Can't See the Forest for the Sneeze

Kleenex boxes infiltrated by anti-logging leaflets 4

Planning to buy some tissues for your February sniffles? Be forewarned: Menacing notes have been found in Kleenex boxes across the U.S. and Canada. "Wiping away ancient forests," says a leaflet found by a reporter in a New York drugstore. "Here's a little secret that Kimberly-Clark, the largest tissue maker in the world and parent company of Kleenex, does not want you to know." Kimberly-Clark has long been under fire from Greenpeace for logging Canadian boreal forests and eschewing recycled fibers; while the leaflets purport to come from Greenpeace, a spokesperson says the stunt is not an official Greenpeace gag. So the perpetrator remains a mystery, as does the when, where, and how of Kleenex infiltration. Says a Kimberly-Clark spokesperson, "For the life of me, I guess I'm struggling to figure out how anything ... will get inside a Kleenex box."

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. karenc Posted 4:26 am
    20 Feb 2008

    Infiltration!Has to be someone inside the factory... Notes in kleenex boxes- what great eco-education activism!  Non-violent.... educational.... The Kleenex Box Gang!  Ed Abbey would be so proud!  I don't use kleenex but this story gives me hope.  

    Permalink

  2. Wolverine Posted 4:45 am
    20 Feb 2008

    Right OnDecades ago when working for Greenpeace, I was involved in a similar campaign against Chevron, which had put up dishonest billboards all over California opposing Prop 65 (basically an anti-water pollution law).  All we did was to put Chevron's name and symbol on the billboards, identifying who had paid for them.  Only the most extreme property rights jerk could possibly have objected (unless one thinks that lying is a First Amendment right), and that campaign helped win the passage of Prop 65.

    Permalink

  3. Backcut Posted 6:36 am
    20 Feb 2008

    Gleanpeace?Ever since they got burned in court for sponsoring direct actions against logging, they tend to not take credit for much, anymore.
    Many Canadians feel that it is OK to clearcut their forests because they are so freakin' VAST! (Sound historically familiar??!?!) I'm sure that there will come a day when they start to run out of trees that are easy to get to. I'm also sure that most eco's consider an 80 year old tree to be "old growth", and yet they say that only 4% remains standing, here in America. Gleanpeace "extracts" more money from rich guilt-ridden people that way.
    Don't get me wrong, though. I'm all for saving 95% of the true old growth that remains. There's no scientific reason for removing entire stands of old growth trees. Ditto for our "future old growth", which will take over when the giants have fallen, due to old age. The other 5% can be cut if it is deemed to be "excess". For example, if you have 20 old growth trees on an acre, where is the harm in taking a suppressed 32" dbh tree that is tucked underneath an 80" dbh tree? What is the harm in taking a 16" dbh suppressed tree that is 180 years old? Finally, what is the harm in restoring stands to their historical densities, species compositions and stand structures?!?!
    I DO like their little prank, though....LOL

    Permalink

  4. scaeascaea Posted 9:36 am
    21 Feb 2008

    That's awesome.Yes, I think Edward Abbey would be proud. Bleeding aweful Kleenex corp!

    That's all I really have to say.

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement