Public consultation: French forest certification system

Drinking from her Contigo reusable coffee mug, tested and approved by the GH Institute, Good Housekeeping Deputy Editor and Good Housekeeping Institute Director Laurie Jennings does more than just talk the sustainability talk; she is developing the first annual Green Summit, to be hosted at Hearst Tower on November 8. As a consumer-advocacy publication for more than 130 years, the team at Good Housekeeping decided now was the time to plan Raising the Green Bar: Your Roadmap to Sustainability & Success because of an increased interest from its readership in sustainability and a growing concern for the environment. “Three years ago, when we asked consumers if a product was green would it make them more likely to buy it, the answer was ‘not really’,” Jennings says. “Now, more and more, there is a big resounding ‘yes–green matters’ response to that question.” Click Read More below for additional information.

We, European paper manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers, consumer organisations and environmental NGOs, are writing to share our concerns about the possible removal of a number of EU Ecolabel product groups[1] which we understand the Commission is considering. In our view, such a unilateral and unexpected consideration would be premature, given the ongoing Fitness Check of the EU Ecolabel Regulation, and we urge the Commission to reconsider the possible discontinuation of these product groups. The Commission has recognised the EU Ecolabel as an “incentive scheme in favour of the market” which can benefit consumers and boost job creation[2]. This voluntary, market-based instrument is also consistent with, and complementary to, other EU policies concerning the circular economy and sustainable development[3]. The Commission has suggested discontinuing some product groups that include two relatively successful EU Ecolabel paper-related products (tissue and newsprint). click Read More below for additional detail

“If the court forces EPA to lower of the ozone standard even more, projects to keep paper and wood products manufacturing facilities competitive could be halted, putting at risk countless high-paying jobs in rural America. The new standard at 70 parts per billion (ppb) is already precariously close to background levels in the environment. Lowering the ozone limit to 65 ppb or lower - as petitioners demand - would unnecessarily divert needed resources from more productive use and is not supported by the scientific evidence.”