ForestEthics : Protect Forests and Our Climate

Green Grades 2010: A Report Card on the Paper Practices of the Office Supply Sector

Thu, 09 Sep 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Find out more about the grades by clicking on the image above.

Since the release of ForestEthics and Dogwood Alliance's first Green Grades Report Card in 2007, some of the world's most well-known office supply retailers and largest distributors have made big environmental commitments that help protect forests. The progress continues with the 2010 edition of Green Grades.

Download the .pdf of the full Green Grades 2010 Report Card >>

Consumers should applaud the progress�and exercise discretion. All of the companies have room for improvement, and some have done little to ensure their products are environmentally responsible. Questions also remain about companies not covered in our scorecard.

Drawing from a company survey and our own research, the report card rates the office companies on seven forest-related environmental categories: Chain of Custody, Endangered Forests, Plantations & Other Controversial Sources, SFI Greenwash, Recycling & Reduction, FSC Certification, and Other Leadership.

Read our press release >>

Some of the following companies get A's, some companies are class clowns, and some fall in between: Amazon.com, Costco, FedEx Office, Office Depot, OfficeMax, PaperlinX/Spicers, Staples, Target, Unisource, United Stationers, Walmart/Sam's Club, and xpedx.

Download the .pdf of the full Green Grades 2010 Report Card >>

CBC Radio -- ForestEthics' Aaron Sanger interviewed on "Calgary Eye Opener" program

Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Supporters Rally for Federal Tanker Ban Outside Enbridge Office as Review Panel Comes to B.C.

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:00:00 PDT

(Vancouver, B.C.) � More than 200 supporters rallied today at Enbridge�s Northern Gateway Pipelines headquarters and marched to the Vancouver Art Gallery in support of a federal crude oil tanker ban. The federal panel to review Enbridge�s controversial project, that would bring over 225 crude oil tankers to B.C.�s Pacific north coast for the first time, conducted its first public meeting in Kitimat where a regional protest greeted them.

Get High Resolution photos >>

�While Enbridge�s project would introduce oil tankers to our northern coast and threaten the Great Bear Rainforest, they have no liability for when an oil spill would happen,� said Nikki Skuce, ForestEthics Energy Campaigner. �A legislated federal oil tanker ban for our north coast is the most effective way for protecting British Columbia�s valuable northern coast from an inevitable catastrophe.�

Coastal First Nations have already declared a ban under their traditional laws on tankers carrying tar sands crude oil in their territorial waters. Federal legislation would demonstrate Parliament�s shared commitment to safeguarding the Pacific. There are currently no crude oil tankers travelling the inside waters of B.C.�s north and central coast.

�Since BP�s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and Enbridge�s catastrophic pipeline spill into the Kalamazoo River, confidence in the ability for Enbridge or anyone else to be able to respond effectively to an oil spill on our rocky coast is gone,� said Stephanie Goodwin, Greenpeace B.C. Director.

ForestEthics commissioned a poll in May 2010 by the Mustel Group that showed 80 percent of British Columbians support a ban on crude oil tankers.

In June, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff expressed commitment to a legislated oil tanker ban for British Columbia�s North coast. NDP Finn Donnelly currently has a private member�s bill on this issue. Federal Members of Parliament from the Liberal Party and NDP were at the Vancouver rally.

�Polling shows that support for an oil tanker ban stays strong across the political spectrum,� said Eric Swanson of Dogwood Initiative. �We expect legislation to be advanced in some form this fall, and local Conservative MPs will be hard pressed to defend their government if it stands in the way.�

The Vancouver rally was held in solidarity with a Kitimat rally where hundreds gathered outside the first National Energy Board public hearings on the pipelines proposal in British Columbia. Speakers at the event in opposition to Enbridge�s controversial proposal included several First Nations leaders, NDP MP Nathan Cullen and municipal leaders opposed to the project. First Nations from communities along the proposed pipeline and tanker routes had a strong presence at the Kitimat event.

For more information, contact:

High resolution digital photos available for download at http://www.flickr.com/photos/forestethics/sets/72157624851427374/

Broadcast quality video of the Kitimat event available by contacting 250-877-9745

Major US companies act to clean up their transportation footprints

Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Big news: Some of the world's most prominent brands recently took different actions to reduce the environmental and social impacts � including carbon emissions � that come from fossil-fueled transportation of their products.

Old news: Producing transportation fuel from Canada's Tar Sands is more destructive, polluting, and carbon intensive than other ways of producing fossil fuel.

As the world does the math to figure out what these two facts mean, here are some facts about the newest examples of the accelerating corporate shift toward a cleaner energy future:

Walgreens¹ has clearly decided to eliminate Canada's Tar Sands from its transportation footprint. Recent actions by Gap Inc.², Levi Strauss & Co.³, Timberland⁴ and FedEx⁵ are not specifically focused on Canada's Tar Sands, but they are relevant because fuels from Tar Sands are higher in carbon and other environmental and social impacts than conventional fuels. And each of these companies has said, in its own way, that it wants to reduce the environmental and social impacts of transporting products.

Though avoiding transportation fueled by Tar Sands is required for each of these companies to achieve that goal, we have never said that any of these companies are boycotting Canada's Tar Sands. The term �boycott� was used erroneously by The Canadian Press (CP) in its first report of the news, and CP has now admitted the error.⁶

We look forward to speaking with more companies about their consumption of high carbon fuels such as those from Canada's Tar Sands. We are confident that more companies � in their own way � will follow the leadership examples of Walgreens, Gap Inc., Levi Strauss & Co., Timberland and FedEx.

¹ http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/more-major-us-corporations-join-boycott-of-alberta-oilsands-fuel-101600508.html

²"As part of Gap Inc.'s commitment to reduce its overall environmental footprint, and to guide its selection of transportation providers, we have asked potential transportation providers who want to work with Gap Inc. to provide some details about what they are doing � or planning to do � to eliminate high carbon-intensive fuels." � Company email to customers, August 27, 2010.

³"Levi Strauss & Co. informed all transportation providers that we will give preference to low-carbon fuels and transportation services with lower-than-normal greenhouse gas footprints and environmental and social impacts." � Company email to ForestEthics, August 24, 2010.

⁴ http://www.earthkeeper.com/blog/corporate-social-responsibility/reducing-emissions-not-boycotting-fuel/

⁵ http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/26082010/2/biz-finance-major-u-s-corporations-join-boycott-alberta-oilsands.html

⁶ http://www.oilweek.com/news.asp?ID=29653

CBC News -- U.S. businesses join anti-oilsands campaign

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Excerpted from CBC News�read the full article here:

Four more major U.S. companies have joined a movement to boycott or at least reduce the use of fuels made from oilsands crude.

Walgreens, with its 7,500 drugstores, says it's switching fuel suppliers for its delivery trucks.

And The Gap, Timberland and Levi Strauss have all told their transportation contractors they will give preference to those who avoid oilsands fuels.

The group Forest Ethics, which has offices in Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco and Bellingham, Wash., is behind the campaign aimed at pressuring the petroleum industry and the Alberta government to reduce the oilsands' impact on the environment.

Read the full article >>

Environmental Organizations to CANFOR: Do Not Sell Howe Sound Pulp and Paper to Global Logging Villain SINAR MAS

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 00:00:00 PDT

(VANCOUVER) � ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Sierra Club B.C. and Canopy are alarmed by Canfor Forest Product�s decision to sell its Howe Sound Pulp and Paper operation to Paper Excellence BV, the Netherlands-based unit of Indonesia�s Sinar Mas Group. In a letter to Canfor, the environmental organizations are urging the company to not sell Howe Sound Pulp and Paper to Paper Excellence, but instead explore alternative ownership scenarios.

Sinar Mas, in particular its pulp and paper arm Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), is known globally for massive environmental destruction for palm oil and pulp and paper, including logging intact rainforests and peatland, wiping out Orangutan habitat, human rights violations and financial scandals in Indonesia. Internationally, environmental and human rights organizations have condemned Sinar Mas operations. In July 2010 a group of 40 non-governmental organizations released an open letter to the marketplace alerting any company doing business with APP that this would pose a serious risk to their respective brands. Greenpeace International has a major marketplace boycott campaign against Sinar Mas/APP.

�Sinar Mas represents everything we are working against in B.C. and other parts of the world: rainforest destruction, use of violence against Aboriginal people and unbridled corporate greed,� said Jens Wieting, forest campaigner with Sierra Club BC.

�We have a global responsibility and should not be inviting companies who apply �worst practices� in other parts of the world into Canada,� said Will Craven, Media Officer at ForestEthics.

�Sinar Mas or any of its paper tiger companies setting up shop in BC is a problem. They need to clean up their act abroad by stopping the destruction of natural Indonesian rainforests for pulp and paper and palm oil. We cannot risk Sinar Mas bringing what they consider business-as-usual practices to British Columbia,� said Stephanie Goodwin, Greenpeace B.C. Director.

Howe Sound Pulp and Paper�s joint owners, Canada's Canfor Forest Products and Oji Paper Co Ltd. of Japan, agreed in July to sell the operation to Paper Excellence / Sinar Mas for an undisclosed price. Finalising the deal could take until October. Howe Sound Pulp and Paper is the Dutch company�s second purchase in BC this year, in what an industry publication has described as a �buying spree.�

The open letter on APP to the marketplace by 40 organizations can be found here:  http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/forests-and-wilderness/APP-Letter

Enbridge's Michigan oil spill

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Crews are scrambling to clean up the 3.3 million litre oil spill in Michigan that has flowed into the Kalamazoo River caused by an Enbridge pipeline leak.

Enbridge is the same energy corporation that is proposing the Northern Gateway pipeline project that would plow through British Columbia and bring over 200 tankers to the pristine coast of British Columbia. The Michigan oil spill only validates the concerns of Coastal First Nations along the coast and the 80% of British Columbians that oppose the Northern Gateway project: First Nations slam Enbridge for the Michigan oil spill (Canadian Press).

"The company has promised again and again that it will have the best technology for Northern Gateway (see an ad example in the Vancouver Sun here) and that it would be able to tell within five minutes if there was a leak and shut it off," says ForestEthics Senior Energy Campaigner Nikki Skuce (Vancouver Sun). "With this latest spill, Enbridge is effectively making its own argument against the Northern Gateway Pipeline" (Calgary Herald and Canoe.ca).

As Canadian geese get covered in black grease and dead fish float to the oil-slicked surface (photos here), Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel claims that "he would take the learnings [sic] (from the Michigan oil spill accident) and apply them to the operation of the (Northern Gateway) pipeline" (Edmonton Journal).

Michigan oil spill shows B.C. that Enbridge can't be trusted

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Vancouver � Enbridge's devastating spill in south-central Michigan will undermine the company's credibility and strengthen grassroots opposition to the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, say campaigners with ForestEthics.

On Monday, the 30-inch Enbridge Lakehead pipeline carrying crude oil from Indiana to Ontario suffered an underground break in Michigan. At least 3 million litres of crude oil leaked into a nearby creek and flowed into the Kalamazoo River. It is being called the largest environmental disaster in the history of the Midwest.

�With this latest spill, Enbridge is effectively making its own argument against the Northern Gateway Pipeline,� said Nikki Skuce, Senior Energy Campaigner with ForestEthics.

Enbridge spokesman Alan Roth was quoted in a northern B.C. newspaper recently saying, ��pipelines don't effect or impact any watersheds as they don't emit anything or take anything in.�

�Enbridge makes bold promises of safety but it looks more like they're promising us a big disaster,� said Skuce. �More and more British Columbians are going to be looking at the impact of recent oil spills and deciding they don't want northwest B.C. to act as a tar sands transportation corridor.�

Michigan authorities are criticizing Enbridge's response to the oil spill. Congressman Mark Schauer said Enbridge was �slow to respond� and Governor Jennifer Granholm called the oil company�s response �anemic�.

�A private citizen in Michigan smelled oil and reported the spill to authorities,� said Skuce. �If this had occurred in the remote mountains of Northwest B.C., an even greater amount of oil would have likely spilled before Enbridge even discovered the problem.�

The National Energy Board reports that for every 1,000 kilometres of large diameter pipeline in Canada there is a major rupture every 16 years. The proposed Northern Gateway pipeline would run 1,250 kilometres long from the tar sands to a port in Kitimat.

In January, an Enbridge pipeline in North Dakota spilled 504,000 litres of crude oil into a nearby stream. Last year, the company was fined $1.1 million for over 500 environmental violations related to pipeline construction in Wisconsin.

Enbridge filed its application with the National Energy Board for the Northern Gateway pipeline in May. Preliminary hearings are set to begin in August.

Federal Liberal support for B.C. oil tanker ban applauded

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Environmental groups are praising Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party of Canada for their commitment today to formalize the oil tanker ban in British Columbia. Such a ban would prevent crude oil tankers from traveling through BC�s Central and North Coast.

�Michael Ignatieff�s announcement to formalize the ban on oil tankers is precisely the kind of leadership we need on this issue. We thank him for making the commitment to ensure that the marine life, people, and economy of coastal BC is protected from catastrophic oil spills,� says Jennifer Lash, Executive Director of the Living Oceans Society.

Last month, Enbridge filed its application for the Northern Gateway Pipeline, which would carry tar sands oil to a supertanker port at Kitimat and bring 225 oil tankers per year to B.C.�s North Coast. Environmental groups, including Dogwood Initiative, Forest Ethics, Living Oceans Society, and West Coast Environmental Law have been calling for a permanent, legislated ban on crude oil tankers to protect the coast from oil spills.

�The only way we can ensure that the ban on tankers is strong enough to withstand pressure from oil companies is to formalize it through permanent legislation,� says Josh Paterson, Staff Lawyer at West Coast Environmental Law. �With today�s announcement, we believe there is enough support among all opposition parties in the House of Commons to make this happen soon. As Liberal leader, Mr. Ignatieff can play a pivotal role in passing legislation to ban tankers.�

Support for a ban on oil tankers has risen since the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. A poll conducted in May 2010 by the Mustel Group showed that 80 percent of British Columbians support a ban on crude oil tankers.

�The images of oil drenching the shorelines from the BP spill have reminded British Columbians how fortunate we are to have an oil-free coast,� stated Nikki Skuce Senior Energy Campaigner at ForestEthics. �With today�s announcement by the Liberal Party of Canada, we are one step closer to giving the people of B.C. what they have wanted for a long time: a legislated ban on oil tankers.�

Coastal First Nations have already declared a ban under their traditional laws on oil tankers in their territorial waters. Federal legislation would demonstrate Parliament�s shared commitment to safeguarding the Pacific. There are currently no crude oil tankers travelling the inside waters of B.C.�s north and central coast.

�In light of the Liberal announcement today, Enbridge should formally withdraw their proposal to build a pipeline to Kitimat,� added Eric Swanson, Corporate Campaigner at the Dogwood Initiative. �It is a waste of time and taxpayers� money to conduct a review of this project if the will of Parliament is to enact a permanent tanker ban.�

Media Roundup: US city stands with companies against Tar Sands

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:00:00 PDT

An example of the notorious "Tar Sands PR machine." Like peanut butter? Seriously?

The resolution passed last week by the Bellingham, Washington city council was the latest in a series of actions taken by companies or municipalities to address their use of fuel from Canada's controversial Tar Sands. Passed by a unanimous 7-0 vote, the resolution resolves to find lower carbon alternatives to Tar Sands and other fuels, and decrease overall fossil fuel consumption.

The Canadian press took notice of this latest signal of an increasingly uncertain marketplace for the Tar Sands south of the border. The Globe & Mail noted that the resolution was "another volley fired at the oil sands over their emissions profile", while CBC TV went down to the city to talk to residents and local politicians. The Province took a dim view of the anti-Tar Sands movement and the effort by Bellingham to mind its carbon footprint, but quoted our own energy campaigner, Nikki Skuce, as saying that "cities and companies are not buying Canada's Tar Sands PR machine". At left, check out a ridiculous example this "PR machine" >>

"As It Happens," a widely-syndicated radio program of CBC Radio interviewed resolution sponsor Jack Weiss, who talked of Bellingham's tragic history with oil. Listen to it here:

CBC Radio also interviewed Weiss on a separate news program, while CBC World found Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach desperately trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Or is that oil out of dirt? MetroNews Calgary also quoted the Premier, while the Edmonton Journal noted that the Bellingham resolution expressed concern over the health impacts of Tar Sands operations in Alberta.

The Tyee quoted Nikki talking about starting down the path to a clean energy future, while Vancouver weekly Georgia Straight found the mayor of North Vancouver "quite impressed" with the action taken down south.

FIRST MUNICIPALITY TO SHUN TAR SANDS

Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Vancouver, BC � The city of Bellingham, Washington has resolved to avoid fuel from refineries connected to the tar sands, becoming the first city in North America to take action against the controversial fossil fuel.

Last night Bellingham�s city council unanimously passed two resolutions with the aim of eliminating tar sands in their fleet and moving toward a transition off of fossil fuels. The resolution explicitly cited the carbon and other environmental impacts from the tar sands, including �permanent damage to Canada�s Boreal forest ecosystem and the Athabasca River ecosystem, destruction of scarce freshwater [and] generation of toxic waste.�

Bellingham has served as one of two major entry points for tar sands (the other is Billings, Montana), and its anti-tar sands resolutions emphasize the challenges facing Canada�s dirty oil in the United States as details spread of its impact on local and global communities.

�The tar sands industry saw BP�s oil rig blow out as a blessing � spinning it as a cleaner, safer option to off-shore drilling�, said Nikki Skuce, ForestEthics Senior Energy Campaigner. �Bellingham�s resolutions as well as actions taken by Fortune 500 companies show that cities and companies are not buying Canada�s tar sands PR machine.�

The second resolution looks to �progressively shift its operations and consumption away from fossil fueled transportation, particularly transportation fueled by high carbon fuels such as those derived from Canadian tar sands�, and to meet its climate change commitments.

The Bellingham resolution mirrors actions taken by corporate America at the request of ForestEthics. To date, ten major US companies have taken action to reduce or eliminate Canada�s tar sands in their transportation footprints. ForestEthics announced action by two of these companies � Whole Foods and Bed Bath & Beyond � in February. Public announcement of actions taken by other Fortune 500 companies is expected sometime this summer.

�It�s time for our governments to drop PR campaigns and face the growing market concerns,� said Skuce. �Leadership from cities like Bellingham and companies like Whole Foods to transition off dirty oil can help catalyze the change that�s needed for a clean energy future.�

Enbridge files BC crude oil plan as Gulf turns black

Thu, 27 May 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Vancouver, BC � Enbridge is steamrolling ahead with its plan for a Tar Sands pipeline and crude oil tankers on the BC coast, despite strong public opposition.

The company filed its application for the controversial Northern Gateway mega-project today with the National Energy Board.

"We are extremely disappointed Enbridge has chosen to ignore the majority of British Columbians and coastal First Nations. Eight in ten British Columbians do not want crude oil tanker traffic in their coastal waters," said Nikki Skuce, Senior Energy Campaigner with ForestEthics. "This is an inherently unsustainable project that places BC's spectacular coast at imminent risk of a major oil spill."

"We are going to see an unprecedented uprising against this project," added Skuce. "Enbridge wants to turn a blind eye to the environmental conflict they're creating, but opposition to this project is widespread and people are not going to let it happen."

Skuce noted that Enbridge chose to file at a time when the southeast US is bracing for the devastating impacts of the BP oil spill.

"The Gulf spill is a turning point for all risky oil development projects. Enbridge's proposal is the way of the past, not the way of the future."

Enbridge's filing kicks off a federal review process that could take years.

"The National Energy Board review is a process run by the oil industry for the oil industry. It approves 99 percent of the projects it reviews and none of the panel members are from the region. How can communities place any faith that this process will protect their coast?" questioned Skuce.

Enbridge is proposing to bring oil supertankers into the same waters where the BC ferry Queen of the North sank in 2006.

Saturday, residents of Northwest BC will join First Nations in Kitamaat Village for a major gathering aimed at re-affirming opposition to the Enbridge project.

CFAX Radio -- "Straight Talk" about Enbridge pipeline proposals

Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 PDT

ForestEthics' Sr. Energy Campaigner, Nikki Skuce, talks about the overwhelming opposition to the proposed Enbridge pipelines in BC. Specifically, she discusses a recent Mustel poll. The poll�s key findings:

80 percent of British Columbians support a crude oil tanker ban for BC�s coastal waters, while 15 percent think tanker traffic should be allowed.
Significantly more British Columbians oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline (51 percent), than support it (34 percent).
British Columbians who strongly oppose Enbridge�s pipeline (31.7 percent) outnumber strong supporters (8.1 percent) nearly four to one.

Listen to the interview:

10.05.26_Nikki_CFAX_Poll.mp3

Opposition to BC oil tankers on the rise

Wed, 26 May 2010 00:00:00 PDT

Vancouver, BC � The proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline faces tough political odds according to a new Mustel poll. The poll showed 80 percent of British Columbians support banning crude oil tankers in BC�s coastal waters, up from 72 percent in a similar 2008 poll.

Enbridge claims to be on the brink of filing its application for the pipeline, which would carry tar sands crude oil to a supertanker port in Kitimat, BC.

�This poll clearly confirms British Columbians are not willing to bear the inevitable risks of oil spills that supertankers would bring,� said Nikki Skuce, Senior Energy Campaigner with ForestEthics. �It is time to see this opposition translated into a full, legislated crude oil tanker ban for BC�s coastal waters.�

The poll�s key findings:

80 percent of British Columbians support a crude oil tanker ban for BC�s coastal waters, while 15 percent think tanker traffic should be allowed.
Significantly more British Columbians oppose the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline (51 percent), than support it (34 percent).
British Columbians who strongly oppose Enbridge�s pipeline (31.7 percent) outnumber strong supporters (8.1 percent) nearly four to one.

�As the devastating impacts of the Gulf oil spill come to light, more and more British Columbians will be saying they don�t want to risk that kind of disaster on our fragile BC coast,� said Skuce. �If Enbridge pushes ahead despite this clear message from the people of BC, they will see an escalating campaign against their project and their brand.�

If built, Enbridge�s pipeline would see an estimated 225 oil tankers per year traveling the same waters where in 2006 the BC ferry Queen of the North ran aground and sank.

In March, nine coastal First Nations declared a ban under their traditional laws on the transport of tar sands oil through their territories.

�First Nations have taken the lead in protecting our coast and this poll shows the majority of British Columbians similarly support such protection. It is time for our federal and provincial parties to step up and follow their lead,� said Skuce.

In recent months both ForestEthics and Dogwood Initiative have taken their message door-to-door in key federal ridings in the Lower Mainland and Greater Victoria areas.

The poll results released today are part of a Mustel Group omnibus random telephone survey of 500 British Columbians in May 2010. Results on a sample size of 500 random surveys are considered accurate to within +/- 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

ForestEthics, a nonprofit with staff in Canada and the United States, recognizes that individual people can be mobilized to create positive environmental change�and so can corporations. Armed with this unique philosophy, ForestEthics has secured the protection of more than 65 million acres (25 million hectares) of Endangered Forests.

Mustel Poll_1.pdf

Grist -- Todd Paglia: Big companies help do something right in Canadian forest deal

Fri, 21 May 2010 00:00:00 PDT

My first job in the social change movement was working for Ralph Nader. I was a lawyer, one of Nader's Raiders. Not in the '70s when it was cool and people actually knew what that was, but in the '90s, when it was decidedly not cool and my mother was sure I had lost my mind. I left my high-paying K Street law firm to make less than half as much, traded my fancy office for a dingy cubical with walls made from boxes of books and stacks of old newspapers. What other evidence of my insanity did my mother, who grew up poor in upstate New York, need?

Like many Americans, I am not fond of large concentrations of unaccountable power. And in my work as a young lawyer, I was out to get The Man. For me, that meant big companies. They exert far too much control over our government, gamble our money (the "free market"), expect our tax dollars to bail them out ("too big to fail"), deceive us about the effects their products have on our health (are cell phones the new tobacco?), and mislead us with greenwash. I could go on...

