Amazon.com Gets F+ for Paper Sustainability

<a href="http://heartofgreen.typepad.com/heart_of_green/2008/05/fsc-vs-sfi.html">Heart of Green</a>

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


A new report (PDF) puts Amazon.com on the bottom of the heap when it comes to using sustainable paper. Forest Ethics and Dogwood Alliance’s “Green Grades 2010” gave the online retailer an F+, while companies like FedEx and Staples got As and Bs for their use of environmentally friendly paper. Amazon.com, named after the Amazon River in the Brazilian rainforest, “does not have a meaningful paper policy,” the report states. “Indeed the company appears to have no problem with buying and selling paper from endangered forests and other controversial sources…” You’d think that being based in the timber stronghold of the Pacific Northwest, Amazon.com would pay special attention to where its paper products are sourced from. The firm does plan to have LEED certified buildings on its Seattle campus, but the report points out that Amazon supports the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s (SFI) greenwashed eco-label. SFI standards allow for clear-cutting, logging close to streams and bodies of water, cutting old-growth forest, chemical use, and other harmful practices. The picture above says it all: you can see the difference between the SFI areas and those protected by the Forest Stewardship Council, which remains the only real eco-logo to look for in terms of paper products. No, FSC isn’t a perfect measure of forest health. But as you can see by the picture, it’s a hell of a lot better than the SFI label Amazon.com uses.

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

BEFORE YOU CLICK AWAY!

“Lying.” “Disgusting.” “Scum.” “Slime.” “Corrupt.” “Enemy of the people.” Donald Trump has always made clear what he thinks of journalists. And it’s plain now that his administration intends to do everything it can to stop journalists from reporting things they don’t like—which is most things that are true.

No one gets to tell Mother Jones what to publish or not publish, because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means we need to directly raise the resources it takes to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. Please help with a donation today if you can—even a few bucks will make a real difference. A monthly gift would be incredible.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate