Why are you doing this?

Soon we'll only tree trees in our pots and animals in pictures... thta'll be nice, right?

As a student of Environmental Economics, I believe in optimum utilization of resources: and that INCLUDES our natural biodiversity. I'm concerned about the loss of this natural wealth and would like to see it preserved.

Let's stop thinking just about this second. Let's think about our generation, about next year, about tomorrow.

Individuals and governments of the world should help people of Congo in improveing their living conditions and achieve stable development, so they would themselves hand in hand with others be in position to protect the forests with all their plants and animals which are Congolese people's and the world's heritage and above all our common prerequisite for survival on this planet, and we have no another one.

Stop the INSANITY... PLEASE!!!

First of all I agree that no single forest that is planted by earth herself and left nearly undisturbed until nowadays still can be cut by man for both biodiversity and climate reasons.
We have to add to this that we have to think together with Greenpeace & co. for a solution for all the poorer people in the world that have their livelihood from forestry and related activities, like cattle raising and agriculture in forests. Because of this I think very very urgently a mundial government independent fund is needed in which all countries contribute exceeding earths sustainable cO2 and CH4 limits using to much oftheir CO2 and CH4 part (this is about 70 nations worldwide). With this money sustainable jobs for this people in which they can live humanly without using the ancient forests have to be created. Another solution is inhuman and will never get long-term positive results.

Another solution is giving everybody worldwide a CO2 and CH4 credit card with the same monetary value. Cutting ancient forest means for all the persons participating no credit on their card is left and they become the poorest of the poor. This credit get passed to these practisizing no big CO2 and CH4 using activities. It's a kind of wordwide swap spread over the whole mankind in which you have to live sustainable to become a "rich and wealthy" person.

I received an email about the rain forest in The Congo, and how Greenpeace support this initiative of sustainable and certified forest managedment. I have never heared that Greenpeace support something like this. Please can you tell me in which web of Greenpeace did you see it?
Thanks

RESPONSE: It is well known that Greenpeace is an active supporter of certified, sustainable logging. In fact, the head of FSC's internatinal board is from Greenpeace. Do a google search on "Greenpeace certified sustainable logging" and you will find plenty of information. They sold out the ancient temperate rainforests of British Columbia, Canada to industrial logging; are doing so now in the Amazon, and have not committed to working to end such logging in the Congo - just to a moratorium until proper logging laws are in place. WWF is even worse, taking money from loggers to get certified!
Regards,
Dr. Glen Barry

Dear Glen,

Sometimes you really miss the target. Why are you wasting your energy hating Greenpeace? I think if you were to do the math you'd find that GP has saved a hell of a lot of forest around the world and will continue to do so. On top of that is a steady flow of campaign wins across a range of campaigns almost daily.

I understand you are raging, that anger is your emotion of choice, and that you feel anything less than a total stop to all human activity means destruction of the earth. Sadly though this is not going to happen in that way. The only way we will save the earth is to work together. We must achieve the critical mass of people that understand.

In the beautiful future that you and I both dream of (do you still? or has destruction completely taken you over?) there will be people that manage amazing jungles, lovingly removing pieces of wood and medicinal plants and food, helping the forest be healthier than ever before. There will be people that fish in the ocean, people that fish with understanding of what they are doing and that they are eating what the earth has given, they will understand the interdependances within an ecosystem and respect them as they respect life itself. Metals will be made, and sails will unfurl, the elements will give all the energy we need. The difference will be in the thought process behind those actions.

Also, you paint groups like Greenpeace as if they are evil like the multi national loggers. The real truth my friend is that they are people like you and I that are desperately trying everything to slow the rush to destruction. They cry over the loss as you do. They get angry about it as you do. It takes all of us Glen. Why do you not use your skills to speak directly to greenpeace and others? I hear you have in fact worked for them before so you must have some contacts... help them and they will help you. Help one person and they will remember and help you or someone else when its needed.

With a little smart campaigning you could probably increase you supporter base quite considerably rather than weaken the movement as a whole. Problems within big ngo's need to be fixed internaly. Bashing them doesn't work. Keep the rage and keep your style but aim it better.

all the best

Adam

RESPONSE:
Adam (from Greenpeace),
Greenpeace supports a flawed forest conservation model -- logging ancient rainforests "sustainably". My critique is not based upon anger but rather ecological science and requirements for global ecological sustainability -- something I have studied for almost 20 years. I have tried on many occasions to address WWF and Greenpeace directly on this issue to no avail. With climate change progressing as it is whatever case there may have been for certified logging is further weakened. I find it interesting that your entire rebuttal never addresses the issue of how certified logging can be justified environmentally. In fact you seem enraged. It must hurt to work for a misguided organization, but take responsibility for it and your culpability in ancient forest logging, rather than lashing out at the messenger that simply points out your policies.
Glen

I personally think that Greenpeace and the Rainforest Portal have the same aim. Greenpeace starts from original rainforests in destruction and tries to safe what is possible in discussion with the logging companies. Rainforest Portal and I agree with this says this aim is not onger enough. At this moment there is scientific evidence that we have to go farther and that all original still existing forests in the world have to remain completely untouched for the future generations and even greatening of original rainforests in the tropics must happen from now on.
If Greenpeace sticks to the forests for which already a logging concession exists and try to save there as much as possible I think 1 + 1 can even be 2 although science says this concessions have to be stopped immediately, but to achieve that all ecological forces in the world together must achieve much more power as they have now.

Dude, You need to get over yourself. Do you not have enough dragons to slay that you have to go after GP and WWF? Seriously. And, take off your personal dating ad from you bio.

Hi Glen:

I appreciate your efforts. Thank You.

I will forward this around.

WWF used to stand for World Without Forests, and now I'm afraid that it'll be World Without Fish. Any organization with the Duke of Edinborough as their patron Must be on the wrong track.

Ian

It is vital to save the Congo rainforest.......
we have to leave something good behind for our future generations!

very disappointed in Greenpeace. How can they do this?

And that guy who accuses you of an angry response w/out addressing your point: there can be no certified logging in rainforests, is shameful. Why doesn't he organize greenpeace staff to take a principled stand on this?

also, how can there be certification in areas like the congo which are effective war zones w/5 million people killed by various mafias (supplied w/weapons from foreign sources) in the last decade? another problem w/WWF and Greenpeace's unrealistic approach.

if we dont do any thing to save the environment who will? we have to save every thing we can so that future genorations can see it.its realy mean to every one that wants to see it because they will not be able to.