While I understand the sentiment of this action - it's terribly misguided.

First off- I'm apparently one of your recipients - yet I don't actually work on forestry issues. Not sure why my name and email address was included - but flooding the inbox of actual people who COULD be your allies is not a very strategic way to support your cause. At least do some better research to figure out who decision-makers on this issue are rather than spamming people such as myself.

Second off - while I understand the concerns and controversies over FSC logging - targetting allies in this manner is very misguided. Who are the real powers that are destroying biodiversity and accelerating the climate crisis? Is it other allies with whom you have a strategic differnce? Or is it the companies, politicans, and systems that these same allies are targetting? Are you really affecting change wisely - or just trying to create controversy?

Matt Leonard
Rainforest Action Network

Matt, rather than sitting comfortably at work denying it has anything to do with you, perhaps you could carefully read what is in the email, make an assessment as to whether any of the points raised is valid and possibly approach those in your organisation that do work on forest matters (how is anyone working at the RAINFOREST Action Network not working, however obliquely, on forest matters??) and those that pay your wages to discuss whether there may need to be a policy shift there. That maybe your unswerving support of FSC may need some slight tempering. Granted FSC seems to be the best of a bad lot but what is also clear is that they seem to be signing off on the destruction of a whole lot of very important forests. And to now throw into the mix that such destruction is 'carbon positive' is outrageous. With 'allies' like your good selves the forests don't really need enemies now, do they?? RAN has a solid reputation and you need to start using your considerable influence (and substantial donor funds) to move governments and corporations into more sustainable practices as quickly as possible..

Enjoy work.

regards

glenn,
Melbourne Australia

Dr. Barry:

I feel torn about your criticism of the environmental organizations (Greenpeace, WWF, Rainforest Action Network, NRDC, Forest
Ethics, Friends of the Earth and Rainforest Alliance)regarding their support of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) "certified"
industrial logging of the world's last primary and old-growth
forests.

If FSC is not a good policy, why are they supporting it?

Have you tried to discuss this with them and, if so, what is their response?

How can so many organiztions be wrong on this issue?

I suspect if I send them an email they would simply respond with an email with what will sound like a reasonable explnation for supporting FSC.

Sincerely,

Larry Siegel

Dear Glen,

Unfortunately, I think it is you who are mis-guided on this issue!

Two weeks ago there was an international scientific conference with the theme "Old forests - New Management" (see website below for more info) which came to the general concensus that most species do not require old growth forest per se, but instead require ELEMENTS of OGF (e.g. some retained old trees, some old logs, etc) in their habitat. As such, the focus of the conference was on silvicultural options for maintaining wildlife habitat - not more reservation (that is providing that comprehensive, adequate and representative areas have already been established within the national or state conservation reserve system - as is now the case in many timber producing areas of Australia - certainly in Tasmania where the conference was held). Don't get me wrong - old growth forest is important "habitat" for humans - but there are no species conservation arguments (at least in Australia) in which OGF per se is recognised as essential habitat for ANY species!

Also, while I think it is important to keep pressure on logging companies and forestry agencies to report meaningfully on the various indices of ecological sustainability that they are supposed to report on, the FSC certification scheme, which permits involvement by NGO's in the development of its certification standards, is likely to be far better than the alternative PEFC certification scheme which is used extensively by many companies and countries throughout the world. Under the PEFC scheme, there is no place for NGO's to participate in the setting of environmental standards!

http://www.cdesign.com.au/oldforests2008/

Regards,

Rod

No mention of carbon, genetic diversity, evolution. A bunch of wildlife and resource managers coming together to say business as usual is fine, without questioning their own assumptions. How surprising!

maybe the rainforest was threatened by total destruction and enviromental organisations compromised with fsc in this way? what do they claim?

Glen Barry's Ecological Internet is the very model of a modern major general and I am encouraging everyone to check it out and consider participating. There is so much to learn from Glen's approach which combines environmental alerts with deep analysis of issues in a complex process that educates and builds a deeply informed critical path for personal active environmentalism. Glen's network is truly an education about the power of the internet to focus all levels of interest and engagement on important issues with none of the stamp licking bullshit that is used to waste volunteer efforts in so many of the other environmental initiatives. Glen is operating a strategic but grassroots organization with thousands of deeply empowered members around the world on a shoestring. Not a moment spent with Ecological internet is wasted or disrespected. Glen has built a global network to inform activism and awareness of the core issues of our time. Please take a look at Ecological Internet and please consider participating or helping out in any way you can. No where else can you take ten minutes and turn it in to global activism that you can be proud about.

