Forest Protection Blog

Please understand how critical old growth forests are to the global environment--for watersheds, for climate change, for nutrient recycling, for preserving fragile ecosystems. Cutting old growth forests means decimating the entire plant community that has grown up around these forests. It's time to end this practice once and for all.

I have read the GreenPeace campaign website and I don't see where it says that "clearfelling old forests for paper products is "sustainable" when FSC certified." What they say is "virgin fibre that is FSC certified". Which would mean fibre that has not come from recycled products but instead from FSC forests - so the question is if FSC forests can be old growth or not. I do not know the answer to this and see no reference on this to an independent article that clarifies the situation. If you know of such an article please send it to me at robwheeler22@gmail.com. If not please check with Green Peace on this.

Thanks,

Rob Wheeler

Save global forests. Eat less.
This will result in fewer forests destroyed for grain and pasture land, less waste used for packaging, and less toilet paper since there won't be as much crap coming out of us. Whew, wouldn't that reduce our bad environmental odour.
And don't forget the disappearing kelp forests in the oceans. They are probably more important than land trees. Seriously, it's a huge problem few people talk about because we can't see them.
Kelp forests are critical, absolutely critical. Let's spend money figuring out what's destroying them. Please.

Whenever possible wood use should come from local sources. This would require less fuel, less road construction, leave remote preserves for wildlife habitat and carbon absorption. Often the old growth is the most remote. Lets leave it that way.
Pulp should come from tree tops of logs cut for sawlogs and thinnings of long standing commercial tree plantations. These plantations are so vast at present that they should easily supply our pulpwood needs. Add in paper recycling and hemp fiber for the rest.

Canada forest is mostly publicly owned. If these are the forests being logged by Kimberly Clark, its up to the Canadian public to stop it.

ACTION ALERT UPDATED PLEASE SHARE WIDELY!

Greenpeace Deems Grassroots Global Forest Movement Unworthy of Substantive Response
re: How FSC Logging of Primary Forests for Toilet Paper "Protects" Them

August 13, 2009
By Forests.org, a project of Ecological Interent

CONTINUE TO TAKE ACTION TO FULLY PROTECT CANADA'S OLD FORESTS FROM GREENPEACE GREENWASH HERE:

http://forests.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=gp_ancient_forests

Below is Greenpeace Canada's misleading and obfuscating response to Ecological Internet's Earth Action Network campaign to have them stop supporting and hailing as some sort of "victory" FSC industrial first time logging of primary forests in Canada and globally. Continued advocacy supporting this dangerous and antiquated liquidation of life-giving terrestrial ecosystems by Greenpeace and pals -- in this case to make toilet paper -- is one of the gravest threats to Earth's ecological sustainability, as it is virtually impossible to END such practices when others are thoughtlessly supporting them. Our default protest email made the following demands and assertions, NONE of which were responded to explicitly:

1.) I demand that Greenpeace repudiate the agreement with Kimberly-Clark and not enter into any further negotiations that greenwash old forest logging.

2.) Greenpeace completely fails to understand that all primary and old growth forests are endangered and of high conservation value.

3.) We call upon Greenpeace to immediately disclose the ecological science that suggests primary and old growth forests can and should continue to be clearcut to wipe our asses.

4.) I and many others call upon Greenpeace to immediately globally cease and desist from negotiating agreements with industry that continue the production of throw away consumer items from Earth's dwindling old forests.

5.) Further, Greenpeace must immediately disassociate itself from the Forest Stewardship Council's (FSC) ongoing certification of first time industrial logging of primary forests as being "well-managed" while implying sustainability.

These issues were not addressed at all. No defense is made of the underlying assertion that logging old forests to make toilet paper with FSC and even lesser certification is a desirable outcome. Until Greenpeace can tell us how FSC certified logging hundreds of year old trees in millions of year old ecologically intact old forests "protects" them in any meaningful ecological sense, the campaign continues indefinitiely.

This is too important to let go, and Greenpeace will continue to have its old forest greenwash resisted, paying the price in tarnished reputation for such ecological treachery. Global ecological sustainability demands full protection and ecological restoration of old forests, not apologizing for continued consumption of old forest products that is clearly and demonstrably ecologically unsustainable. Below is a point by point rebuttal of the less than forthright and truthful response with our RESPONSES IN CAPS.

