The Michigan Messenger

Interesting: Ah, the irony.

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..

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

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

Come again?

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.

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.

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.

Interesting: Ah, the irony.

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..

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

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

Come again?

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.

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.

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.