Review and Edit Message

Ken will not get back together with Barbie - or rejoin Greenpeace - if they continue saying their rainforest use is ok because it is "certified"  (link)

Message Title - please edit title and personalize message below (no URLs)
Outraged that FSC has voted to certify plantations upon land cleared of primary rainforests with your membership

Your Message:
Phil Radford, Executive Director, Greenpeace USA Dear Mr. Radford, I am writing to express concern with your new "Ken and Barbie" rainforest campaign to stop Mattel's use of fibers in their packaging - including for Barbie and Ken dolls - that come from Indonesian tropical deforestation and that threaten tiger habitat. Your latest rainforest market campaign continues to be unacceptably vague and ambiguous regarding whether Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of primary rainforest logging is an acceptable alternative source for rainforest timber and fiber. This comes as FSC and Greenpeace vote whether to allow plantations upon land cleared of primary rainforest and other old forests to be certified as being sustainable. Greenpeace's membership in FSC is an ecological insult and you must resign immediately. Sadly, I am breaking up with Greenpeace, as you inform us Ken has done with Barbie over similar concerns, until Greenpeace's complicity with rainforest destruction ends. You must stop sending muddled messages on such a fundamental ecology issue of whether Earth's last intact terrestrial ecosystems should be industrially cleared for timber, state clearly that the only acceptable packaging materials are entirely rainforest and old forest free, and resign from FSC immediately to work to end primary forest logging. Further, we will not accept an outcome from your Barbie campaign that includes FSC certified papers from Indonesia's primary rainforests. Two recent research efforts have shown, interpreting FSC's own data, that from 120-130,000,000 hectares (~320,000,000 acres) of primary rainforest and other old forests are being destroyed by FSC certifying first time industrial logging as being "sustainable" and "well-managed". An estimated 60-70% of FSC certified products come from primary and old growth logging, by definition destroying them. And now we here that FSC will certify plantations upon converted primary rainforests. It is simply unacceptable that you continue lending Greenpeace's good name to marketing such an ecocidal activity as selling primary rainforest derived products - as biodiversity and ecosystems collapse, and abrupt climate change is here - whatever your internal justification for doing so. To say FSC is better than the alternative certification schemes is irrelevant, as all exist to destroy primary forests for consumption with virtually no local benefits and heavy costs. The others will be stopped next as the age of primary forest ecocide concludes. This is not the first time global grassroots forest activists have expressed concerns with Greenpeace's ongoing complicity in FSC primary forest logging, and been resoundingly ignored, despite large numbers and well reasoned ecological science-based arguments. We contacted your organization regarding vast stretches of Canada's ancient boreal forests being clearcut with Greenpeace's vocal support for toilet paper, and never received an adequate, detailed response to our concerns. It is problematic that Greenpeace and Greenpeace USA do not feel the need to be transparent, open and defend your public positions regarding primary forest protection; when you are so critical of others on the matter. What is the ecology, policy and strategy behind such a continuing blunder? Are you able to admit error and change your approach when it has clearly failed, is causing harm and is irredeemable? Greenpeace USA's continued deep involvement in FSC, with key staff you manage driving the policy, despite no evidence that Greenpeace's presence has restrained FSC's dependence upon primary forests from within, and clear ecology science that old forest logging must end; sends a muddled message and makes your otherwise great organization appear hypocritical. It is time for Greenpeace USA to have a more consistent, simple and ecologically based rainforest message: end primary forest logging as step towards their full protection and restoration, to allow local and global ecology and economic benefits from old standing forests. I am expecting a detailed response as to how logging primary forests protects them, Greenpeace USA's own estimates of FSC's degree of dependence upon old forest logging, and justification for your continued membership after nearly two decades of failure to change FSC from within. And I demand that you make clear in your Mattel "Barbie" campaign that you do not find FSC certified primary rainforest paper from Indonesia an acceptable replacement packing material. Please ensure Greenpeace resigns from FSC immediately in order to discontinue your shameful continued dodging and bobbing on the acceptability of industrial first time logging of primary rainforests and other old forests. Ending such ecocide is a keystone response to the world's shared biodiversity, ecosystem, water, climate and poverty crises. Until then we will continue to advocate that Greenpeace members leave over such fundamentally ecologically flawed rainforest campaigning. With concern,

bcc: YOU