And please remember to join and follow the cause "Protect and Restore Old Forests Globally" on twitter at: http://twitter.com/oldforests and on Facebook at: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/327890/56161035 . Together we will end industrial old forest loss and diminishment, and usher in an era of global old forest ecological restoration.

For Earth,
Dr. Glen Barry

***************************

Thank you for taking the time to send us an email.

Greenpeace agrees with you that ancient forests like the Canadian Boreal
Forest need protection. That's why we are happy with Kimberly-Clark's new
policy because it immediately protects areas of ancient forest and will
protect much more over time.

IN THE STRICT ECOLOGICAL SENSE, IT PROTECTS NOTHING. THAT IS, NO PRESERVATION OCCURS. ANY AREA OF ANCIENT BOREAL FOREST IS STILL ELIGIBLE, INDEED PROMOTED BY GREENPEACE, FOR FIRST TIME INDUSTRIAL CLEARCUT IF IT IS "CERTIFIED" BY THE FOREST STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL OR ONE OF FOUR WEAKER STANDARDS ALLOWED UNDER THE AGREEMENT. AGAIN, NOTHING IS ASSUREDLY, EXPLICITLY PROTECTED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.

We launched the Kleercut campaign in November 2004 because of the serious
impact Kimberly-Clark was having on ancient forests. After nearly five
years, with the support of activists and volunteers worldwide, we believe
that we have an agreement that will protect ancient forests.

We hope you understand that complete change does not happen overnight -
neither for governments nor individuals, nor for multi-national corporations
like Kimberly-Clark. But change has already taken place for the betterment
of ancient forests under Kimberly-Clark's new policy. We are confident that
change will continue to happen. Let me tell you how.

CHANGE NEVER HAPPENS IF YOU FAIL TO ASK FOR THE NECESSARY OUTCOMES. OLD FORESTS MUST BE FULLY PROTECTED AND ECOLOGICALLY RESTORED GLOBALLY. THE NEW POLICY DOES NOT IMPLEMENT ANY CHANGE, IT IS BASED UPON THE FALSE ASSERTION THAT FSC SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT OF FIRST TIME LOGGING OF ANCIENT BOREAL FORESTS SOMEHOW "PROTECTS" THEM. IN FACT, IT IS BUSINESS AS USUAL FORESTRY WITH A FEW MINOR IMPROVEMENTS. THEY UNDERLYING FALSE PREMISE THAT OLD FORESTS ARE RESOURCES TO BE HARVESTED RATHER THAN THE ECOSYSTEMS WHICH MAKE LIFE POSSIBLE REMAINS UNCHALLENGED AT GREAT EXPENSE TO THE BIOSPHERE.

For more than seven decades, Kimberly-Clark purchased pulp from the 2
million hectare (5 million acre) Kenogami Forest in Northern Ontario. At
times, they purchased more than 400,000 tonnes of pulp, or 13% of their
total global supply of virgin fibre, from this forest. In recent years, they
also received pulp from the adjoining Ogoki Forest (1 million hectares or
2.5 million acres). These forests hold big intact wilderness spaces that are
vital to species such as woodland caribou. During the evolution of the
policy and as a result of our campaign, today we are happy to say that
Kimberly-Clark is no longer buying pulp from these forests. The reason? The
current manager of the forest, Buchanan Forest Products, refused to meet the
strict ecological criteria that Kimberly-Clark laid out in their new policy.

AND ONCE THESE AREAS ARE GIVEN CERTIFICATION BY FSC OR ANY ONE OF THE OTHER FOUR TIMBER INDUSTRY DOMINATED CERTIFICATION SCHEMES, THEY WILL ONCE AGAIN BE CUT TO MAKE TOILET PAPER. FROM THE FORESTS' POINT OF VIEW, THERE WILL BE LITTLE OR NO DIFFERENCE IN OUTCOMES AS PRIMARY FOREST ECOSYSTEMS ARE CLEARFELLED TO MAKE TOILET PAPER. THE "STRICT ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA" IS ANYTHING BUT, AS THE PARADIGM OF DESTROYING ECOSYSTEMS FOR THROW AWAY CONSUMER ITEMS REMAINS INTACT.

We believe this is real change on the ground that will lead to more
conservation of these two forests.

A key element of Kimberly-Clark's new policy is the company's commitment to
stop using any fibre from the world's most ecologically sensitive forests
areas: Endangered Forests and High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF) areas
mapped as no-harvest zones. They also agreed not to source fiber from a
number of other forests, including primary tropical rainforests. These are
the forest areas that we have been fighting to protect during the 5years of
this campaign.

