Half the forest isn't enough - A smart (and funny) video of Great Bear Rainforest explains why!

Who said that activism can't be funny, even when it deals with serious issues?

Check out this video from the Rainforest Solutions Project:

Take It Taller from Great Bear Rainforest on Vimeo.

Here are more details on this important campaign, which is organized by a joint initiative of Greenpeace, ForestEthics, and Sierra Club BC:

No matter which way you cut it, protecting 50% of a forest isn't enough to save the whole.

British Columbians helped put this province on the map by calling for the protection of the Great Bear Rainforest. In 2006, provincial and First Nations decision-makers heard you and signed an agreement to save one of the last coastal temperate rainforests of its kind from being destroyed by clearcut logging.

But today, logging is still allowed in 50% of the Great Bear Rainforest. It’s time to take action again and tell the provincial government to Take It Taller by committing to protect more than just half of the Great Bear Rainforest from logging.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant a tree for every book you read!

My article on Triple Pundit on Victoria's Secret catalogs that get greener

Here's an update on a new article I published yesterday on Triple Pundit on the progress Victoria's Secret catalogs made regarding the paper they're printed on - As of December 2009 the catalogs use of post-consumer waste (PCW) and FSC-certified paper rose to 88 percent from 23 percent in 2007. It is still a relatively wasteful product, but at least there is some effort to make it greener (thanks also to the great work of ForestEthics), which should be commended.

The article is entitled "Victoria’s Secret to Greener Catalogs". Here's the first part of the article:

If you’re receiving Victoria’s Secret catalogs there’s a good chance the paper they’re printed on will not be the part you’ll be most interested with. Yet, I’m sure even those who are more interested in the latest bra models will be happy to know that these catalogs, which for years were a symbol of unsustainability, are becoming more sustainable. Five years after making headlines for partnering with ForestEthics, Limited Brands, the parent company of Victoria’s Secret, reported last week that it has dramatically increased the use of post-consumer waste (PCW) and FSC-certified paper in their Victoria’s Secret catalogues – from 23 percent in 2007 to 88 percent by the end of 2009.

To read the full article go to http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/11/victorias-secret-catalogs-getting-greener/

Links to other articles I wrote for Triple Pundit can be found at http://www.triplepundit.com/author/raz-godelnik/

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

SFI is losing another battle against FSC with seven companies deciding to stop using it

ForestEthics announced earlier this week that seven companies, including five Fortune 500 companies has joined a growing corporate movement against the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), a controversial forestry certification.

Here is a summary of actions or commitments by these seven companies as provided by ForestEthics:

• Sprint will shift all billing statement paper from SFI to Forest Stewardship Council, a more rigorous label, and will phase out use of the SFI logo on billing envelopes. Finally, Sprint has committed to give purchasing preference to FSC-certified paper.
• Norm Thompson Outfitters removed all references to SFI in print materials and websites and committed to avoid promotion of SFI.
• King Arthur Flour stopped using the SFI logo on its catalogs and switched to FSC certified paper.
• AT&T committed to avoid using the SFI logo and name in its materials, and to give purchasing preference to FSC certified products for all new paper purchases.
• State Farm changed the paper for its biggest promotional item, the State Farm Road Atlas, from SFI to FSC – and committed to state a preference for FSC when the company revises its comprehensive paper policy.
• U.S. Bank committed to avoid using the SFI name and logo on printed materials and other company communications, and to use only the FSC seal when a forest eco-label is used.
• Comcast committed to steps that will avoid future company promotion of SFI.

You can read my analysis on the latest round in the fight on the credibility of the SFI certification and its implications on Triple Pundit.

More articles on this issue:

SFI has released an upgraded standard. Will it be enough to compete with FSC?

ForestEthics is fighting the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification

You can find more resources on our page - SFI vs. FSC

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant trees for your books!

ForestEthics is releasing its annual Naughty / Nice list of companies in the direct mailing industry

An irritating byproduct of the holidays season is the growth in junk mail. So much waste of paper that in the best scenario will go directly to the recycling bin and in many cases will just end up in the landfill.

