Amidst allegations that aid funds have been misappropriated and embezzled, the Norwegian government announced that it would suspend funds to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for a project in Tanzania with immediate effect. The news comes as a major blow to WWF who have portrayed themselves to governments around the globe as a sound – and impartial – manager of funds for environmental initiatives. On these pages we have long protested that WWF’s interest in global aid has been motivated by green greed. It’s now clear to everyone that their ideological motivation has also distracted them from accountability and financial management. Given that WWF manages hundreds of millions of dollars worth of aid projects for the European Commission, British government, and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the organization will struggle to simply dismiss these allegations as a one-off.
When such scandalous oversight occurs, radical solutions must be immediately put in place. Until WWF cleans up its act and every single source of its government funding is rigorously audited and examined, governments and global institutions must take steps ensure that taxpayers’ money doesn’t slip through WWF’s lax standards and into the wrong hands. A funding moratorium must be implemented as soon as possible. WWF has repeatedly used its benign image to extract money from governments and business in order to attack global trade initiatives and real policies to alleviate poverty. It’s now clear for all to see: WWF’s involvement is doing much more harm than good. Western taxpayers deserve better. But most importantly, so do the needy people in the developing world.
Why WWF’s Earth Day is a Scam
It’s that time of year again. On March 31, radical environmentalists will guilt trip the rest of us to unplug our electrical items and turn off the lights for an hour so we can see how it feels to live like a North Korean. Since its founding in 2007, “Earth Hour” has grown in popularity, primarily because anti-capitalist campaigners WWF, one of its founding organizations, has done an excellent job of fooling people into believing that turning off the lights for an hour is actually helping the environment. Ostensibly, the goal of ‘Earth Hour’ is to encourage “individuals, businesses and governments around the world to take positive actions for the environment, and celebrating their commitment to the planet by switching off their lights for one designated hour.” However, the campaign may actually do more harm than good.
According to the UK’s Daily Telegraph, ‘Earth Hour’ will have no positive impact on the environment because even “if power stations are turned off, the upsurge in turning the lights back on one hour later will require power stations that can fire up quickly like oil and coal.” In fact, it could “therefore result in an increase in carbon emissions ‘rendering all good intentions useless at a flick of a switch’.” Instead there should be a campaign for people around the world to celebrate the exceptional feats achieved through affordable energy. Without energy, some of the world’s poorest people would still be living in horrific conditions, unable to heat their homes or provide adequate sanitation. So if you want to celebrate something that will bring the world together, leave the lights on.
Greenpeace Opens Fire on Duke Energy
Just recently we issued a press release highlighting how Greenpeace was using “the launch of its lavish new warship, the Rainbow Warrior III, to attack the coal industry, which provides inexpensive and reliable energy to millions of Americans families and businesses.” It didn’t take too long for the greens to launch a full scale land invasion, with Greenpeace activists scaling Progress Energy’s power plant in Arden, North Carolina. Progress Energy is on the cusp of merging with Duke Energy. The protestors unfurled a banner, protesting against the “destruction and pollution caused by coal.” Not surprisingly, 16 Greenpeace activists were arrested on trespassing charges. However, the activists could also face federal charges because their criminal activity affected the “production of power.”
This latest move from Greenpeace is yet another stunt to protest against the clean and affordable energy derived from coal, a source of energy millions of underserved Americans rely on. What’s most absurd is that Duke Energy’s CEO, Jim Rogers, is actually spearheading initiatives to develop cleaner energy. But with Greenpeace, no good deed goes unpunished, using the publicity gained from their criminal acts to announce a campaign targeting Duke because it will “soon to be responsible for Progress's fleet and the pollution that comes with it.” Elected officials, small business owners, and Duke Energy must not let themselves be intimidated by Greenpeace. After all, Duke Energy is already leveraging its reputation for innovation to improve the environment. The last thing they should be doing is ceding business decisions to an unaccountable and anti-capitalist organization like Greenpeace. And, they mustn’t think cozying up with other Green groups will do them any better.
Recent News from the Green Movement
Just last month we praised Maine’s Governor Paul LePage for issuing an executive order allowing the state to “source wood products from various certification schemes, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).” The move was a major blow to groups bent on establishing the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as a certification monopoly for government buildings, particularly the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). USGBC will only certify a building under its LEED program if it comprises of wood bearing a label from FSC, a move that has reduced supply into the market and squeezed small landholders out of the market. However, USGBC will soon open up the third phase of its public comment period to gauge whether it should revise these rules and make the certification process more transparent. For guidance, USGBC should take look to the official sitting in the governor’s mansion in Augusta.
The Sierra Club has drawn fire from fellow environmentalists over its decision to accept $26 million “in gifts” from Chesapeake Energy to run a campaign attacking the coal industry. Chesapeake Energy, of course, is widely branded as “America’s champion of natural gas.” John Passacantando, a former director of Greenpeace, attacked the Sierra Club, stating that “Runners shouldn’t smoke, priests shouldn’t touch the kids, and environmentalists should never take money from polluters.” Obviously we wouldn’t go as far to accuse the Sierra Club of committing a sin as abhorrent as child abuse. Instead the Sierra Club made the mistake of taking sides in a gas versus coal dispute. What they should be doing is supporting both.
Attempts are again underway in the U.S. Senate to close a loophole that costs the taxpayer billions of dollars a year. The so-called “Son of Black Liquor tax loophole,” refers to a sweetheart deal for a byproduct used in the pulp and paper manufacturing process. “Black Liquor” qualified for taxpayer subsidies because it can also be used as alternative fuel source, although, as one of our reports pointed out, it is extremely uneconomical. Senator Max Baucus has pledged to close the subsidy and spend the resultant $2.786 billion on infrastructure improvements. Better still, the funds should be returned to taxpayers or used to pay down the debt.
The Obama administration has been widely tarnished for its energy policies. Whether it’s hand outs to campaign donors linked to the renewable industry, or choosing not to support the Keystone XL Pipeline, the administration has put ideology ahead of pragmatism and common sense. What’s worse, Obama is doubling down. The UK Guardian reports that Obama is seeking to “revive” his “green agenda” by slapping additional taxes on profitable industries like oil and gas, and redirecting funds towards “emerging areas such as offshore wind power.” If the government wants to support emerging industries, they should slash regulation and overhaul the tax code. Instead, they pick winners and losers.
Be sure to look out for our next newsletter as we uncover the dirty tricks and stealth campaigning of some of the world’s most notorious environmental activists.
No comments:
Post a Comment