Partly as a result of this sudden about-face, the international community remains in complete confusion regarding global policy on forests and forestry. I believe this is because the environmental movements position is misleading, illogical, and most important, inconsistent with their more reasonable policies on climate change and biodiversity. In fact, their forestry policy is diametrically opposed to their policies in these other areas and is therefore an anti-environmental policy. They are wrong on the facts on both these charges. This only makes sense as the whole purpose of forestry is to grow trees, i.e. to keep the land forested.
Forestry causes reforestation, the opposite of deforestation.
Both the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have stated that logging is the main cause of species extinction. Yet they are unable to provide the Latin name of a single species that has gone extinct due to forestry. The truth is, species extinctions are generally caused by deforestation, hunting, and introduced species of predators and disease, not by forestry. I don't know their precise motivation, but consider the question from another angle. Based on these two false allegations, the movement has adopted a policy that would see a major reduction in the use of forests as a supply of wood.