In a surprise critique, the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore has lashed out at Leonardo DiCaprio’s climate change documentary The 11th Hour calling it the “latest climate-change rant” representing “another example of anti-forestry scare tactics“. Moore makes an interesting point of saying that old-growth forests are very poor at carbon sequestering, while young, newly planted trees consume and store CO2 at a much higher rate. He continues saying that “rather than cutting fewer trees and using less wood, DiCaprio and Berman ought to promote the growth of more trees and the use of more wood. That means we can then use less concrete, steel and plastic — heavy carbon emitters through their production.”

It’s a great argument for sustainable forestry; but unfortunately, Moore presents his case more as a nasty critic and less as a helpful reminder of alternative solutions. This line is especially biting: “[t]his film should be a good, clear reminder for us to put the science before the Hollywood hype.” Ouch. Hollywood hype? Did Moore only pause on the pretty pictures of DiCaprio and skip over the dozens of scientists, engineers, researchers, and other experts involved in the filming? Message boards are lighting up with responses firing back as well. Here are some of the highlights:

“But, while trees can act as carbon sponges, the activity to log these trees incurs a significant carbon cost. Furthermore, this assumes that the trees are made into furniture (and we’ll ignore the chemical processes that also pollute to stain and protect modern furniture) and isn’t burned or otherwise used in a way that releases the carbon. 11th Hour may be a polemic, but I’m not interested in attacking its message because I think it’s important for people to realize that their everyday decisions have a global effect.”

——

“Vancouver Island is one of the most beautiful places on earth and I’d hate to see that beauty disappear just so I can have higher quality paper in my laser printer.”

——

“The lumber companies don’t just go in and take what they need, they will plow through an area, completely destroying all the trees that are there, taking only the few that they want and leaving a big mess behind. If they would just go in and cut down only what they need, leaving the rest still intact and planting new trees where they removed the old ones, the forests could remain intact longer and their deforestation wouldn’t be such an eyesore. I’m no environmentalist, but this bothers me a great deal.”

So, I respect the guys decision to make a suggestion about proper forest management, but I don’t see the point in destroying gorgeous old-growth forest (which is becoming increasingly rare on this planet) for the sake of carbon sequestering. I would imagine we could come up with more creative solutions than screwing with Mother Nature even more to correct our mistakes. Hit the jump for more. 

Categories: Film/TV.

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →