Every tree killed equals another life lost.

Is there or is there not a tropical forest crisis? What statistics or examples can you cite to support your view?

Make no mistake: the destruction of our planet's rain forests is a crisis, and it's not getting better. Biologist Norman Myers calculates that humans are now clearing 1.2 acres of tropical rain forest every second - the area of a football field. Our species also destroys an equal amount by activities that significantly degrade the forest without completely clearing it.

On an annual basis, that adds up to an area larger than Italy. Myers determined that since the late 1970s, the destruction has been accelerating about 2 percent a year. At current rates, nearly all tropical rain forest ecosystems will be destroyed by the year 2030.

Tropical deforestation may severely restrict global climate. Deforestation disrupts the water cycle, increases reflection of sunlight and releases large amounts of carbon. These local effects could lead to wind and rainfall disruptions far from the tropics. If enough carbon is dumped into the atmosphere, a greenhouse effect may melt the polar ice caps and flood the world's coasts.

Biologist Edward O. Wilson calculates that 50,000 tropical rain forest species a year go extinct. The primary cause of extinction is habitat destruction: When habitat is reduced, species disappear.

Why should we care? Less than 1 percent of all rain forest species have been chemically analyzed. Yet, one species alone - Madagascar's rosy periwinkle - is the source of 80 alkaloids used to treat leukemia and Hodgkin's disease. Of all the plants the National Cancer Institute identities as having anti-cancer properties, 70 percent are found only in the rain forest.

In 1991, scientists isolated a substance from a Malaysian gum tree that blocked the spread of AIDS in human cells. They rushed back to the forest for more samples, but they could find no more of the tree.

As we eliminate species, we also eliminate the hosts for microbes that lived within those species. These microbes may find in our own species their next home. Some may have done so already, causing new and unexplained diseases.

This is just a small part of the destabilization that is occurring. We actually risk our own extinction. We are tearing away at the web of life that supports us and all living things. We must stop soon, or the price will be incalculable.

Numerous surveys we have seen indicate that the practice of slash and burn to clear land for agriculture, cattle raising and mining plays a far greater role in the loss of rainforests than logging does. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?

No. This statement is misleading in three ways.

First, the timber industry uses deforestation data selectively to diminish the impact of commercial forestry. World Bank and UN Development Program figures show tropical broadleaf logging of 13.8 million acres annually during the 1980s - about a quarter of the direct rain forest destruction (clearing plus degradation) in that decade. However, logging is the primary cause of rain forest destruction because it opens up millions of acres to subsequent activities like mining and ranching.

Logging roads also give access to the rural poor to gather fuel-wood or settle and clear the land for agriculture. Many of these are people whose previous livelihood have been disrupted by logging. The World Resources Institute reports that logged-over land is eight times more likely than unlogged land to be deforested for agriculture or other uses.

Second, the majority of U.S. tropical timber imports comes from Southeast Asia, where logging is the number-one cause of deforestation. Consider the two main tropical-timber exporting nations. In Indonesia, logging affects four times the rain forest area cleared by subsistence farmers. In Malaysia, subsistence farmers degrade 9,000 acres of forest annually, which in minute compared to the 775,000 acres is logged by the timber industry each year.

Third, what kind of defense is it for the timber industry simply to say it's not the whole problem. It's the equivalent of: "I'm not guilty, your honor. My accomplices fired more shots than I did." Lame.

Within what parameters should tropical hardwood harvesting be allowed?

Theoretically, we may be able to create guidelines for ecologically sustainable tropical-timber extraction. Many groups have adopted this as their mandate.

In reality, however, wherever the industry operates, it degrades biological and cultural values. A study for the International Tropical Timber Organization by botanist Duncan Poore concluded that only one-eighth of 1 percent of tropical timber operations can be considered sustainable. Looking for sustainably produced tropical timbers is like looking for a match stick in a lumber yard.

Efforts to reform forestry practices and develop standards for sustainable forestry are a step in the right direction, but they are grossly insufficient to halt the large-scale destruction caused by timber extraction.

All the attention focused on the "less than 1 percent solution" provides a false sense of security that the problem is being fixed. The truth is that consumption of tropical hardwoods continues to soar, destroying millions more acres of pristine tropical rain forest each year. After 10 years of attempting to reform the industry, we must recognize the obstacles to policing profit-driven corporations in remote regions. instead, we call for a halt to industrial logging in tropical rain forests.

There are alternatives. The industrialized world can reduce its consumption of wood, employ alternative fibers and extract timber from sources other than ancient primary forests.

With the exception of timber produced by community-based forestry operations which meet rigid, certified criteria of sustainable logging, RAN calls for a complete boycott of tropical rain forest woods.

Last fall environmental groups including RAN lobbied to place mahogany on an endangered species list developed by CITES, the Convention on International Trade & Endangered Species. Placement on this list would have restricted the availability of mahogany. IHPA and others successfully lobbied against the listing. How do you defend your position?

