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.

Remember my information for 3 months to make future sending easier (privacy)

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 information)

Your message is going to recipients. You may receive out of office or other emailed replies from protest email recipients.