We’ve reported before
on the influence of the greens in Australia. However, the
Greenpeace anti-coal blueprint was exposed recently shedding light on their strategy to shut down private business. With Greenpeace’s
calamitous fiscal record in the region and with the prospect of Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan arguing that
its charitable status should be revoked, it’s not too surprising that the greens decided to target Australia’s booming coal industry to raise money, particularly when it
accounts for 200,000 jobs and almost $40 million in annual GDP. In fact, it’s because the coal industry looks set to receive substantial investment that the Greenpeace and their allies are looking to “disrupt and delay” projects “while gradually eroding public and political support for the industry and continually building the power of the movement to win more.” We all know that Greenpeace’s Australia-Pacific branch
has been struggling of late. But do they really have to make hardworking miners suffer just so they can pay their bills? One suspects so. On Greenpeace’s website they attempt to brush off the controversy by
announcing its anti-coal campaign as a ‘David vs. Goliath’ struggle, a somewhat absurd analogy when they’ve been caught green-handed courting multi-millionaire,
Graeme Wood, Australia’s largest donor to political causes. This scandal has truly laid bare the fact that, despite
their protestations to the contrary, Greenpeace is an anti-growth and anti-development organization with little or no interest in raising living standards or promoting a healthy environment. It’s long overdue that this abhorrent agenda was exposed.
Abandoning American Consumers: Safeway’s Dangerous Gambit
As Mercury workers in Strasburg, VA continue to face an uncertain future, Safeway, North America’s second largest supermarket chain operating 42 stores in Virginia and a Mercury customer, has decided to fold under pressure from the greens and
only source paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). In siding with groups like WWF, Greenpeace and the
Sierra Club, Safeway has treated the
thousands of consumers who have called on them to protect consumer choice with open disdain. Such capitulation will merely embolden the greens and their progressive allies to interfere in the private market and dictate to consumers how they should be spending their own money. But this path is far more perilous. People will lose jobs so that green groups can get
some cheap publicity and leverage it for fundraising. Thus more and more private entities are likely to become targeted as green groups embark on fundraising drives, further undermining consumer choice and jobs. But it’s what they’re replacing these goods with is even more troubling. In turning to products stamped with the FSC logo, supermarkets are merely advertising their own naivety and willingness to kowtow to unaccountable activists. Despite all their talk of sustainability, FSC products are nothing but a devious con. As we have documented in the past,
independent reviews have revealed that FSC products contain “species listed as endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), most notably the red lauan.” Consumers
must keep up the fight and pressure retailers across the country not to buy the greens’ propaganda.
UK to Push for Global Green Standards
Unless we’re talking about trade agreements, talk of “global standards” are usually greeted with a severe dose of skepticism on these pages. Unfortunately the latest suggestion from British Environment Secretary, Carolina Spelman, falls under this category. In preparation for the
United Nations’ Conference on Sustainable Development, Spelman has
recommended that member states formally “adopt ‘green accounting’, formally putting a value on environmental assets such as forests as much as on economic output.” At best this is a measure to help the Conservative-led government burnish its environmental credentials for the purpose of electoral gain at home, but at worse this is deeply worrying move to accede to a radical ideological movement that has no interest in understanding the dynamics of global economics. According to reports, Spelman is determined to push other governments to “move from statements of their Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, to national accounts based on "GDP-plus", which would involve assessing the balance of their "natural capital,” such as the ecosystems that provide everything from oxygen and water to flood defences, seemingly for free.” Such a move would obfuscate the true economic health of an economy and undermine efforts to attract trade and investment. But most importantly, Spelman’s idea would be subjective and entirely open to political interference and ideological manipulation. Countries are already taking measures to promote sustainability, simply because it’s in their interests to do so. They need greater access to markets, not burdensome regulations.
Recent News from the Green Movement
Last year
we highlighted the Humane Society’s growing involvement in Nebraska politics, before adding that “Governor Heineman is right to protect farmers and keep a watchful eye on this very left-leaning political agenda.” We are glad to see that the
governor has not let up in his efforts to marginalize the Humane Society and prevent them from undermining Nebraska’s booming agriculture industry—despite their best endeavors. As the governor’s office correctly pointed out, the Humane Society
has merely revealed their ignorance regarding modern day farming methods and is more focused destroying “the No. 1 industry in our state.” When others are throwing up the white flag and surrendering to radical groups like the Humane Society, Nebraskans should be proud that they have a governor standing up for their state’s interests.
It would appear that it’s
not just the Indonesian government that has a problem with foreign-funded NGOs undermining economic growth. In an interview with
Science magazine, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
accused foreign funded NGOs of undermining efforts by the government to construct more nuclear power facilities, adding that these groups “don't appreciate the need for our country to increase the energy supply.” The Indian government has initiated a major crackdown on NGOs involved in the anti-nuclear movement,
charging four groups for "violating of provisions of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act" and
placing 77 groups “on its global watchlist, making it difficult for their officials to get visas to India.” We’ll continue to follow this issue closely, but this merely demonstrates the lengths that developing nations have to go to into order to fight back against political motivated NGOs.
The ongoing debate to reform Brazil’s antiquated forestry laws is heating up, with green NGOs –
notably WWF – pressuring President Dilma Rousseff to
veto the legislation if it passes the lower legislative chamber. Critics claim that overhauling the country’s 47-year old forestry code would undermine efforts by the government to combat deforestation, which has fallen in the Amazon
by some 80 percent since 2004. However, such claims are spurious. The efforts to combat deforestation have had very little to do with the current code, but more to do with recent government initiatives to both realize Brazil’s sizeable natural resources while also protecting the environment. Brazil is a sovereign nation and should it continue on its current path whereby it creates forestry jobs and pursues a policy of reforestation, then why should foreign-funded NGOs have the liberty to interfere?
Recently
we highlighted how Robert Zoellick, the outgoing president of the World Bank, had squandered his tenure at the institution by prioritizing a green agenda ahead of real economic development initiatives. Well, I guess it could always be worse. Jeffrey Sachs has started his own personal crusade to convince the Obama administration that he would make an ideal successor to Zoellick. What’s more, Sachs is
slowly picking up Congressional support and backing from World Bank member states. Given that Sachs once
uttered that socialism is “the best system,” those of us who actually care about the developing world and global prosperity should be mounting an equally vigorous campaign to ensure that this man gets nowhere near the doors of 1818 H Street.
After their parliamentary recess, Australian politicians in Tasmania
returned to discussopposition plans to reform the country’s forestry policy. In the Tasmanian parliament, the Liberal Party is pushing to implement pro-market reforms allowing “logging in more than 400,000 hectares of native forest.” The Liberal leader in Tasmania, Will Hodgman, stated that because of greater competition from overseas, particularly in Asia, it only made sense for Australia to utilize its abundant natural resources for the purpose of economic growth and job creation. Not too surprising, greens and other conservationists are demanding vociferously opposed to any moves to open up any of the 400,000 hectares. When
Australia’s economy is slowing down and
Tasmania’s unemployment remains the highest in the country, political posturing by greens will do little to create jobs. Tasmanians should be proud of the fact that at least
one of their elected officials has a plan to get people back to work and make the state globally competitive.
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