The timber industry defeated the CITES proposal by just three votes. Countries like Mexico, Costa Rica and Guatemala, whose mahogany is nearly gone, strongly supported the proposal.

Placing this one species, Latin American mahogany, on CITES Appendix II would have curtailed its rampant illegal logging and possibly helped to keep it from going commercially extinct. By defeating the CITES proposal, the industry is depleting its own future supplies. Cuban and African mahogany species are already commercially extinct because of uncontrolled logging. When CITES meets again in two years, it may be too late for Latin American mahogany.

The need to curb mahogany trade is even more clear when you consider that mahogany extraction destroys the forest and illegally intrudes on indigenous peoples' land. The majority of Latin American mahogany exported from Brazil and Bolivia originates unlawfully from indigenous lands and protected conservation areas. Many experts report that this species is no longer commercially extractable from legally accessible forests, so protected areas are the only profitable mahogany stands left to exploit.

This often results in violent conflict. In some cases, indigenous people who opposed loggers have been murdered. The Korubo, Flecheiros, Tikuna, Awa-guaja, Zoro, Mura-Praha, Guapore and Uru Eu Wan tribes have all had people die at the hands of loggers.

The demand for mahogany and the high price it commands have encouraged illegal loggers. The U.S. and British importers who make up about 80 percent of the mahogany market have largely refused to take responsibility for their role. Their complicity with illegal logging has led global environmental groups to call for a moratorium on mahogany logging.

This "Mahogany is Murder" campaign in gaining momentum. Environmental groups are targeting furniture stores, lumberyards and importers of the wood. European activists have raided furniture stores, symbolically seizing "stolen" mahogany furniture and handing it over to authorities. In the U.S., activists picketed and blockaded Thompson Mahogany in Philadelphia after tracing that company's shipments to illegal sources in Brazil.

The U.S. is the largest consumer of this wood. The U.S. government and the timber industry have failed to take actions to protect the future survival of this species. They have also ignored the cultural, social and ecological impact of the mahogany trade on the Amazon.

It is now up to the U.S. public, woodworkers, designers and architects to help stop this tragedy and help protect these tropical forests and the peoples who depend on them. Remember, our furniture means their lives. Stop using tropical woods that originate from ecological and culturally devastating sources.

To what extent should U.S. manufacturers of furniture, architectural woodwork and other wood products be concerned about the harvesting of tropical forests? Which species, if any, should woodworkers refrain from using?

The U.S. is a major driver of tropical rain forest logging. We spend more on tropical hardwood than any other nation. U.S. wood users should know the disastrous impact of their consumption and they should demand alternatives.

Always ask the suppliers about the origin of the wood. If it comes from a tropical rain forest, assume it's causing destruction at the source - unless the supplier provides you with proof or certification that it has been ecologically extracted. Ecological considerations include environmental as well as social and cultural impacts.

Use less. The U.S., Japan and Europe consume the lion's share of the world's wood resources. Wherever possible, we need to eliminate the use of disposable wood products (like plywood forms for concrete). Other alternatives include domestic hardwoods and recycled building materials.

Remember that less than 1 percent is "good wood," which is really just "not-as-bad wood." Most Southeast Asian wood products (like lauan plywood, door skins, broom dowels, tool handles, paneling) found in your do-it-yourself store or lumberyard are unsustainably harvested and should be boycotted.

Remember, almost all leak (except for one plantation in Java) comes from Burma where the military junta is rapidly liquidating the nation's forests to buy weapons to oppress ethnic minorities. Remember, mahogany is murder (except for a single certified operation in Mexico) and is stolen from indigenous lands.

If you are looking for ecologically sound wood, demand lesser-known types. Exorbitant demand for about a dozen species of tropical timber is causing over-exploitation of those species. Most eco-forestry operations harvest other species which have similar or superior properties.

Do you have any closing remarks?

Over-consumption of wood products is driving industrial logging beyond tropical rain forests to equally fragile ecosystems like the boreal forests of Siberia or the ancient temperate rain forests of British Columbia.

Even more disturbing is the predicted rate of growth in global timber consumption, as demand/or wood grows in industrialized nations and developing countries. This forebodes ecological apocalypse, not a sustainable timber industry.

Rainforest Action Network believes the first step toward protecting the planet's forests is reducing the indiscriminate consumption of timber by industrialized nations. Here at home, we're launching a campaign to reduce U.S. wood and paper use by 75 percent within 10 years.

The root causes are in the North, not the South. Industrial economies are the problem. The rain forest is not the problem. The rain forest is the solution.

Rain forest Action Network works to protect the Earth's rain forests and support the rights of their inhabitants through grassroots education, organizing, and nonviolent direct action. Atossa Soltani is the Tropical-Timber Campaigner for RAN.