I am absolutely in favour of doing everything we can to stop governments and companies from cutting down old-growth forests. But the wording of your message leaves me utterly bemused. Some crucial content has evidently been axed in the attempt to be short, or else how can you demand "RAN vigorously defend their support for first-time primary rainforest logging..."??? Please change this whole paragraph so it can be read and understood straight away and so it doesn't actually contradict your mission.
As it is worded now, I cannot disseminate this call further.
Many thanks!

My understanding of this wording is that RAN has not 'vigorously defended' their support for first-time primary rainforest logging, and that likely, they are unwilling to debate the matter with critics such as Glen Barry. The wording in this case appears to be well put.

...

I wonder that engaging such communication as the above with the many people who support RAN might be a way to effectively push for a change of position.

The executive of RAN require this support more fundamentally than they require the support of the industry with which they are serving by backing projects like FSC and their respective logging practices.

"Sustainably logging" old growth forests can become an effective method of control if a proper rehabilitation program is instituted.

Patrick Moore (Greenpeace co-founder and now Greenspirit) has supported the concept that new growth forests will absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere due to the fact that they are "growing" and have higher demands than old growth forests.

We must seek to find a balance, and of course never forget the social implications of displacement due to logging, mineral extraction and land conversion.

In one or more previous EI action alerts, I believe that it has been explained that recent scientific research has shown that *all* logging of old growth forests is a very bad thing. Perhaps we need a reminder about this, with further relevant information as appropriate.

What concerns me also is that (as I understand it), FSC is not well monitored, and the one person who has looked into it in depth has described FSC as the Enron of forestry, or some such words. That is, as I understand it, his view is that FSC is deeply corrupt and should be ignored as a sustainability certification.

I am not sure what is happening within RAN. I wonder what is going on in there ... A series of friendly nudges from EI activists might be what they need to stay on track.

Thank you Glen for everything you are doing. Keep up the good work!

Over the last ten years and beyond environmental debate has shifted to a narrow and short sighted focus on global warming and climate change. There are so many issues such as logging old growth forest that need to be reenergised. Forests, and old growth rain forests in particular, need to be protected at all costs,not because of the impact deforestation has on climate change, but because sustain such biodiversity and hold such undiscovered riches that offer so much potential to the world.