The editors of CD blew it. The report is classic corporate PR and CD apparently has no mechanism for, nor journalistic protocols for -- vetting specious claims. The fact is, GBR is a corporate brand, there are thousands of true environmental grassroots activists who know this: the "agreement" is a product of the Wrong Kind of Green and a manufactured consensus, arrived at by shake and bake groups like FE who are paid very well to stand-in as greenwashing corporate proxies.
"85%" is a sham unless everyone thinks "managing" a clearcut that has been stripped of 800 year old trees is a conservation victory.
The decade of delay for arriving at the definition of -- and implementing -- ecosystem based management advised by the Coastal Information Team saw an accelerated timber disposal program. There are already bears starving because the fall runs of chum salmon have failed, due to devastated habitat.
The stunning claim of "85%" is a logical fallacy and a physical impossibility. Anyone who is familiar with the decades of logging prior to the GBR getting branded by green washing agents of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Hewlett foundation etc., can offer a very different perspective.
The same thing is occurring on the Tongass National Forest where the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation has done and continue to do the same thing.
Just because billionaires have the ability to blanket media with PR fluff pieces doesn't mean we should fecklessly disseminate it.