By Richard Garneau
Thursday, March 02, 2017
A few years ago Greenpeace and allied groups chose my
company, Resolute, Canada’s largest forest-products company, to be their next
victim.
They compiled a litany of outlandish assertions: We were
“forest destroyers,” for example, aggravating climate change, and causing a
“caribou death spiral and extinction” in Canada’s boreal habitat. Greenpeace
harassed companies we do business with, threatening them with the same sort of
smear campaign that they launched against us and even instigating cyber-attacks
on their websites. And they bragged about the damage — $100 million, in
Canadian dollars — that they claimed to have inflicted on our business.
They were lying about our forestry practices, so we did
something that none of the group’s other targets have yet found the wherewithal
to do: We sued them, in Canada, for defamation and intentional interference
with economic relations, and in the United States under RICO statutes.
A funny thing happened when Greenpeace and allies were
forced to account for their claims in court. They started changing their tune.
Their condemnations of our forestry practices “do not hew to strict literalism
or scientific precision,” as they concede in their latest legal filings. Their
accusations against Resolute were instead “hyperbole,” “heated rhetoric,” and
“non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion” that should not be taken
“literally” or expose them to any legal liability. These are sober admissions
after years of irresponsible attacks.
No “forest loss” was caused by Resolute, the groups
concede — now that they are being held accountable. Of course, these late
admissions are consistent with the findings of just about every independent
journalist and commentator who has covered the dispute, from the Wall Street Journal editorial board to Enquête, a Canadian version, roughly, of
60 Minutes. Even Steve Forbes weighed
in, calling our lawsuit “an outstanding example of how unfairly attacked
companies should respond.” Peter Reich, one of the world’s leading forest
ecologists, has said that Greenpeace has “a fundamental disregard for scientific
reality.”
Finally hearing the truth from Greenpeace itself is
vindication, even if it comes in the form of a tortured defense of its actions,
rather than a simple apology. Remarkably, despite admitting in court that its
rhetoric against Resolute is not true, Greenpeace continues to disparage us
publicly and privately. Just a few weeks ago, we sent it a cease-and-desist
letter demanding that it stop sending to our customers threatening letters
accusing us of the “destruction of forests in Quebec and Ontario.”
Some news outlets in the United States have filed amicus
briefs on behalf of Greenpeace, on free-speech grounds. But freedom of speech
is not the same as libel and slander. And the public should ask the outlets
when it can expect scrutinizing, critical coverage of what Greenpeace itself
now admits are deceptive practices.
More than a billion trees. That’s how many Resolute’s
workers have planted in Ontario’s boreal forest, in addition to the hundreds of
millions that workers have planted in Quebec. Yet for years now, the
eco-provocateurs at Greenpeace have been raising money off the calculated
mistruths that we are somehow “responsible for the destruction of vast areas of
forest.”
So far they have acted with virtual impunity and profited
handsomely. One Greenpeace executive was even caught laughing on camera when he
was confronted on a leading broadcast program with photos of a forest, affected
by a wildfire, that the group erroneously said was “destroyed” by Resolute. It
was morally wrong and yet another example that, as Greenpeace puts it, “heated
rhetoric is the coin of the realm.”
For me, confronting this barrage of misinformation has
been more than just about business ethics. It is very personal. I was raised in
Quebec’s Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean region, where my family has lived for
generations. I harvested trees by hand to pay my way through school. Now 50
years later, those forest areas are again ready for harvest, and someday I will
retire to this same land that my great-grandfather tilled.
Greenpeace is marauding not just our company but a way of
life, one built on nurturing healthy forests that are the lifeblood of the
people who live there. That’s why union leaders, small-business people, First
Nations chiefs, and mayors and other government officials, of all political
stripes, have written Greenpeace, imploring it to halt its campaign of
misinformation. In nearly every instance, Greenpeace lacked the simple decency
to respond, apparently indifferent to the human consequences of its actions.
Last summer, nearly 5,000 people marched through the
streets of the small northern Quebec town of Saint-Félicien, demanding an end
to Greenpeace’s disingenuous market campaign. Recognizing that the very
viability of their communities are now held in the balance, local leaders have
even “extended a hand” for eco-activists to have a dialogue with them. It is
telling that Greenpeace neither showed up nor responded.
As a chief executive, I often meet and engage personally
with our devoted employees at the local level, in the forests where they live
and work. I know we share a common interest and a responsibility to sustain the
forests for tomorrow. That’s why we’re not going to let Greenpeace get away
with using “rhetorical hyperbole” to make false and damaging accusations from
hundreds and thousands of miles away, in its glass-walled towers in Amsterdam,
Hamburg, and Washington, D.C.
We’re going to stand tall, both in public discourse and
in the courts. For my part, my guiding hope is to return to the forest with the
ability to face my neighbors, my family, and my community and tell them that I
stood up and told the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment