent; in other words, we will emit some 4.8 billion fewer tons of carbon dioxide gas.”

Brazil’s rain forest, the largest on Earth, is shrinking at the rate of some 12,000 square kilometers (or 7456.454 miles) per year because of deforestation.

Unsurprisingly, developing nations do expect rich countries (like the U.S.) to help in their reduction goals:

Lula said he will also demand in Copenhagen that industrialized countries pay their fair share of the costs of reducing greenhouse gases. Proposals offered by developed countries should not only cover “initiatives to reduce their emissions, but all the other harm they already have inflicted on the planet,” the Brazilian leader said.

It may sound unfair, but we have to remember that a lot of the deforestation in developing countries isdeforestation_boliviadriven by industrial nations.  For instance, more than 100 fashion and luxury brands in America and Europe buy custom shopping bags from Pak 2000, an affiliate of one of Indonesia’s largest forest-destroyers (For more on this, check RAN’s “Don’t Bag Indonesia’s Rainforests” campaign).

According to a WWF-Sweden report (and many other sources) halting forest loss is one of the most cost-effective ways of mitigating climate change.  Although it won’t solve the earth’s climate crisis, but it would be a huge step in the right direction.

Now that more and more nations are stepping up to the global climate plate, the U.S. has no excuse to lag behind.  Provisions in Waxman-Markey would help reduce deforestation, and hopefully the bill that reaches Obama’s desk will have similar features.

We can’t pass a strong climate bill ourselves, but we can make sure our leaders know that we want climate action.  Over 9,000 blogs are participating in Blog Action Day, and that’s just the beginning.  In the coming months, even the next few weeks, many more people will make their voices heard in many different ways.  If you want to be a part of something big, now is the time.


Victory: Kimberly-Clark announces new sustainability policy

Posted on by
Reply

22341Since 2004, Greenpeace has been at war with Kimberly-Clark, the maker of brands such as Kleenex, Scott, and Cottonelle, (See “What’s in you box of Kleenex?”) This week, Greenpeace officially ended its campaign against the paper giant, in the wake of K-C’s new, more eco-friendly policy:

Kimberly-Clark has set a goal of obtaining 100 percent of the company’s wood fiber for tissue products, including the Kleenex brand, from environmentally responsible sources. The revised standards will enhance the protection of Endangered Forests and increase the use of both Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified fiber and recycled fiber.  By the end of 2011, Kimberly-Clark will ensure that 40 percent of its North American tissue fiber – representing an estimated 600,000 tonnes – is either recycled or FSC certified, an increase of more than 70 percent over 2007 levels.

Also by the end of 2011, Kimberly-Clark will eliminate the purchase of any fiber from the Canadian Boreal Forest that is not FSC certified. This forest is North America’s largest old growth forest, providing habitat for threatened wildlife such as woodland caribou and a sanctuary for more than one billion migratory birds. It is also the largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon on the planet, storing the equivalent of 27 years worth of global greenhouse gas emissions.

You can send a thank-you letter to K-C here.

This is a tremendous victory for forests, and it is especially moving, since it resulted largely from the efforts of grassroots activists (though, admittedly, the funds of a mega-enviro-group played a big role as well).  Grassroots campaigns are all the rage, these days, even among conservatives.  Though I respect the opinions of the Tea Party folks, I’d love to ask them how many major corporations they’ve changed lately (for the record, Nike and Timberland are also implementing greener policies).

Still, I think K-C could do better.  They say 40% of their products will be recycled or FSC-certified by 2011, but some companies make 100% recycled paper products, right now.  I know it’s hard for a big company like K-C to change, but it would be nice to see a goal of 100% PCR at some point.

Nevertheless, I applaud K-C for their progress.  If a company like that can move forward environmentally, then there’s no excuse for others to resist change.  As consumers in a free market, we must use our influence to encourage companies to sincerely try to be socially conscious, because socially conscious corporations are, tragically, a minority.

What’s in your box of Kleenex?

Posted on by
1

Even the most determined environmentalists use paper.  How many of us spoiled Americans can imagine living a day without tissue, toilet paper, printing paper, or paper notebooks.  The unapologetic use of paper is as ingrained into our mentalities as such modern conveniences as automobiles, electricity, and disposable plastic.  But paper is different.  Unlike coal, oil, and uranium, wood pulp is a renewable resource, right?

Right?

Well, trees are renewable in that they grow back.  But some trees grow back faster than others, and it can take years for the ecosystems that they support to be established again.  Old Growth forests have been untouched for hundreds of years.  If they are destroyed, we won’t see them again in our lifetimes.  For that matter, our children may not see them.  According to the World Resources Institute, almost 80 per cent of the world’s original forests have already been degraded or completely destroyed.

And Kimberly-Clark, the maker of the most popular brands of tissue, is at the frontlines in the war on ancient forests.  In fact, recent photos reveal a massive stockpile of logs from Canada’s Boreal Forest.  (Read the full article at TreeHugger.)

So what can you do?  The most obvious answer is to stop buying K-C products.  Instead, look for 100% recycled paper products.  Click here to get the handy Greenpeace Tissue Guide To learn more, check out Greenpeace’s Kleercut campaign.

title=”Kleercut.net”
Kleercut.net