Greenpeace Resists Clarion Climate Call to “End Ancient Forest Logging”

Insists can 'protect' ancient forests & climate while actively promoting their first time 'certified' logging
By EcoInternet's Climate Ark and Rainforest Portal and
July 6, 2007
Greenpeace supports logging primary ancient rainforestsGreenpeace International has confirmed astonishing allegations by EcoInternet that they actively promote and support the logging of ancient forests, at great expense to the Earth's climate. In their statement Greenpeace acknowledges they are “committed to protecting the world's remaining ancient forests” yet support “the FSC as the only credible global certification system.” What? Has Greenpeace become certifiably insane?
Greenpeace and other logging apologists such as WWF and the Rainforest Action Network want to have it both ways: against ancient forest logging, but for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) which actively logs ancient forests. This comes as FSC is accused of a string of failed and corrupt certifications from Guyana to Indonesia to Russia.
“Greenpeace says they will protect ancient forests by promoting their industrial certified logging. Given a Greenpeace staff member chairs the international Forest Stewardship Council board, one would think they would realize that a large portion of current and expected growth in FSC logging takes place in primary and old-growth forests,” notes Dr. Glen Barry.

Sadly, Greenpeace yet again refuses to substantively respond to criticisms of certified logging of ancient forests. Despite years of international concern regarding their stance, Greenpeace is yet to present their scientific and experiential basis for asserting first time logging of ancient forests — some of which are millions of years old — protects them.
“Given concerns regarding abrupt run-away climate change and loss of terrestrial ecosystems and species, the myth of environmental responsibility of certified industrial logging of primary forests must be revealed. This approach has been tried for a decade and a half and it simply is not working. Given trends in emerging climate change impacts and soaring public concern, why not embrace the moment and call for an end to industrial ancient forest logging? This would significantly protect both life giving forests and the climate.”
As the world comes together with Live Earth, proclaiming there is a climate crisis and looking for sufficient responses, environmental bureaucracies such as Greenpeace and WWF will have to do better than claiming a non-ambitious, reformist forest conservation policy will be adequate to protect our last intact large forests, to stop climate change, and to achieve global ecological sustainability.
Members of WWF, Greenpeace and other ancient forest logging apologists are encouraged to cancel their memberships. Doing otherwise means you too have ancient forest blood on your hands. Requirements for sustainability of global climate and terrestrial ecosystems demand an immediate end to ancient forest logging.
EcoInternet's current action alert targeting Greenpeace for their support of ancient forest logging can be found at:
Greenpeace's short and incomplete response is posted at:
For more information:
Dr. Glen Barry
EcoInternet, Inc.
P.O. Box 433
Denmark, WI 54208
+1 920 776 1075 phone
EcoInternet's projects include:
EcoEarth.Info — http://www.EcoEarth.Info/
Climate Ark — —
Water Conserve —
Rainforest Portal —
Ocean Conserve —
My.EcoEarth.Info —

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. Elaine C. says:

    Hi Glen, how disapointing that the groups I trusted to help save the earth are greenwashed forest destroyers.
    Heres a great magazine to subscribe to called “The Permaculture Activist” It has tons of positive info about the global permaculture movement that goes way beyond organic agriculture and green washed “sustaintable” forestry.
    Check out Subscriptions are $23 a year for four issues. It's a great publication and reading it has helped me out of black despair. Thank you for all you do! Gaia Blessings Elaine C.

  2. Steven says:

    Great stuff you do on the Rainforests and calling out Grnpeace

  3. Endre says:

    Used to be a member of Greenpeace, but terminated my membership a couple of years ago when I was broke. I keep getting these mails from EcoInternet, with similar content. But one thing youve neglected to bring up. What motive could Greenpeace have for supporting FSC? Any ideas? Would be interesting to find out…

  4. Slag off says:

    Well what the hell are you doing about it then, at least GP is making an effort, all I see u doing is slaging them off, gosh thats really gonna help, I know lets save the world, ohh lets slag someone off that will do it

  5. Julie says:

    Hmmm…. So where's the GREEN in Greenpeace?

  6. Steve L. says:

    Hi Glen,
    No doubt you've seen the reports on Madonna. See
    I would be interested to know what other Live Earth performers and supporters are 'having it both ways' ie – invest in and profit from damage to the environment and then also profit from efforts to prevent such damage. Hypocrisy in its crudest form…
    I forwarded the below email onto some Greenpeace people. I assure you it has caught their attention so if there is strength and merit in your argument – persist. You may do well by focusing on the aspect concerning:
    “This comes as FSC is accused of a string of failed and corrupt certifications from Guyana to Indonesia to Russia.”
    As this may be something that GP are unaware of.
    Steve L.