Cheers, Michael Major\\

ps please feel free to forward this message to others.

Addendum to my last post, FSC is probably the most PRACTICAL way of protecting remaining old growth forests. In other words if YOU or your group can't immediately keep every single remaining old growth tree on the planet from being cut right now, then something else has to be done in the meantime. FSC is probably the best thing currently (or let's hear your idea that will protect them all right now this instant. Can't be done actually. There's such a thing as unreal vs. practical).
Thanks

I have to agree with many of the above comments. Unfortunately, I think it is you who are mis-guided on this issue!

FSC is a real solution to forestry problems and this is why these major environmental organisations are supporting it.

So the best that can be done on behalf of the world's last primary forests is to log them more carefully. No reference to whether this is sufficient to sustain the Earth's biosphere. Just that it is the most practical and realistic, more so than actually working to end all logging. Many thought slavery impossible to end, and it was best to work to improve slaves' living conditions. This was a major schism in the abolitionist movement. Could you explain how cutting down ancient forests protects them?

David Cowdrey, are you WWF UK's spokesman on this, or are you another D. Cowdrey?

The FSC has been using what many nasty groups and corporations, including the american government, has been using, Double-speak. This is used to take the true meaning away from words like "sustainable" and "green"...for example Bush's "Healthy Forests" anhiliation plan.

The FSC does not state whether the use of herbicides is permissible to gain their "green" certification. Not only that, but any timber company can simply state they "plan" on harvesting "sustainably" within(not "for") the next 5 years, to recieve certificaton. Besides that, the removal of any ancient tree is not green or sustainable, unless maybe the tree was downed by natural cases. Even that is open for debate due to the fact that precious nutrients and organisms necessary for healthy soil are found in decaying trees on the forest floor. Truly this must be the reason for the need of petroleum based ferilizers after a forest has been clearcut, slashed, and burned 3 or 4 times over.

Everything is open to interpretation, and I feel that the intentions of RAN, Greenpeace, etc. are noble, but just like Dr. Barry stated, they are tragically misinformed. They may have unknowingly even been infiltrated or at least influenced by timber interests.

I was just at a conference where there were several sessions on FSC for sustainable forestry. It all sounded very good, but they were helicopter logging. The most energy-intensive form of transportation on the planet!

I was polite and did not ask the question. But, how is that sustainable?

Methinks part of the problem is that FSC certification was designed prior to the availability of the most recent information about the critical role played by primary forests in conserving and recycling carbon.

It is a commercial program, designed to produce timber products while preserving the primary functions of primary forest as understood by the last "iteration" of scientific processes - primarily habitat conservation, as well as producing economic "value" for the countries involved, thus supposedly increasing local support for forest conservation efforts.

From my own experience in the Pacific NW, FSC certification is somewhat lax - my own timberlands were certified without any information requested or offered about past history of the land in question, not even an in-depth inspection of the land to be honest. So I wonder how this process is stringent enough to guarantee ecological outcomes in far-flung parts of the world with little "boots on the ground" presence.

It seems likely that for any such certification program to remain valid from an ecological and scientific perspective (as opposed to an economic perspective) it must be updated on a regular basis in light of current information. Otherwise it becomes a rationale to engage in practices that are not actually achieving a broad set of goals that are in fact sustainable.

We are probably all on the side of the angels but we are still right to be circumspect about environmentally 'good' methods among commercial concerns. If I may, I would like to quote six short paragraphs from a distinguished economist illustrating the strong historical precedent for commerce hijacking its appointed regulator.

Now, quoting:

In 1887 the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission was founded, and has served as a cautionary tale ever since.

The ICC was established to regulate the railroads but was quickly subverted by the industry it was supposed to oversee. That happened because its staff learned that if they “regulated” the railroad industry (and later, the trucking industry) by fixing prices artificially high and restricting new entrants, cushy jobs and directorships would await them upon their retirement.

Of this process Milton Friedman wrote:

“It took about a decade to get the commission in full operation. By that time the reformers had moved on to their next crusade. The railroads were only one of their concerns…. For the railroad men the situation was entirely different. The railroads were their business, their overriding concern… And who else had the staff and expertise to run the ICC? They soon learned how to use the commission to their own advantage.

“The first commissioner was Thomas Cooley, a lawyer who had represented the railroads for many years. He and his associates sought greater regulatory power from Congress, and that power was granted. As President Cleveland’s Attorney General, Richard J. Olney, put it in a letter to railroad tycoon Charles E. Perkins… only a half-dozen years after the establishment of the ICC:

‘The Commission, as its functions have now been limited by the courts, is, or can be made, of great use to the railroads. It satisfies the popular clamor for a Government supervision of the railroads, at the same time that the supervision is almost entirely nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more inclined it will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. It thus becomes a sort of barrier between the railroad corporations and the people and a sort of protection against hasty and crude legislation hostile to railroad interests… the part of wisdom is not to destroy the Commission, but to utilize it.’” (Free to Choose, pages 196-197)

I see you edit posts, which is what you did to mine yesterday. Controlling comments now?
You have one fixed viewpoint period. Nobody said anyone should stop working to end all logging.
We would all like that. But in the meantime how do you accomplish this? You do not have the manpower or means on a global scale, let alone smaller areas. Don't compare this with slavery either. Anyone can say "lets stop all singing the shower". There is such a thing as practical vs. unrealistic. While you carry on your fixed viewpoint more trees get cut down without even FSC certification, which is better than nothing. How many trees have you kept from being logged?

We have never and will never edit a comment. We moderate comments removing only posts that are off-topic or abusive. Sometimes I and often others respond to posts. Do you take offense with us responding to you? There is also a difference between what is required to save the Earth and what is greenwashing. You are quite right that Ecological Internet and others with a deeper level of understanding of the requirements to achieve global ecological sustainablity do not have the global clout to right now end ancient forest logging. But the groups apologizing, supporting and even benefiting from such logging do -- hence the protest. The slavery comparison is fair and accurate -- it highlights the difference between people working to end an evil and people working for reform of evil. How can you work to end something when you are advocating for it? This is by definition greenwashing, and you and others of your ilk are stopping the movement to achieve real solutions. IIt is interesting how little you have to say on the ecological benefits of cutting ancient trees and calling it sustainable. Shame on you.

Dear fellow cyberactivist,

Thank you for your email. Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) is
the world's largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 70
national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on every
continent. With over 2 million members and supporters around the world,
we campaign on today's most urgent environmental and social issues. We
challenge the current model of economic and corporate globalization, and
promote solutions that will help to create environmentally sustainable
and socially just societies.

The FoEI Forest and Biodiversity Program is committed to protecting the
world's remaining forests and the plants, animals and peoples that
depend on them. We are opposed to destructive and illegal industrial
logging and the conversion of forests. We fight for local communities'
and indigenous peoples' control of their forests in their traditional
sustainable ways.

Friends of the Earth International is not a member of, and does not
support the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). National Friends of the
Earth (FoE) groups are autonomous in their campaigning and policy
decisions. As such their involvement in FSC varies widely. Some FoE
groups are members and support FSC as a credible global certification
system for responsible forest management, making use of its three
chamber structure. This structure gives both social and environmental
organisations formal rights and responsibilities and FoE groups focus on
certification of smallholders and community forests. Other FoE groups do
not support FSC, find that FSC certified forests and plantations are not
sustainably managed, and believe that FSC structures and processes (such
as the plantation review) are flawed.

The FoEI Forest and Biodiversity Program finds that voluntary market
mechanisms (such as FSC) alone will definitely not solve the global
forest crisis and we do not shy away from an open and critical stance
towards FSC. Therefore the main focus of the FoEI Forest and
Biodiversity Program lies with developing sustainable community forest
management, as well as binding regulations to ban illegal and
destructive timber trade and large scale monoculture tree plantations.

We hope this email clarifies that we oppose all the allegations made to
our organisation in the cyber action from Ecological Internet. We thank
you for letting us know your opinion and we would appreciate that our
email addresses not be published on a public web site.

If you are interested in supporting the campaigns of Friends of the
Earth International and you want to keep informed of our actions please
join the cyberactivist network mailing list (you will typically get 1 or
2 e-mails each month). You can join by sending an email to
with the words "sign me up to cyberactions" in the subject.

Sincerely,

Friends of the Earth International, Forests and Biodiversity Program

Thank you for confirmation that Friends of the Earth groups are members and support FSC. Nowhere in the alert was FOE-International named. How convenient and disingenuous that the international organization does not support FSC, but defends the right of its national groups to do so. The world's forests and climate will not be saved by groups and movements that try to have it both ways. Could you be specific then regarding why you "oppose all the allegations made to our organisation in the cyber action from Ecological Internet" when no claims were made against FOE-international and you have confirmed the FOE movement does indeed support FSC? Do you intend to oppose FSC's expansion of its certification of primary and old-growth forests? Does certification imply logging is "carbon-positive"? As FSC and others make the case the industrial logging protects the climate, are you going to have a position, or continue to have it both ways? You have answered no concrete questions raised by the alert, rather seem more concerned about covering your arses. What else would be expected from an environmental bureacracy?
Dr. Glen Barry

The day you drop using generality labels such as 'greenwashing' (which is simply a created idea of yours or someone else's used simply to invalidate others) is the day...well it won't happen. You attack the wrong targets all over the place, acting like an authority or 'expert'. You cause more harm than good. Thankfully most intelligent people simply listen to you, yawn, and discard what you say. You are much too fanatical, arrogant and a chaos and fear merchant. Ho-hum.

Dear Kenneth Lapointe,

Perhaps you could help all of us by responding to a handful of questions. Of course, responses from other are welcome.

The following questions are related to the ominous potential for mass devastation that could result from human-induced climate change between now and 2025.

Is it somehow harmful to ask direct questions like this one regarding good scientific evidence of the potential for either apocalyptic climate change or pernicious impacts from the rapidly growing, colossal presence of the human species on Earth?

Are willful blindness, hysterical deafness or elective mutism ever acceptable "defenses" for scientists who choose to deny evidence derived from good science?

Is there some reasonable, sensible or moral foundation upon which faithful scientists can stand upright and say, "I refuse to acknowledge carefully and skillfully gained scientfic evidence if I cannot refute it?"

Are scientists who present good evidence of climate change and human population dynamics, even though their research is plainly unforeseen and surely unwelcome, entitled to have their evidence openly discussed by professional colleagues with established expertise?

If the global challenges looming before humanity are as formidable as the best available scientific evidence indicates, then is the family of humanity not well-advised to begin widely sharing in open discussions in the mass media, not just in blogs like this one, what is to be done in order to avoid whatsoever is unmanageable, while managing and mitigating everything else?

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001

I'm not going to get any further into this because it's simply arguments, that's the last thing that is effective in actually helping the remaining old growth forest on earth. My comments were exclusively directed at Glen Barry, period. I hope you realize science is not exact. Words like 'good science' and the 'best science available' are all relative and liable to change in the future. Neither your idea of 'precise' correct science that you subscribe to is any more valid necessarily than other scientists with their ideas. That's the problem. Differing scientific viewpoints can all claim to be backed up by 'supported' 'precise'
'proven' research or statistics. Vis-a-vis the 'debate' on global warming, which incidentally in my opinion is a waste of time (debating it.) Only actual doingnesses save or help the natural world on this planet.) Getting wrapped up and focused on winning arguments or weighted questions are worthless. It's just endless.

As some of you reading this may be aware, Pacific Lumber in Humboldt County, Ca is currently undergoing drastic changes during the ill-fated timber company's Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The proceedings were moved to Texas after parent(al figure) company MAXXAM set up a phony "office" in Corpus Christi in order to keep local opinion and intervention out of the proceedings.

The bankruptcy plan, simplified, has many different entities vying for control over PL's 200,000+ acres of Coast Redwoods and Douglas Firs. The most locally favored plan allowed by bankruptcy proceedings Judge Richard S. Schmidt was submitted by Marathon Capital Group backed Mendocino Redwoods Corporation(MRC). Ironically, the MRC is owned by The Gap corporation, and has a history of community resistance towards it’s logging practices in Mendocino County.

