There is no denying the fact that Greenpeace supports Forest Stewardship
Council (FSC) efforts to certify logging of primary and old-growth forests as
environmentally acceptable. It is a matter of public record. FSC's international
board is chaired by a Greenpeace forest campaigner and they have long promoted
FSC as the source of "green" timber. Greenpeace supports industrial ancient
forest logging even as they are apparently suppressing their own report on
specific problematic forest certifications. Transparency and depth of ecological understanding are not Greenpeace's strength.
When the whole notion of certified logging in ancient rainforests is questioned,
the Greenpeace PR machine shifts into full gear and seeks to mislead rather than
respond substantively to the concerns of those working to end ancient forest
logging as a key response to climate change and requirement for global
ecological sustainability. Critical questions remain unanswered. How does
industrial logging protect ancient forests? When in a particular situation does
Greenpeace support ancient forest logging and when do they not? What body of
ecological science and experience does Greenpeace have to support its stance?
Primary forests are irreversibly diminished when logged. Environmental groups
cannot support nonsensical promises of "certified sustainable" ancient forest
logging with impunity any longer. It is exceedingly hard to stop industrial
logging in the Amazon, Congo, Canada, Russia and elsewhere when big groups like
Greenpeace and WWF continue to support failed reform of the industrial ancient
forest logging industry. It is a difficult decision to campaign against this
greenwashing; but FSC, Greenpeace and WWF are so insular, and so defensive of
their failed support of industrial certified forestry, that true forest
conservationists no longer have an option.
Sometime last year, Greenpeace started investigating 'problematic' FSC
certifications. The report likely identified how deeply Greenpeace has become
ensnared in specific failed certifications, and just what a disaster their
embrace of FSC has been for the environment. Where is this report, and when is
Greenpeace going to publish it?
This is what I think is going on. Greenpeace knows they have a problem with FSC,
but for tactical reasons they are pretending that everything is OK. Greenpeace
needs a simple message when condemning illegal loggers, and if it cannot be said
on a banner, then it is not worth saying. They only have "Buy FSC" as a
plausible solution, and generally refuse to support stopping ancient forest
logging altogether. Greenpeace has invested years of effort into this nonsense,
and presumably now would find it nearly impossible to admit they have been
wrong. Let's renew our call that Greenpeace end their support for ancient forest logging, while publicizing the matter and urging their supporters to cancel their membership until they do so.
I do not wish to receive occasional
short notifications of new action alerts (~3 a month)
In addition to new action alerts,
inform me of major forest and climate policy developments (~2/month), and provide
original environmental analysis (~2/month) (more
Your message is going to
may receive out of office or other emailed replies from protest email recipients.
Review and Edit Message
Certified, sustainable ancient forest destruction brought to you by Greenpeace
Message Title - please edit title and personalize message below (no URLs)
YOUR NAME, EMAIL & COUNTRY ADDED AUTOMATICALLY