ALL PRIMARY AND OLD GROWTH FORESTS ARE ECOLOGICALLY SENSTITIVE, ENDANGERED, AND OF HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE. GREENPEACE HAS IMPLICILTY AGREED TO TOKEN PROTECTED AREAS -- USUALLY ABOUT 10% OF ANY OLD FOREST -- IN EXCHANGE FOR ALLOWING KIMBERLY-CLARK TO CLEAR THE OTHER 90%, WITH GREENPEACE'S ENDORSEMENT.

Additionally, Kimberly-Clark is reducing its pressure on ancient forests by
increasing the amount of recycled fibre used in their products, and giving a
preference for post-consumer paper. This will spur increased recycling
efforts and diversion of paper waste from landfill. And during the campaign,
Kimberly-Clark launched a new line of tissue products for consumers that
contain recycled fibre - called Scott and Kleenex Naturals. This is the
first time these brands of consumer products have included recycled fibre.

PROMISES IN THIS REGARD ARE VAGUE AND INSUFFICIENT. WHAT IS THE EXACT % COMMITTED TO? WHY AGREE TO ANY OLD FORESTS BEING IN TOILET PAPER WHEN CLEARLY THE EARTH IS PAST ITS CARRYING CAPACITY, ECOSYSTEMS ARE COLLAPSING, WE ARE WITNESSING ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE, AND ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVES SOURCES OF FIBER EXIST NOW. GREENPEACE STILL WANTS THERE ULTRA-SOFT LOO PAPER. CAN THE RICH NOT GIVE UP ANY OF ITS CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION BASED UPON FOREST ECOCIDE?

The policy also increases the use of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
certified fiber, which currently is the only certification system in the
world that supports and verifies environmentally responsible and socially
just forest management. Kimberly-Clark's commitment is to ensure that 40
percent (up from 29% today) of the fibre used in North American tissue
products - representing an estimated 600,000 tonnes - is either recycled or
FSC certified by 2011. This is a very big jump for a corporation the size of
Kimberly-Clark.

THE POLICY SAYS IT WILL TRY TO ACHIEVE FSC CERTIFICATION, BUT DOES NOT LIMIT ITSELF TO THIS FOREST CERTIFIER. AT LEAST FOUR OTHER INDUSTRY DOMINATED CERTIFICATION SCHEMES ARE ALSO ACCEPTABLE. FSC IS FAILING WORLDWIDE. NO ONE IN THE ORGANIZATION WILL RELEASE HOW MUCH OF ITS CERTIFIED TIMBER AND PULP COMES FROM FIRST TIME LOGGING OF ANCIENT FORESTS. ECOLOGICAL INTERNET HAS ESTIMATED IT AT OVER 50%. FSC GREENWASHES CONTINUED INDUSTRIAL FORESTRY IN MILLIONS OF YEAR OLD ECOSYSTEMS, IN THIS CASE TO WIPE OUR BOTTOMS.

Also and very central to our campaign, the company is making big positive
change in the Boreal Forest. In less than a year and a half, Kimberly-Clark
will no longer buy any wood fiber from the Canadian Boreal Forest that is
not FSC certified. They are decreasing this from over 400,000 tonnes in 2007
to zero by the end of 2011. This is real change on the ground. We believe
this will shake up the forest products industry worldwide and to lead to a
decrease in further threats to ancient forests.

Certainly, there is still more to be done. We are not going away. We can
promise you that we will work with Kimberly-Clark to ensure the policy is
fully implemented in the coming years.

EVEN IF THE POLICY IF FULLY IMPLEMENTED, GREENPEACE HAS PROVIDED EFFECTIVE GREENWASH THAT WILL ENSURE THAT MILLIONS OF HECTARES OF OLD FORESTS ARE DESTROYED TO WIPE OUR BOTTOMS. NO EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO END THESE PRACTICES. THERE ARE SOME HUMAN ACTIONS THAT ARE SO EGREGIOUS TOWARDS THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS. ONE OF THESE IS BUILDING MARKETS FOR OLD FOREST PRODUCTS WHEN THEIR CONSUMPTION DESTROYS BEING AND MUST END.

The challenge is now out to Kimberly-Clark's competitors and the rest of the
pulp and paper sector to stop destroying ancient forests. With your help, we
will continue to pressure these companies to reach and exceed the new bar
for forest protection set by this agreement.