The MRC has Forest Stewardship Council(FSC) certification which creates a major misconception for the local community and conservation groups in regards to the future of our forests. It seems that a majority of concerned citizens and groups have been duped into believing that the MRC will not be harvesting Old-Growth trees on PL's disputed lands. Wishful thinking, lack of information, and blatant ignorance has created an atmosphere of believing that the lesser of the evil reorganization plans will save the last of the Ancient Trees left on our county.

Aside from the controversy over the lack of unified Old Growth protection, MRC will be utilizing herbicides, logging steep slopes, clear cutting, and removing previously inaccessible trees by helicopter, as they have and still are using these practices in Mendocino County. All of these unsustainable and environmentally destructive practices are allowed by the FSC, and nowhere on the FSC site do they claim otherwise. In fact, the MRC justifies it’s usage of herbicides through The Nature Conservancy‘s “Weed Control and Methods Handbook“. The Nature Conservancy appears to be just another “green washed” group, just like the FSC.

So what is the lesson to be learned here? I believe that the attitude of “if you can’t beat them, join them” has infiltrated the same non-profit groups that are supposed to protect their donor’s interests and ideals. Sell outs, compromisers, and panderers are allowing the last of our precious ecosystems to be annihilated during this crucial time where our Earth has reached a critical tipping point. The FSC is one of many so-called “green” and “sustainable” non-profits that are cashing in on the newest fad of Orwellian double-speak, the same technique used by the US government to justify the Iraq war through fear and semantically altered catch phrases such as “Homeland Security“ and “War on Terrorism“.

However, in light of this deception and controversy, action is still the antidote for despair. Humboldt County, one of the birthplaces of forest activism, has been fighting for Old Growth protection for over twenty years. There are still solid and persevering tree-sits taking place right now on PL’s disputed lands. One action, Fern Gully Tree-sit Village in Freshwater, Ca, is going on strong for six years coming this October. Nanning Creek Tree-sit Village near Scotia, Ca, home of the famous “Spooner” tree, continues to safeguard some of the largest Coast Redwoods ever protected since November of 2005. And let’s not forget The Mattole, located in the Lost Coast, Ca. The Mattole is continually monitored for any sneaky attempts by PL to log the Ancient Douglas Firs that were defended by countless and dedicated activists since 1983.

Regardless of what happens to PL, and despite the fact that so many have been conned into believing that our Ancient Trees left standing on PL land will be saved by Mendocino Redwood Corporation, activists will continue to oppose PL, MRC, or any entity that claims to be “green” and “sustainable”, when in actuality they are the opposite. Actions speak louder than words, and in these current times, it seems that words are less likely to be based in reality.

Jeff Muskrat
spooner@spoonerdirect.org

Humboldt Forest Defense
http://humboldtforestdefense.blogspot.com/

North American foresters have wondered for several years at the logic of FSC certified tropical forest logging being environmentally superior to our sustainable growth and production of forest products in North America. Our management must use practices that protect soil and water, usually under strict regulation and in fairly good view of much of the public. Reforestation is always used, except by developers in non-managed forests. Perhaps now some consumers are getting it -- buying American grown and harvested wood products from lands that are reforested is one of the most sustainable ways to procure needed goods.