  7. Yesido says:

    I just wanna share this with other blog readers. If you want to see a powerful poster promoting Global Warming exhibit, go to the link below:

  8. Sarah McM says:

    Hang on Glen, surely ON BALANCE both wwf & Greenpeace do more good than
    harm, even if what you say is 110% correct – and they both definitely mean
    well, so how about encouraging members to COMMUNICATE with wwf & greenpeace
    organisers to persuade them on a better course of action. Surely dwindling
    membership will only play into the hands of the REAL bad guys
    Kia Ora
    (Good Health/Go Well)
    Sarah McM
    New Zealand

  9. Glen Barry says:

    Dear Sarah,
    I disagree. An ill-conceived policy on ancient forest logging which greenwashes and lends support to continued failed industrial logging of such forests does more harm than good, and undermines all their other work in climate as well. We have raised this issue with WWF and GP for several years to be rebuffed. Now we are protesting because the science and requirements for global ecological sustainability are on our side – end ancient forest logging. You might like to note the quality of response received thus far from WWF :
    Dr. Glen Barry

  10. Paul says:

    Hi Glen, I got feedback from Greenpeace on this issue. As you probably well know, they are one of the founders of the FSC and they defend their role as providing some measure of control over logging that in the absence of the FSC would be totally unchecked. They do not consider this a perfect solution by any means but a step in the right direction.
    Greenpeace, you and I all agree that in a perfect world there should be no logging of ancient forests, which is particularly true in the light of global warming that is finally getting some traction with the American public. But changes, unfortunately happen slowly and in incremental steps, and Greenpeace sees itself as part of the process of making this happen.
    I have supported Greenpeace for some time, principally because they have embraced environmental action with an audacious aggressiveness that appealed to me. I would give them the benefit of the doubt that on this issue also, namely that they are not caving in to industrial interests.
    I sense that you are viewing the situation from a purists point of view, and correctly so, as far as I am concerned. They, however, have to deal with the messy politics of the situation and try to achieve consensus while at the same time not loose their focus.
    I would give them the benefit of the doubt, but continue to engage them on issues where you see a better way or where perpaps they have overlooked something important, especially if it helps them to convince the industrial interests to desist from adverse practices. We all have a role to play in this, and perhaps yours can be to help them stay on the straight and narrow.
    The person I spoke to, Scott Paul, indicated that they value your input, and they appreciate being challenged on the issues as it generates valuable internal discussions and keeps them on their toes, so to speak.
    I have probably already overstepped the bounds of my competence on this, so I will not belabor it any further. But I hope that you and Greenpeace can find a way to work with one another that furthers the objectives that we all hold dear.

  11. Nancy says:

    You have been one busy guy – great writing.

  12. Betty says:

    Dear Dr Barry
    This is of great concern – I am going to Darwin soon and will discuss with my friends there – I agree that ancient forests must NOT be logged.
    But nearer Home – main concern is ancient forest LOST to clearing for oil palms for biofuels Malaysia AND Indonesia.
    * hope you have reaceived my donation

  13. Glen Barry says:

    In response to Endre: Greenpace supports industrial certified logging probably out of a desire to appear reasonable, a belief (misleading) that even heavy logging is better than outright deforestation, concern (genuine) for global economic inequities. None of these trump the global ecosystems need to keep these ancient forests in place to continue operating.

  14. Kia ora says:

    Tena koe Glen
    There's a saying, it's Spanish I think, that “best is the enemy of the good”. FSC might not be very good and it's certainly far from perfect, but it's significantly better than open slather logging. So how about using your talent and energy to bring illegal logging and clear-felling of old-growth forests to an end? Or is there some sophisticated and not immediately obvious strategy behind your attacks on Greenpeace et al.?
    Kia ora
    RESPONSE: Just how much difference is there in terms of forest ecology between illegal logging or certified logging? Not much. FSC makes no claims of environmental sustainability, just that it was responsible (whatever that means). In terms of impacts upon forest structure, dynamics and composition of first time logging be it legal or illegal there is little difference. In either case the ancient forest is gone. Making false claims of the green quality of certified logging makes it harder to end such practices all together, justifying continued “open slather logging”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.