THE CHALLENGE NOW IS TO GET GREENPEACE TO STOP MAKING SECRET DEALS WITH THE TIMBER INDUSTRY -- AS WAS DONE IN CANADA'S GREAT BEAR RAINFOREST AND NOW IN THE BOREAL FORESTS -- WHICH LEGIMTIMIZE THE MYTH THAT FSC LOGGING OF PRIMARY FORESTS SOMEHOW PROTECTS THEM. GREENPEACE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR THE MAJORITY OF ECOLOGICAL SCIENCE SAVY FOREST PROTECTIONISTS. WE WILL CONTINUE TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST GREENPEACE, RAN, WWF, FOREST ETHICS AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT WORK FOR FSC FIRST TIME LOGGING OF PRIMARY FORESTS.

NOWHERE IN THIS RESPONSE WAS ANY ECOLOGICAL SCIENCE PRESENTED TO BACK UP CLAIMS THAT FSC PRIMARY FOREST LOGGING PROTECTS OLD FORESTS. IT APPEARS GREENPEACE IS COMMITTED TO WHAT CAN RELATIVELY EASILY BE ACHIEVED RATHER THAN WHAT IS ECOLOGICALLY SUFFICIENT IN REGARDS TO OLD FORESTS. GREENPEACE HAS SOLD OUT OLD FORESTS TO APPEAR REASONABLE AND EFFECTIVE, WHEN THEY ARE NEITHER.

Please visit http://www.greenpeace.ca/kleercutvictory to find out more about
what is included in this policy, its highlights and the announcement.

-----------------------------------------------
Richard Brooks, MFC
Forest Campaign Coordinator
Greenpeace Canada

Office: 1-416-597-8408 x 3039
Cell: 1-416-573-7209
Fax: 1-416-597-8422

33 Cecil
Toronto, Ontario M5T 1N1
Canada

Turning up the Heat
Climate Change & the Boreal Forest Report
www.greenpeace.ca/turninguptheheat

First an anecdote: as a spoiled Canadian travelling in Europe before globalization was so ubiquitous (1970s), I remember being warned before I left to take some Canadian toilet paper with me, especially if I intended to visit France. Why? At that time, toilet paper from wood pulp was not widely used by the French; they made their toilet paper from recycled cloth/rags. While it is true that it wasn't as soft and strong as the Canadian toilet paper, it was functional and the norm long before "recycling" was a buzz word, a matter of French practicality. Those days are assuredly gone, and corporate agendas trump sensible ecological solutions, leading to "pragmatic" compromises such as Greenpeace has brokered, ones which are really token, short-sighted and signal one more triumph of sophisticated capitalism over earth-sustaining means of meeting human needs.
Faced with the reality of compromise with the world-dominant corporate capitalist system in order to survive as a "legitimate" agent of social change, Greenpeace has surely elected for the "peace" part of their name over a truly green solution, which begins and ends with the abolition of corporate capitalism. This in turn means abandoning "legitimate" means in which the dominant corporations, fully supported by governments, always use their basic profit-before-everything ethos to co-opt criticism. Greenpeace had to do this or go "rogue". The real rogues are the corporations, but they get away with it because they have the power of the governments that legitimate them to back them up, governments that are responsive not to the people they are supposed to serve but the various power interests in society that run on greed, ecological rapaciousness and obeisance to corporate elites, effected peoples and the Earth itself be damned.
In short, as long as the majority of people believe that capitalism is the best or at least the inevitable economic system, all activist organizations such as Greenpeace will have to capitulate into dishonesty to survive, and of course in the not-so-longer run, none of us will survive if all we can hope for is this and that protest to slightly retard the capitalist juggernaut that is infinitely more predacious than compromising. The bottom line is, if we do not dispose of capitalism, it will dispose of us. This is particularly so for anyone born after about 1985, you have zero chance of living a normal lifespan, or if you do manage to make it to the proverbial 3 score and ten, your life will be such a hell that you will envy the dead. It can be stopped, but you cannot think in terms of band-aid compromises, they can be fatal. Think about it.

How many sheets do you use? Next time you are in the public traps listen & count out loud number the guy/girl next door pulls. Could easly save 3/4 of the total production. Or stop buying toilet paper & switch to Asian water wash.