From http://www.gapsucks.org/

Rainforest Action Network Statement on Mendocino Redwood Company (MRC) logging
in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, CA:
Rainforest Action Network is gravely concerned about the impacts of Mendocino Redwood
Company (MRC) logging on 235,000 acres of redwood forest for the past three years in
Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California.
Ancient redwood forests are one of the earth’s most spectacular natural wonders. Yet after
years of logging, over 96% of America’s ancient redwoods have been lost, a situation that is
endangering many species that rely on old growth forest habitat. For this reason, RAN
supports permanent protection as the ideal solution for landowners in the redwood region.
Heavily damaged redwood forests (such as MRC’s land) should be allowed or managed to
return to old growth forest characteristics. We feel that MRC’s current program of logging is
not ensuring recovery of endangered species, nor is it permitting the return to late
successional redwood forest characteristics.
The case of MRC also raises troubling questions about the strategic direction of wood
product certification.
The greatest dangers to certification come from pressure to log in areas that should be off
limits or to weaken management standards in order to increase the volume of certified
products in the marketplace. The quickest route to losing public support is to log old
growth forests that should simply be off-limits to any industrial activity. In the case of
Mendocino Redwood Company, the problem is at the other end of the spectrum: logging
in areas that are already heavily degraded, where endangered species such as Coho
salmon and spotted owls are extirpated or barely hanging on.
From both an ecological and public perspective, the FSC endangers its credibility by
marketing products from the habitat of endangered species and by certifying logging in
areas that are in the midst of land-use controversy. In order to have public credibility, the
FSC must be able to ensure that products did not: a) come from areas that should not be
logged, and b) where logging is allowed, that it take place in the most ecologically
appropriate manner.
Considering the history of degradation on MRC lands and the broad public desire to see
the redwood ecosystem restored, RAN believes that the best solution for the redwood
ecosystem and the forests of Mendocino County would be for MRC to permanently
protect its forest lands.
March 2002

I wonder what made them change their minds about the FSC?

MRC's Option A from their site states:

Option A

Wildlife Habitat Old Growth

MRC will not harvest old growth as defined below:

Terrestrial – Un-entered stands of more than 20 acres.

– Stands of 5 acres or more with an average of 6 old growth
trees per acre or more (old growth trees defined as trees over 250
years old and 48 inches d.b.h. or larger) .

– Individual residual old growth trees with significant wildlife
value (eg. large limbs, cavities, nesting platforms, limited available
structures).

I have to ask:

-Can the MRC log "entered" stands containing old-growth?

(Most TPZ's have been entered, in fact, I'd like to see an unentered stand that is not a park or refuge)

-Can the MRC log old growth stands less than 20 acres?

(Most of the old growth stands left in TPZs are very small residual groves)

-Can the MRC log stands of old-growth that are more than five acres containing 5 or less old growth trees per acre?

(An acre is a very small piece of land, how many old growth trees can you fit in an acre? To achieve this requirement, 30 OG trees would have to exist on 5 acres. Furthurmore, residual Old growth trees and groves are extremely rare on TPZs, and the chance of finding 6 or more OG trees on one acre is extremly low).

-Who determines the "significant wildlife value" of residual old growth trees? (Besides wildlife surveyors, who else but the MRC?)

Our old growth may be safer if MRC takes over, but they better get up, walk, and clump together in a central location. Saftey in numbers, right?

I appreciate this was posted over a year ago, but there are lots of worthy issues, some of which overlap, and some of which are a bit mixed.

I was under the impression that FSC was a pretty good standard. Maybe this isn't the whole story, huh? As Richard in NewZealand pointed out, what starts as a force for good can often be manipulated and lobbied down to the lowest common denominator. This isn't automatically the case with FSC though. I can see why Friends of the Earth International allow for different policies in different parts of the world. We don't have many old-growth Redwoods in the UK, but ancient woodlands are strictly managed and protected, I'm guessing originally for biodiversity and conservation rather than carbon locking reasons.

I'm kinda surprised at the hostile reaction towards the initial alert too. I always welcome rigorous criticism, even when it's aimed at the good guys. The statements seem unbelievable at first, but the more you dig and research, the more there seems to be a case. I'm always disappointed when people feel they have time to comment to attack the character or the language of a writer, without attempting to add to/disprove any of the points raised. Learn how to disagree:

http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I guess this is just another tactic used to silence genuine points that could lose a lot of people a lot of money, and that could make a lot of do-gooders thing twice before trusting FSC (myself included).

I do think the language used by Glen is a bit counterproductive at times though. It's great for the exciting original post, but kinda aggressive/sarcastic towards people's comments. Go easy.

Also, a question: Am I right in thinking that cutting down an ancient tree isn't necessarily unsustainable? As long as we don't do it to all the ancient trees on the planet, and as long as it is replaced, long-term, with other trees that are allowed to grow for 150-500 years, then it could be considered okay in theory?

(I know in practice "...after years of logging, over 96% of America’s ancient redwoods have been lost...", so it's a bit late now, right?)