All of which makes it more surprising that my work now, while still challenging big companies, involves an awful lot of collaborations with those same beasts.

This week ForestEthics, Canopy, Greenpeace Canada, and our allies, along with some of the biggest logging companies in the boreal forests of Canada, announced the largest conservation initiative in history. The stats are mind-boggling: nearly 70 million acres of woodland caribou habitat, an area the size of Colorado, off limits to logging for three years, while 175 million acres, an area the size of Texas, go into a comprehensive land-use planning process. That's a fancy term meaning a process that determines which areas must be permanently protected, and which areas can be logged in a selective and sustainable manner.

This matters for a lot more than just caribou. These forests are so immense that the clean air and pure water they produce keep millions of people healthy and provide tens of thousands of jobs. Beyond that, the 186 billion tons of carbon stored in Canada's boreal forests is equivalent to 27 years' worth of global carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. We need to keep as much of these forests standing as possible -- for all of us.

We have a truce with the logging industry, but neither side of this agreement makes the final decisions here: that is up to First Nations governments and provincial governments in Canada. In other words, our truce is subservient to the aboriginal and provincial authorities that control the actual land base. This is a key underpinning of the accord.

How did we get to this point?

Many players have toiled away for many years to research the science, create the funding, and support seemingly endless negotiations that were often held together by just a thread. Our part in creating this historic initiative has been bringing the power of the U.S. marketplace to the table. And we've done that side-by-side with Canopy and Greenpeace Canada.

With half of Canada's boreal forests being logged to make paper, and much of that going to feed the U.S.'s insatiable demand, pressuring big paper consumers like Victoria's Secret, Scholastic, and Kimberly-Clark to steer clear of the boreal and demand greener options was critical. In fact, that pressure was one of the primary drivers of this agreement.

Canopy, for example, has led a quiet revolution in book, magazine, and newspaper publishing by greening some of the largest-selling publishers and titles in the world, including the Harry Potter juggernaut. Greenpeace Canada waged a hard-hitting campaign against Kimberly-Clark for using old growth boreal trees to make toilet paper -- and more importantly, they both forged a solution to their conflict with a better balance between environmental and financial matters. At ForestEthics, we have been working not only to shift Victoria Secret's massive paper purchases away from boreal caribou habitat, but also doing the same with some of the largest buyers of paper in the world: Staples, Office Depot, FedEx Office, and literally dozens of other Fortune 500 companies.

All of this pressure -- hundreds of millions of dollars of purchasing power -- over the course of many years was aimed at creating a space for a real negotiation. And two years ago it started: The leader of the Forest Products Association of Canada basically asked then ForestEthics Campaign Director Tzeporah Berman what it would take for the market pressure to go away. Our reply: A lot. So it began.

And still, even after this deal has been reached, we're at the beginning, not the end. The boreal is not "saved," but there is a framework in place that may just succeed in protecting some of the most critical areas of this globally important forest. While outreach began with First Nations and provincial governments months ago, a lot of work is needed to collaborate on land-use decisions for this agreement to move forward.

Our work on this issue started in 2001. Without some of the largest companies in the world lending their purchasing power toward a greener direction for the boreal, we would not be here today. Quite a few of these companies had to be pressured into moving more quickly -- but to their credit, they were able to move past their conflicts with activist groups toward real collaboration. And many more companies wanted to be part of this change from the beginning, and used their market power to great effect.

So here I am, 15 years after signing up as one of Nader's Raiders, and I am still swimming in a sea of corporate power. I have come to better understand the people at these companies. It shouldn't have been a shocking discovery, but I learned that we share some key core values. I didn't believe that back in 1995.

I know there will be challenges reaching our goals, and much of this depends upon decisions that will ultimately be made by aboriginal and provincial governments. And the pressure from big paper-buying companies wanting green products that helped get us to this point will be even more essential to getting this deal done.

Corporate power is still all too often used to benefit the few at the expense of the rest of us. But it is nice to know that at times it can be applied toward the greater good.