I've sent my response to KimberleyClark.
But to all those with ears to hear - "what's the point of toilet paper anyway?"
It's well over 10 years with rare exceptions since I used a toilet roll. We are beseiged with soft tissue whenever we buy a coffee or meal and there are still plenty of old newspapers around - one of my jobs as a child was to cut up old newspapers for the lavatory. Then there are large leaves, and water as used by our Indian brothers and sisters.
So - to protect forests we have to address producers (Kimberley C) as well as consumers (you, me and our extravagant society). And there are many more examples of useless or marginally useful consumption for us to work on.

How could these posers condone such actions? They really need help from the top down.

I can't believe you are still pushing such lies Glen Barry.

You need to step back and think before reacting, actually examining campaign strategy and power analysis. Why not redirect your 1500 followers to a real forest destroyer like AbitibiBowater or Procter and Gamble or the government of Ontario in Canada?

Greenpeace are not the enemy.

Robert,
Of course we could, can and will protest against companies doing the logging as well. But invariably their response is "Greenpeace and FSC say it is sustainable." Old forests will not be fully protected until this Greenwash is exposed and ended.
Dr. Glen Barry

P.S. What exactly is the lie you are referring too? Perhaps you can answer two questions that no one else will. 1) How much of FSC timbers comes from primary and old growth forests. 2) How does logging a 500 year old tree in a million of years old ecosystem protect anything?

Save Trees? Save money and the Earth and be clean at the same time! Get serious and add Bathroom Bidet Sprayers to all your bathrooms. I think Dr. Oz on Oprah said it best: "if you had pee or poop on your hand, you wouldn't wipe it off with paper, would you? You'd wash it off” Available at www.bathroomsprayers.com with these you won't even need toilet paper any more, just a towel to dry off! Don’t worry, you can still leave some out for guests and can even make it the soft stuff without feeling guilty. It's cheap and can be installed without a plumber; and runs off the same water line to your toilet. You'll probably pay for it in a few months of toilet paper savings. As for water use a drought is always a concern and must be dealt with prudently but please remember that in the big picture the industrial water users always far exceed the water use of household users and in the case of toilet paper manufacture it is huge. The pollution and significant power use from that manufacturing process also contributes to global warming so switching to a hand bidet sprayer and lowering your toilet paper use is very green in multiple ways.

hi, i have an idea about saving forest. we must colect the sits from the forest and from all the threes and to throw with an airplain on the mountain or in the places where the forest they burn.
i think is a good ideea.
thx

WWF used to have great info, pics and email actions but nothing has been done (panda passport)since 2008. I went to various countries wwf websites and they are just for blogging, donations and selling stuff. What happened??? the sites look like wwf is being run by marketing, not environmental concerns. just curious because I couldn't find info on why the big change.

Boreal forest wood is also used for trusses in American houses. This is just as wasteful, since there are substitute products available.

Hi there.... I entirely agree with you.... my weekly environment blog on the A World to Win website is on this topic:
http://www.aworldtowin.net/blog/seeing-wood-for-trees.html

Are FSC papers really that green?

Having been involved with the paper industry for the last 17 years, I have witnessed many changing environmental paper trends. Every few years something new emerges in the industry that is considered environmentally trendy at the time. First it was the “post-consumer waste” content or PCW recycled content by which the greenness of a paper was measured. The next wave of excitement came with the term “tree-free,” meaning that the paper is made from alternative fiber sources like industrial hemp, kenaf, bagasse or a variety of other plant-based fibers other than trees. Currently, the dominant environmental indicator is “FSC certified” paper. FSC is the acronym for the Forest Stewardship Council and is the subject of our discussion here.

The Forest Stewardship Council is an independent certification agency established to insure that their approved products come from sustainably managed forests. They certify wood products as well as paper and are supported by the organization Rainforest Alliance.

This all sounds well and good until we recall that the original objective for environmental papers was not just to make papers that saved energy, water and trees but also to utilize commercial and household paper waste as the feedstock for the new product. This is called recycling. The beauty is that we are transforming waste paper into new, usable products, rather than “disposing” at a heavy price to the planet. Whereas, the FSC viewpoint is that we should continue to make paper from trees and that recycling and landfills are not that big of an issue. We disagree!

The paper industry, like a lot of the extracting industries (i.e., coal, oil, etc.,) does not like to change. Changing the way they do things means spending money and they don’t like to do that. It’s easier and preferable for them to continue to make paper from trees instead of building new recycling infrastructure, or developing new pulping technologies utilizing alternative fiber sources.

With FSC, they can pay a nominal fee for the use of the FSC certification and continue to not change very much to appear green. Mills, printing houses, paper distributors all proudly display their FSC emblems to the public but unfortunately the recycled content of their products are often low or non-existent. One can say, without being extremist, that much of this activity is a clear case of corporate greenwashing.

Since global warming is the gravest circumstance for our planet’s future, and that world-wide deforestation is responsible for one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions, it stands to reason that one of our greatest responsibilities is to preserve the existing trees and forests as much as we can. For wood products that must come from trees, the FSC certification makes a whole lot of sense. But for paper and paper products, recycling, along with paper conservation, is clearly the better answer.

Qualities determining real environmentally-friendly paper may be considered in this order:

1. Post-consumer waste recycled content (PCW). Try for 100%.
2. Processed without chlorine or Processed Chlorine Free® (PCF)
3. Alternative fiber sources or Tree-Free
4. FSC certified recycled
5. FSC certified

Dear Dr. Barry,

We are not scientists, we are environmentalists in the paper business. But we have been around long enough to see that the FSC certification is enabling the paper industry to not have to change, not recycle.

Since the introduction of FSC, printing houses are touting their greenness publicly but there is no improvement in the amount of post-consumer content being manufactured and utilized in the paper industry.

Environmental groups are printing their own publications on FSC mixed sources paper. These papers are made largely from virgin tree pulp.

I wish we had the time to spend educating large environment groups on something they should already understand: Stop supporting FSC for paper, and demand post-consumer, recycled content again!

Please call me anytime to discuss further at 800-641-1117.

Best wishes and thank you for what you are doing,
Stephen E. Baker, Pres.
GreenLine Paper Company, Inc.
"America's Green Office Supply"

It's great that awareness of this problem is being spread around (at least online). I heard about this a few years back, and I'm glad to see it being addressed on this site. Thanks!

Dear Dr. Barry,

You are a wackadoo. You should find something more useful to do then try to discredit the best forest certification program in the world. It isn't perfect by any means, but there are avenues for people like you (well maybe not people as wacky as you) to get involved and change the FSC from the inside. You are damaging the most credible scheme out there when there are other forest certification schemes, such as SFI, that are doing real damage and must be stopped. Please redirect your efforts to where they may actually achieve some good. You may as well be paid by the timber industry controlled SFI, since that is the work you are doing.

Who knows, perhaps the human family will soon come to see that we need to care for Earth's ecology the way the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us protect their insatiably greedy interests in the unbridled growth of humanity's soon to become unsustainable global economy.

Saving the planet one step at a time

Have you heard of climate change?
Temperatures are getting higher. Storms are getting worse. Ice is melting and sea levels are rising. Portions of the coast of Bangladesh are likely to go underwater, lost forever. Millions will become homeless. The ability of the earth to sustain people is threatened.

Why is climate change happening?
Because people are burning up fossil fuels (diesel, petrol, natural gas, coal) at such rapid rates that future generations are now threatened.

Is it possible to slow climate change?
Yes, but we cannot continue to waste time. Carbon dioxide levels are rising rapidly. That is where the number 350 comes in. If we can limit CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million then we can avoid the worst of the harm to come.

Is there anything we can do?
No one person cam stop climate change but everyone contributes something significant. We can slow out own use of fossil fuels by walking and cycling and taking cycle rickshaws rather than using motorized transport. We can reduce our use of electricity. We can avoid, as a nation, burning coal (pure carbon) or selling it to others to burn. We can encourage the government to act to encourage reductions in fuel use and to encourage walking, cycling, and rickshaws.

This will mean making some changes. Fortunately most of those changes are likely to increase rather than reduce our quality of life. Imagine being able to cycle safely in Dhaka. Imagine the air being fresh and clean. Imagine children and youth being able to play in side streets. If we move our focus from cars to people, from traveling long distances to accessing basic needs close to home, we can reduce congestion and all the misery it causes, We can have more time with family and for the other important parts of life.

Remember 350 is not just a number. It is not just an ideal. It is something we can all work to make a reality.

http://dhaka-rickshaw.blogspot.com/2009/09/saving-planet-one-step-at-time.html

Until green technologies are profitable and cheap, woodland green will take a backseat to spreadsheet black every day of the year.

But don't worry; we're almost there! In another six months or so we'll have conquered human greed.....