Greenpeace targets Australia’s hotel brands in ongoing war with Solaris
Greenpeace is training its sights on Australia’s hotel sector in its fight with Asia Pulp & Paper – known locally as Solaris – a company it accuses of deforesting large parts of Indonesia.
Yesterday, the NGO announced it had won its global campaign to persuade toymaker Mattel to stop using paper supplied by APP for its packaging.
Its sights have now turned on Australia’s largest hotel brands to pressure them to stop buying toilet paper brand Livi, which is made by Solaris.
“Hotels are big purchasers of paper products – and they purport to have strong environmental credentials,” said Reece Turner, Greenpeace Australia and Pacific’s forests campaigner. “We are concerned that there are market leaders that are purchasing Livi products. We are making known our concerns to these brands.”
Is Reece going to give us an update on how this hubris translates into credible plans to actually save forest.
Or is this more moronic, ineffectual pot-banging, designed to elicit donations from mad cat-ladies rather than deal with the issue?
It’s just I still can’t see, despite hoping the GP website would reveal it, how all this hubris actually translates into change or results. It seems to be more ecological blackmail than effective action.
AdGrunt, Greenpeace worked effectively with Kit Kat didn’t they?
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte.....ge/kitkat/
Pretty sure that any hotel chain will shit itself when customers are told it’s paper is from rain forest trees.
Is there a credible plan to save the forests? No. Not unless Greenpeace can buy them all. In the meantime, buy a house on a hill. Just in case.
Um, did they? I’m actually struggling to how Greenpeace succeeded apart from “Green-mailing” Nestle. Just as they are trying to Green-mail others with this crude extortion scam that has no demonstrable positive impact on their claimed victims.
Nestle stopped using palm oil apparently, but again I’m struggling to find any evidence that this altered the fundamental problem – Palm Oil plantation proliferation impacting native rainforest, or indeed saved a single Orang Utan.
As noted – lots of Green-mail money for the GP pot-bangers, but the only thing it tanglibly saved was the jobs of those self-serving fundraising drones.
Palm oil plantations continue to grow and threaten native habitat across the region; paper mills will continue to deforest (allegedly) but Greenpeace insists on bullying brands with images of tigers and other unrelated emotional tripe as a thin distraction for not tackling the actual problem, with actual workable solutions.
Lazy lobbying strikes again.
Doesn’t the demand come from consumers?
And publicity might help consumers who don’t care currently or didn’t know?
If Greenpeace want to make more difference, they should be even more aggressive towards brands who use rainforest products.
Demand for emotional salvation to a created problem perhaps, but usually at the cost of actually making a meaningful difference.
That’s why, while “Dolphin-Friendly” tuna is mildly better for Flipper, it’s vastly more devastating to ocean life as a whole. Strangely neither Greenpeace nor tuna manufacturers highlight this. I could go on.
So here consumers, when prodded by the emotional Green-mailer, react to the prospect of dead tigers and Orang-Utans by showering Greenpeace with money and adulation for making an upstanding difference.
But in reality, not one tiger or Orang-Utan life saved can be attributed to Greenpeace efforts that I can determine. But they’re oh-so-cute for donation newsletters.
But then it’s easier to make a noise than a difference, isn’t it.
Out of interest AdGrunt, do you feel this is a waste of time too?:
Hugh’s fish fight
http://www.fishfight.net/
You tell me, my discussion-shifting friend. Does it simply bang a pot, or does it have a pragmatic route to meaningful change?
While you’re at it, could you point me to your / GP’s plan to actually make a change in the SE Asian plantations and save Orang-Utans / Tigers?
Your avoidance is getting a little awkward now.
NONE OF THESE COMMENTS ARE WORTH READING BECAUSE ADGRUNT EITHER NEEDS TO GET LAID OR GET SOME FRESH AIR, AND STOP BITCHING ABOUT THINGS HE DOEST KNOW ANTHING ABOUT
Do tell adgrunt, how is buying dolphin friendly tuna and i quote “vastly more devastating to ocean life as a whole'”
Are you a marine biologist?
I expect a full report.
Oh Manda. All shouty, shouty and no contribution to the topic – just school-yard name calling and what I presume is an offer for a good Friday night out?
Luckily for you, I am a marine biologist. Here is a full report by some chums for you: http://tinyurl.com/3dnjy5n
Page 6 is where it gets a bit fruity.
Just two things left:
Back on topic, what is your view on the lots-of-noise-but-no-plan Green-mailing from Greenpeace for Asian rainforest destruction?
Where are you taking me Friday night? The Star?
I’m not shifting this discussion.
Greenpeace and Hugh’s Fish Fight do an brilliant job of raising awareness, working against general lethargy and ignorance.
Targeting brands who acquiesce in the destruction of our environment is a valid way to do this.
If anything they should step it up.
Um, you are shifting discussion. You avoided an explanation of how this ludicrous Solaris campaign will succeed, whilst now talking about some unrelated European fishery campaign.
While you ponder your absent explanation, I should point out there is a monumental difference between Food Fight and this Solaris Green-mailing schlock.
Fish Fight engages the relevant protagonists, delves into the multiple aspects of the problem and delivers a range of possible solutions to be looked at. It’s a big clue that a campaign has merit when there is a credible route to success – it’s even labelled “solutions” on the site.
On the other hand, our keen yet cretinous local GP activists can only muster a pot-banging and frankly misleading campaign that doesn’t even pretend to understand the local, national, regional or other issues.
It crucially gives no indication of how this problem could be solved, instead of using Green-mailing to hide the problem, that they can’t change. It’s almost as if they’re lying to get donations.
I just want to know how this campaign is going to help a single Orang Utan or Tiger in the short, medium or long term.
We’re just going to have to disagree.
They’re not hiding the problem, they’re exposing it and in that way they help to change it.
The problem won’t be solved unless governments ban destructive supplies or consumers won’t buy them.
As part of that, Greenpeace will be effective if they continue to target brands who destroy the environment or others who use their supplies.
This works to reduce the supply of these products and raise awareness and just because it isn’t the whole solution, doesn’t mean it is not worth doing.
Plus it’s working:
Mattel – Greenpeace
http://www.greenpeace.org/aust.....restation/
Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article.....2320111006
SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/business.....1l9o7.html
Los Angeles Times
http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....-pulp.html
In any event, Asia Pulp & Paper are not particularly worth defending – here’s them being fined recently for a paper price fix / rorting Australians:
http://www.theaustralian.com.a.....6013786538
Just to cap this off because we can’t go any further; I’ve made a donation today on both our behalves to get them going and we’ll see how the campaign goes.
Out of curiosity, what do you understand that donation going to achieve for rainforest protection and how?
Apart from keeping some goon fundraisers in employment.