Wall-E + Kleenex = Iron-E

Posted by jamie — 22 August 2008 at 2:33pm - Comments

I haven't seen Wall-E yet (Joss tells me it's very good) but it sounds like a cross between Happy Feet and Silent Running - cute creatures and incredible animation bundled up with an environmental message. Now while the intentions of the film makers may have been to push the notion of a cleaner, greener world, the companies sitting between us and them seem to have other ideas and Wall-E is being used to sell all manner of less-than-green products.

In the US, one of these is Kleenex which currently has the little robot appearing on its boxes. As Kimberly-Clark, the company that makes Kleenex, is clearcutting forests to make it, Greenpeace USA thought this was a little odd. In fact, they thought it was the height of iron-e. So, with the help of political cartoonist Mark Fiore, they produced this spoof video.

I still want to see the real thing, though.

Article tagged as: forests, kimberly-clark, kleenex, videos, wall-e
Comments Commenting is now closed

Sorry to disappoint you Eleanor, but with very few exceptions we don't team up with companies in the way you're suggesting. We're very proud of our independence so we don't endorse green products or accept money from companies, as that would put us in a tricky position if we then had to criticise the company in question over something else. We do work with companies to persuade other companies to change their business practices though - McDonald's and Unilever are just two recent examples.

But we all have to be wary of greenwash as the words 'green' and 'environmentally friendly' are pretty vague and are being horribly misused. Through misleading advertising and packaging, companies can make their products seem greener than they really are, with no proof to back up their claims. The Advertising Standards Authority is starting to take notice, but there's still a lot of rubbish out there.

(Incidentally, I had a quick look around for information about Bold and Fairy, but neither seem to make any sort of environmental claims on their websites.)

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 2 September 2008 at 12:56pm

The full story behind Kimberly-Clark's forest-unfriendly activities can be found on the Kleercut website along with all the evidence of the environmental destruction they're causing, run by our colleagues in North America, and as far as I'm aware that's the only place Wall-E was appearing on their tissue boxes. The company is using some FSC material here in the UK, but it's not on every product and there's none in the US or Canada, so double standards are the order of the day.

Recycled paper is much better ecologically than paper made from virgin fibres, but obviously you need a certain amount of new material entering the system as paper can't be endlessly recycled like metals can (the fibres wear out). So yup, certification to ensure that forests are managed properly is a must.

web editor
gpuk

By jamie - 26 September 2008 at 10:52am

Sorry to disappoint you Eleanor, but with very few exceptions we don't team up with companies in the way you're suggesting. We're very proud of our independence so we don't endorse green products or accept money from companies, as that would put us in a tricky position if we then had to criticise the company in question over something else. We do work with companies to persuade other companies to change their business practices though - McDonald's and Unilever are just two recent examples. But we all have to be wary of greenwash as the words 'green' and 'environmentally friendly' are pretty vague and are being horribly misused. Through misleading advertising and packaging, companies can make their products seem greener than they really are, with no proof to back up their claims. The Advertising Standards Authority is starting to take notice, but there's still a lot of rubbish out there. (Incidentally, I had a quick look around for information about Bold and Fairy, but neither seem to make any sort of environmental claims on their websites.) web editor gpuk

By jamie - 2 September 2008 at 12:56pm

The full story behind Kimberly-Clark's forest-unfriendly activities can be found on the Kleercut website along with all the evidence of the environmental destruction they're causing, run by our colleagues in North America, and as far as I'm aware that's the only place Wall-E was appearing on their tissue boxes. The company is using some FSC material here in the UK, but it's not on every product and there's none in the US or Canada, so double standards are the order of the day. Recycled paper is much better ecologically than paper made from virgin fibres, but obviously you need a certain amount of new material entering the system as paper can't be endlessly recycled like metals can (the fibres wear out). So yup, certification to ensure that forests are managed properly is a must. web editor gpuk

By jamie - 26 September 2008 at 10:52am

About Jamie

I'm a forests campaigner working mainly on Indonesia. My personal mumblings can be found @shrinkydinky.

Other posts by this author

Authors around the world stand up for free speech and forests

May 31 2017

Saving the Sumatran tiger

May 26 2017

Who still banks on destroying Indonesia's forests?

March 15 2017

Comments

Follow Greenpeace UK