Some companies are better of course than the others, but how can we know who is good and who is bad?

Well, fortunately ForestEthics comes to our help (like they do every year) with their annual Direct Mail Industry Scorecard that grades companies according to their paper choices and the steps they're taking to minimize their direct mail's footprint. The report includes 3 grades: Nice, Checking Twice and Naughty. As you can imagine, naughty is the worst among the three.

The grades were given according to four criteria: whether or not Endangered Forests are cut to produce the company’s catalogs; whether the company uses Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified paper; the amount of post-consumer recycled content in the company’s direct mailings; and the company’s efforts to reduce overall paper consumption.

This is the forth year this scoreboard is published, so you can also compare the results to the last couple of years. And the results are definitely encouraging - there are more ‘nice’ companies (12 this year comparing to 10 last year) who are taking concrete steps to ensure that their paper choices don’t endanger precious wildlife, and don’t destroy intact Boreal Forest. The naughty list also got shorter with 5 companies this year comparing to 7 last year.

So, who's Nice? at the top of the list you'll find companies that you definitely expect to find there such as Patagonia (using the highest percentage of post-consumer recycled content in all the land) and Timberland (stopped printing catalogs altogether!). You can also find there some less expected names like Victoria's Secrets (I saw they got the same grade last year, so apparently it's not such a surprise). Also on the top of the list Macy’s/Bloomingdale’s who followed up their phase-out of Bloomingdales’ catalog by increasing post-consumer recycled content from 10% to 30%.

And who's on the bottom? five companies got the Naughty grade: Sears, Neiman Marcus, Eddie Bauer, Citi and Chase.

I was surprised to see Citi on the list, as they just recently won the "Most Innovative Bank in Climate Change" Award From The Banker Magazine, and on their press release about it you could read a quote from Sandip Sen, Head of Citi's Alternative Energy Group, saying "Citi has been a leader in environmental sustainability for eight years". Well, it seems like their Naughty grade is a result of the bank's refusal to reply to ForestEthics' questions. If the bank is a leader as it claims to be, I see no reason why it won't cooperate with ForestEethics and share its policy paper with them. I'm sure Mr. Sen would agree with me here.

Thanks to ForestEthics and the great job they're doing. I'm sure this report is not only a way to make companies' paper policies more transparent, but also an effective tool to pressure them to improve their practices, as we can see from the improved results presented this year.

The Direct Mail Industry Scorecard is available at http://forestethics.org/downloads/naughtynicelist2009_Ultimate.pdf (2008 scoreboard can be found here)

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Check out our holidays special offer!

ForestEthics is fighting the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certification

Two weeks ago we reported here on a new report released by ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance.

The report, entitled "Green Grades 2009" looked at and grades the paper sourcing policies of 12 office retail, general retail and wholesale/distribution companies. The report didn't try to hide the authors opinion on the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) saying:

"Still, there is much work to be done. Some of the companies do not have meaningful paper policies, are sourcing large amounts of paper from controversial sources, and are perpetuating the greenwashing of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and other industry-driven “certification” schemes. And since most companies still have at least some Endangered Forest fiber somewhere in their supply chain, consumers should buy Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and recycled content paper regardless of where they shop."

Now, according to the New York Times, ForestEthics is moving forward to challenge the credibility of the S.F.I. certification in court.

Mireya Navarro reports on the NYT ("Environmental Groups Spar Over Certifications of Wood and Paper Products") about the growing debate on the validity of the the SFI certification. According to the article, the accusations against the SFI certification program are of "lax standards and deceptive marketing intended to obscure the standards and the S.F.I.’s financial ties to the forest industry."

This move might be connected with the fact that the United States Green Building Council, which rates buildings as environmentally sustainable under its so-called LEED system, will begin accepting other types of certified wood next year, as it has proposed to do pending a vote by its membership. This move can harm the demand for FSC-certified products, as this certification is much tougher than the SFI certification.

The fact that the FSC certification has more rigorous standards is not accidental. The main claim against the SFI certification is that the forest industry created a green certification system to promote their sales, as Peter Goldman, director of the Washington Forest Law Center in Seattle, the legal firm that filed the complaints explains in the article. Therefore it makes sense it will be less demanding from the industry than the FSC certification, which is more independent (although we have to mention that it includes forest industry representatives on its board).

So who's right? the lawyers of ForestEthics who claim that the SFI certification S.F.I. has confused the marketplace or SFI whose spokesman said that the certification program was sound and that it had met all legal requirements as a nonprofit?

I have to say it's impossible to demand from consumers, as well as printers and publishers, to judge this dispute. What we can say for sure is that the fact that is indisputable is that FSC certification is considered as the best practice standard for forest management. Therefore, I believe printers, publishers and customers shouldn't compromise on less than that no matter if it's lumber, furniture, or virgin paper they're considering buying.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!

Green Grades 2009 - which company earned top grade for paper policy and what was Amazon's score?

One of the most interesting reports was released few days ago by ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance. The report, entitled "Green Grades 2009" looks at and grades the paper sourcing policies of 12 office retail, general retail and wholesale/distribution companies.

Among the evaluated companies you can find FedEx Office, Office Depot, Staples, Target, Costco and Amazon.com. The report evaluates the companies environmental performance in six crucial forest-related categories: Chain of Custody, Endangered Forests, Plantations and other controversial sources, responsible Forestry/FSC certification, recycling and education and
other leadership.

The companies were rated in accordance with their performance in these categories. The best scores were given in the office retail sector - FedEx Office got A- and Office Depot got B.

FedEx Office excelled especially in the categories of responsible Forestry/FSC certification and other leadership as the report details:

"The company was also the first with a solid preference for credibly-certified paper (i.e., FSC), and has just announced that most of the paper used in its copy centers will be from FSC sources in the US. FedEx Office has also done the most to encourage its suppliers and governments to manage their forests more sustainably."

Office Depot also got kudos from the report's authors:

"Office Depot does the best job of tracking its forest sources, has the most detailed paper policy, has been the most systematic about avoiding paper from Indonesian Endangered Forest logger Asia Pulp & Paper (APP), and does the best job of tracking its use of post-consumer recycled paper."

Two issues that got the authors attention were usage of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), or other certification labels that according to the authors greenwash Endangered Forest logging and other controversial practices (examples for SFI users: OfficeMax, Xpedx), as well as sourcing paper from International Paper, which according to the report is involved with controversial Endangered Forest logging and has a role in converting forests to sterile tree plantations (examples for customers: Costco, WalMart/Sam's Club).

I was very interested in the scores of Amazon.com, which is the most related company among the companies evaluated to the book market. Unfortunately their scores were disastrous, or in other words their score was F. Here's what the authors had to say on Amazon.com:
"Amazon.com does not have a meaningful paper policy or other key paper- and forest-related sustainability measures, but appears to have no problem with buying and selling paper from Endangered Forests and other controversial sources in the Boreal, Southern US, and Indonesia. The giant online retailer ignored our survey, so questions remain about their paper sourcing practices."

Although I'm not sure how much paper Amazon purchases I have to say these results are disappointing and far from what one can expect from Amazon.com. I was especially disappointed from the fact they totally ignored the survey - that's not the way to treat stakeholders.

In all, though we get a mixed updates - some companies are better, some are worst - the bottom line is optimistic. The authors see the half full glass.

"Companies are using their purchasing power to benefit the environment. Most of the retailers are making large shifts away from controversial sources to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified paper. Several companies took steps to avoid using paper from endangered caribou habitat, and to encourage Canadian governments and forestry companies to better protect caribou in the Boreal Forest."

It looks like there's still a lot to be done, especially when it comes to wholesalers, distributors and retailers. Still, my hope is that this report will follow the example of Greenpeace's Guide to Greener Electronics which gave the companies evaluated in it a real incentive to better their practices. We promise to follow it closely and report as soon as the fourth report will be released.

Thanks again to ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance for this ongoing effort and for providing us with this important information.

You can find the repot at

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: promoting sustainable reading!