The Kleercut Campaign: Wiping Away the Facts

Ran across this article on NewsForge.

bq. Every time we see traffic coming from a discussion forum pointing out that the Kleercut campaign site is using the popular Drupal open-source content-management system, it becomes more convincing that there is a philosophical or political alignment between the progressive community and the free-software movement.

As a strong proponent of open source, I must say I resent being associated with socialistic borderline terrorists such as Greenpeace. That said, I did peruse the campaign site to see what it was about. It is full of carefully-set-up pictures of cut areas of forests with quotes from Kimberly-Clark talking about their sustainable forest management practices superimposed, along with catchy slogans such as "Disposable Products - Disposable Forests."

Here are the facts (which I'm sure are correct) that I managed to pick up from the Kleercut campaign web site:

1. Kimberly-Clark gets less than 19% of the pulp it uses for its disposable products in North America from recycled sources.
2. The rest comes from "forests," many of which have existed for thousands of years.

The photos and statements on the rest of the site seem to imply that Kimberly-Clark is clearcutting entire forests, or deforesting land, or cutting down actual ancient *trees*. However, Greenpeace never directly says any of these things. If any of them was true, don't you think they'd say it directly?

Instead, what becomes apparent from reading the site is that Greenpeace's *real* objection to Kimberly-Clark is not at all that they're not using sustainable logging practices. The "solution" that Greenpeace offers is for Kimberly-Clark to stop buying fiber from "endangered" forests (appearently defined as such by none other than Greenpeace itself), "drastically" increase the amount of recycled fiber in its products (read: drastically increase costs), and to only get its virgin fiber from Forest Stewardship Council certified forests (read: more increased costs), because that's the only way to "guarantee" that logging practices are sustainable.

While I'm angered by the fact that Greenpeace is duping people into pressuring companies to increase costs for negligible or negative environmental benefit and embarrassed that they seem to think open source has anything to do with their socialistic ideals, at the same time I suppose it's a testament to how far the environmental practices have come in the past century that Greenpeace has to grasp at such tenuous straws for its campaigns.

P.S. thanks to "Just passing through" for pointing out that I'd misspelled "Kimberly -Clark." (I'd spelled it Kimberly Clarke.)

Share this

I'm happy to see

I'm happy to see non-libertarians buy into open source as part of their agenda. I'd like to see it become a major part of the left's agenda, crowding out coercive parts.

(I'm even happier to see libetarians buy into open source, as I think its effects are salutory from a libertarian perspective.)

It strikes me that there is

It strikes me that there is a simple explanation. They recognize that several very widely-read sites that cover open source news items will pick up links to any news coverage that mentions it. Greenpeace is making a play for publicity. :dunce:

It takes a big man to

It takes a big man to criticize another's spelling.

Too bad you can't spell

Too bad you can't spell Kimberly-Clark. So much for fact-checking, eh?

JPT: Thanks for pointing out

JPT: Thanks for pointing out my misspelling. If that's the worst thing you can say about my article then I'm thrilled :grin: