The Michigan Messenger

Top Stories

The Michigan Messenger going forward

By Staff Report | 11.16.11

I am writing today to announce the closure of the Michigan Messenger. After four years of operation in Michigan, the board of the American Independent News Network, has decided to shift publication of its news into a single site, The American Independent at Americanindependent.com. This is part of a shift in strategy, towards new forms [...]

Colorado-based abstinence program provided false and misleading information to Michigan students

HIV-AIDS-small
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.16.11

An abstinence-only presentation provided to numerous school districts in Calhoun and Eaton Counties in October of this year provided false and misleading information to students about HIV, experts allege.

Class action lawsuit filed against MERS over unpaid taxes

foreclosure
By Todd A. Heywood | 11.15.11

Two county registers of deeds filed a class action lawsuit Monday on behalf of Michigan’s 83 counties alleging that the Mortgage Electronic Registration Services owes millions of dollars in property title transfer taxes.

Schuette fights important mercury regulations

epa_logo
By Eartha Jane Melzer | 11.14.11

Despite evidence of the impact of mercury on children and public health, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette last month joined with 24 other state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit to scuttle new EPA regulations that would reduce mercury emissions from power plants.

National Sierra Club “sold its soul to highest bidder,” say protesters

By Eartha Jane Melzer | 07.15.08 | 3:13 pm

Leaders of Traverse unit resign after Clorox profit-sharing deal

The leadership of the 800 member Traverse City-based Traverse Group of the Sierra Club has resigned in protest over a partnership between the national Sierra Club and Clorox that allows “eco-friendly” cleaning products to be sold with a Sierra Club logo in exchange for a cut of the profits.

According to a spokesman for the national Sierra Club, the Traverse Group is the first to take such action in response to the “cause-oriented marketing” arrangement, which has put the club logo on Clorox’s Green Works cleaning products sold in major retail outlets since April.

In a letter published in the Northern Express Weekly, former chair of the Traverse Group, Monica Evans, wrote that group leaders felt that the Sierra Club has “sold its soul to the highest bidder.”

Continued – 

The Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) cited Clorox as one of the top three most dangerous companies in America, with nine facilities nationwide, including one in Michigan, which puts nearly 14,500,000 Michiganders at risk due to the use and storage of dangerous chemicals.

Chlorine manufacturing plants also use and discharge mercury, a potent brain toxin that is released into the air, rains down, and ultimately contaminates our soil, plants, lakes, wildlife, aquatic organisms, waterfowl and fish. The Sierra Club has, in the past, joined lawsuits seeking to clean up chlorine plants for this reason.

Evans also wrote that some of the ingredients in the Clorox Green Works products are actually not environmentally sound, and that there are other similarly priced environmentally-friendly cleaning products from companies that are more worthy of endorsing.

Dave Willett, national press secretary for the Sierra Club, told Michigan Messenger that the club chose to endorse Green Works products because it felt that with its large market share, Clorox could popularize ecologically sound cleaning products.

“The fact that Clorox is a company that sells bleach is definitely an issue that was looked into,” he said.

Willett said that the Sierra Club is comfortable in dealing with Clorox, in part because Clorox has looked to the Sierra Club “for input on how they can be a better company overall.”

When asked for examples of any company practices that have been improved as a result of Clorox’s relationship with the Sierra Club, Willet did not have any specifics.

“I know they do endangered species stuff …” he said. “Our CEO and Clorox’s CEO have had conversations about that. I don’t know specifics.”

He said that so far the products seem to be selling well, though there are not yet any estimates as to how much revenue the sales will generate for the club.

Director of the Michigan chapter of the Sierra Club, Anne Woiwode, told Michigan Messenger that the state chapter objects to the decision to partner with Clorox and sent a resolution to that effect to the national board in April.

Comments

  • Minehaha Forman

    Interesting: Ah, the irony.

  • beaware

    another rung downward WWJMD? or maybe WWHDTD? all credibility gone, with the swipe of a pen and a few lawyer’s jaded laughs. John Muir/Henry David Thoreau. this makes me physically ill. Thank You E..

  • eco_activist

    The facts about Sierra Club and Clorox I am a longtime volunteer Sierra Club leader at the local, state and national levels.  I’m sorry to see hardworking activists resign.  But  Monica Evans’ statement that Clorox is “one of the most negative environmentally impacting companies in America” is so over the top it’s absurd.  Both the GreenWorks product and the company’s environmental record were extensively vetted by the Club.  See the Club’s Frequently Asked Questions About Clorox at http://www.sierraclu...  and other information on the Sierra Club main website under the search term “Clorox” or “GreenWorks”.

    I see nothing wrong with promoting an environmentally sound product, which GreenWorks cleaner is.  And if an environmental group wants unrestricted funds it can use to fight global warming or protect wildlife, lakes and forests, there are a limited number of ways to get them: raise member dues, which has its own host of drawbacks, or find new ways to attract funding.  Many respected organizations have licensed use of their name for years. 

    Much as we might wish it were so, you can’t pay staff with organic tomatoes.  Succesful environmental advocacy at the national level takes money.  Bleach is a commonly used household product that breaks down readily.  It is not dioxin.  Clorox is not the devil.  And the local group’s reaction to this is regrettable but not remotely based on the facts.

    – Longtime Activist

     

  • eco_activist

    counting problem re “which puts nearly 14,500,000 Michiganders at risk ….”

    Come again?

  • Todd Spencer

    But is it conflict of interest? The idea that Clorox is not a polluter doesn’t seem correct. They are a giant chemical company. The two go hand in hand. They are not, say, Dr. Bronners.

    What perhaps upset the Traverse City volunteers is the conflict of interest. The Sierra Club will never go after Clorox or perhaps a worse-polluting parent company in order to protect its new revenue stream.

    It’s the same when Cargill and other horrific Frankenfooders underwrite the heck out of NPR programs, to “buy” the watchdog’s looking the other way when it comes to making muckraking assignments in the newsroom.

  • eco_activist

    re: Clorox’s record From FAQs about GreenWorks on http://www.sierraclub.org  (search under Clorox on the site or click the link in message above)

    What is Clorox’s overall environmental record?

    We looked carefully into the corporate record of Clorox. Most of Clorox’s manufacturing facilities are located in the U.S. and all, except one, get a rating in the 0-20% “green” range where 0 = green (cleanest/best facilities) and 100 = brown (dirtiest/worst) from scorecard.org (scorecard.org’s data integrates over 400 scientific and governmental databases to generate its customized profiles of local environmental quality and toxic chemicals). The one exception mentioned is still in the green range from 20-30%. This covers chemical releases and waste generation for air and water pollution, as well as the manufacturing plants, which also have a low impact on various health risks.

    Clorox does have some minor EPA and OSHA violations in its recent records, and if you go back to the 1990′s you can find more serious problems. But compared with other major companies in their field, all of the information we obtained supported the conclusion that they were among the best.

    Isn’t Clorox a big dumper of chlorine into the environment?

    Many specific concerns have been raised about bleach in particular as a product. Some people feel that we should not work with a company whose signature consumer product is, indeed, bleach. Many comments seem to assume that bleach is an inappropriate product – that Clorox, if it was genuinely concerned about the environment, would stop making it.

    The Sierra Club did extensive due diligence on sodium hypochlorite and household bleach before entering into this partnership. Clorox bleach is about 6% sodium hypochlorite and the other 94% is plain water. When flushed down into the sewer it breaks down into water and salt. The manufacture of household bleach is responsible for an infinitesimal portion of chlorine use in the US economy. Most chlorine is used to make other industrial chemicals, including dangerous solvents and pesticides. Bleach is not a major source of demand for sodium hypochlorite. By far the major use of sodium hypochlorite is to purify drinking water.

  • eco_activist

    re: allegation of conflict of interest Most national environmental organizations run corporate-paid ads in their magazines.  Many actively solicit corporate donors.  If you believe that taking any money from a corporate entity is a problem in itself, you’re entitled to your opinion, but even most foundation money in this country can be traced back to a corporation or industry if you go far enough.  And there are few businesses that have zero environmental impact.

    Sierra Club members have been assured that nothing in the agreement would prevent a club entity from going after Clorox if there were reason to do that.

    The missing context here is that it takes money to do what the Sierra Club needs to do — like get Congress to pass global warming legislation.  There are a limited number of ways to get unrestricted funds.  Promotion of an environmentally benign product like GreenWorks is one of them, and it also helps the environment: this product is environmentally superior to most cleaners on the market.

  • Minehaha Forman

    Interesting: Ah, the irony.

  • beaware

    another rung downward WWJMD? or maybe WWHDTD? all credibility gone, with the swipe of a pen and a few lawyer's jaded laughs. John Muir/Henry David Thoreau. this makes me physically ill. Thank You E..

  • eco_activist

    The facts about Sierra Club and Clorox I am a longtime volunteer Sierra Club leader at the local, state and national levels.  I'm sorry to see hardworking activists resign.  But  Monica Evans' statement that Clorox is “one of the most negative environmentally impacting companies in America” is so over the top it's absurd.  Both the GreenWorks product and the company's environmental record were extensively vetted by the Club.  See the Club's Frequently Asked Questions About Clorox at http://www.sierraclu...  and other information on the Sierra Club main website under the search term “Clorox” or “GreenWorks”.

    I see nothing wrong with promoting an environmentally sound product, which GreenWorks cleaner is.  And if an environmental group wants unrestricted funds it can use to fight global warming or protect wildlife, lakes and forests, there are a limited number of ways to get them: raise member dues, which has its own host of drawbacks, or find new ways to attract funding.  Many respected organizations have licensed use of their name for years. 

    Much as we might wish it were so, you can't pay staff with organic tomatoes.  Succesful environmental advocacy at the national level takes money.  Bleach is a commonly used household product that breaks down readily.  It is not dioxin.  Clorox is not the devil.  And the local group's reaction to this is regrettable but not remotely based on the facts.

    – Longtime Activist

     

  • eco_activist

    counting problem re “which puts nearly 14,500,000 Michiganders at risk ….”

    Come again?

  • Todd Spencer

    But is it conflict of interest? The idea that Clorox is not a polluter doesn't seem correct. They are a giant chemical company. The two go hand in hand. They are not, say, Dr. Bronners.

    What perhaps upset the Traverse City volunteers is the conflict of interest. The Sierra Club will never go after Clorox or perhaps a worse-polluting parent company in order to protect its new revenue stream.

    It's the same when Cargill and other horrific Frankenfooders underwrite the heck out of NPR programs, to “buy” the watchdog's looking the other way when it comes to making muckraking assignments in the newsroom.

  • eco_activist

    re: Clorox's record From FAQs about GreenWorks on http://www.sierraclub.org  (search under Clorox on the site or click the link in message above)

    What is Clorox's overall environmental record?

    We looked carefully into the corporate record of Clorox. Most of Clorox's manufacturing facilities are located in the U.S. and all, except one, get a rating in the 0-20% “green” range where 0 = green (cleanest/best facilities) and 100 = brown (dirtiest/worst) from scorecard.org (scorecard.org's data integrates over 400 scientific and governmental databases to generate its customized profiles of local environmental quality and toxic chemicals). The one exception mentioned is still in the green range from 20-30%. This covers chemical releases and waste generation for air and water pollution, as well as the manufacturing plants, which also have a low impact on various health risks.

    Clorox does have some minor EPA and OSHA violations in its recent records, and if you go back to the 1990's you can find more serious problems. But compared with other major companies in their field, all of the information we obtained supported the conclusion that they were among the best.

    Isn't Clorox a big dumper of chlorine into the environment?

    Many specific concerns have been raised about bleach in particular as a product. Some people feel that we should not work with a company whose signature consumer product is, indeed, bleach. Many comments seem to assume that bleach is an inappropriate product – that Clorox, if it was genuinely concerned about the environment, would stop making it.

    The Sierra Club did extensive due diligence on sodium hypochlorite and household bleach before entering into this partnership. Clorox bleach is about 6% sodium hypochlorite and the other 94% is plain water. When flushed down into the sewer it breaks down into water and salt. The manufacture of household bleach is responsible for an infinitesimal portion of chlorine use in the US economy. Most chlorine is used to make other industrial chemicals, including dangerous solvents and pesticides. Bleach is not a major source of demand for sodium hypochlorite. By far the major use of sodium hypochlorite is to purify drinking water.

  • eco_activist

    re: allegation of conflict of interest Most national environmental organizations run corporate-paid ads in their magazines.  Many actively solicit corporate donors.  If you believe that taking any money from a corporate entity is a problem in itself, you're entitled to your opinion, but even most foundation money in this country can be traced back to a corporation or industry if you go far enough.  And there are few businesses that have zero environmental impact.

    Sierra Club members have been assured that nothing in the agreement would prevent a club entity from going after Clorox if there were reason to do that.

    The missing context here is that it takes money to do what the Sierra Club needs to do — like get Congress to pass global warming legislation.  There are a limited number of ways to get unrestricted funds.  Promotion of an environmentally benign product like GreenWorks is one of them, and it also helps the environment: this product is environmentally superior to most cleaners on the market.

blog comments powered by Disqus