FALSE STATEMENT POSTERS

Thumbs up to Mr Ravindran Raman Kutty for being such a sport defending the Palm Oil Industry. In an article entitled " Time to Fire a Second Salvo to defend Palm Oil", he highlighted some of the false statement posters being plastered at public parks and zoos in western countries, including New Zealand and Australia. 

He was baffled to read about these anti-palm oil activist group tainting Malaysia's name at their zoos. Ravi added, the activists are still living in their past. They do not know that our developed jungles are like primary jungles where we even have orang utans.

I read the article and I didn't know there are some dumb Greenies in Australia and New Zealand! These were among the statements printed on those posters:-

"Shame on the Palm Oil Industry"

"Deadly Palm Oil in Your Shopping Trolley"

"The Killing has to Stop Now!"

These are claims merely to mislead the public!!! Are their claims supported by scientific facts? I don't think so!!!
Why should we be ashamed on the palm oil industry when we are feeding the world that is rapidly increasing. If we are able to feed the world, why would we kill the Orang Utans? It is our country's icon!!!

Orang Utans are also a living species that needs food and they do get their food from the oil palm plantations. Not forgetting the number of rehabilitation centres established in Malaysia to take good care of the Orang Utans. 


I hope these western NGOs will go do their homework first before throwing baseless claims to the developing countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia! They are well-funded and when they don't have anything to shout about, they keep repeating the same claim when it is not even an issue!!!

AUSTRALIA TURNED ORANG UTANS AS PRISONERS

I had a trip to Melbourne, Australia last month. Besides visiting places, I decided to go to Zoos Victoria! Why? Because I have been hearing numerous news that various states in Australia is allowing their NGOs to campaign about Orang Utan habitat loss & the oil palm industry! This is such an unethical move by the Australians!!!

When I visited the Zoo in Melbourne, a worker that directed me to the area where orang utans are placed said "poor orang utans, Malaysian & Indonesia have been killing them". That lady have no idea I was a Malaysian. Once I entered, all that came to my mind was It's a PRISON for orang utan!!! It was caged and not given the real feel of forest  plantation where they always get their food and meet other habitats in Malaysia.

These are some of the pictures I have taken during the visit...the Aussies are making big bucks from placing our national icon in their zoos. I read an article from Dr. Yusof Basiron and let me quote what he highlighted 'Annually, Australian farmers exports RM389 million (2009)worth of live animals and meat to Malaysia in addition to the exports of huge amount of cereals. Malaysian farmers in exchange export (a lower amount) RM 306 million worth of palm oil to Australia. Have they for a moment stopped to ponder that the oil palm farmers could very well ask their government to retaliate and Malaysia may have to look elsewhere for the supply of beef and live animals worth RM 389 million? It is also likely that Indonesian oil palm farmers will ask their government to join the retaliation and further damage could be inflicted to the beef and live animal trade as Indonesia is a bigger importer of beef from Australia as compared to Malaysia'.
http://www.ceopalmoil.com/zoos-victoria-trying-hard-to-create-agricultural-trade-war/


How much does Australians know about Malaysian palm oil industry and the wildlife conservation efforts undertaken here? They should come to Malaysia visit the various Orang Utan sanctuaries in the states of Sabah and Sarawak. 

They have ample time to listen to some 'green' NGOs to banned palm oil. Oh give us a break, we know better how to handle it here! Scientific researches are everywhere BUT the typical Aussies choose to be ignorant. 

Am sure everyone know by now that oil palm industry has helped reduced poverty. We are planting oil palm trees on a legitimate agricultural land that provides food, job, income and revenue for the people. We do replanting and that is moreover reason we do not need to clear forest! These wonderful crop produces oxygen for the planet. Why would we even harm the orang utans when they love to live in the forest plantation area freely!

So Aussies please wake up, you want to debate about oil palm, don't do it without facts, come see us and get your brain a little extra knowledge please!

GREENPEACE PRESSURING MULTINATIONALS'

WHY Western NGOs especially GREENPEACE are pressuring the Multinational Companies to stop buying palm-based products from Malaysia & Indonesia? Do they take into consideration factors such as below:-

1) Palm Oil is Environmentally Friendly Crop.

2) Malaysia presently has a clear forestry policy for 50-60% of the country land area under permanent forest. http://www.ceopalmoil.com/question-of-sustainability/

3) Palm Oil productions requires less energy & land compared to other vegetables oils.

4) Millions of Asians rely on the job from the oil palm industry; for their living. This is what we call TRUE CSR! http://www.worldgrowth.org/palmoil/

5) The POOR needs to eat & so does the rest of the world!

I agree with James that the European authorities should investigate Greenpeace for misleading consumer's mindset!

Please read the article below and share it with your friends!

 

Opinion

The Multinationals' Dilemma -- Gratify the Greens or Protect the Poor?

By James M. Roberts

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/18/james-m-roberts-multinationals-dilemma-greens-protect-poor-greenpeace-nestle/#content

Published August 19, 2010 | FoxNews.com

 

Greenpeace and other radical green groups are big on "corporate social responsibility" (CSR). What constitutes CSR, you ask? Among other things, the willingness to let the "green" agenda trump sound business practices.

 

Of late, the greens have taken to pressuring Western multinational companies to forswear buying paper and palm-based products from the Asian tropics. The campaign thrills Greenpeace donors, but threatens lasting harm to millions of men and women in poor nations.

 

Timber, paper and palm oil produced in the tropical belt are valued for their high quality and low cost. But radical greens oppose any commercial development in the tropics, which they want to preserve as pristine wilderness. And so they harass the multinationals, accusing them of razing the rainforest and destroying habitat for orangutans, tigers, and other endangered species.

 

The gambit works. Global food giant Nestlé recently suspended imports of palm oil from Asia. So have Unilever and Procter & Gamble.

 

Now retailers Wal-Mart and Carrefour are under fire for buying paper goods from the Asian region. And mega-bank HSBC is being pressured to halt economic development projects in Indonesia, Malaysia and other developing countries.

 

But in pressing its cause, Greenpeace willfully ignores some inconvenient, yet vitally important facts. For starters, palm oil is environmentally friendly. On a per-liter basis, palm oil production requires less energy and land-and fewer fertilizers or pesticides-than other vegetable oils.

 

What's more, Indonesia and Malaysia--both major palm oil and paper producers--have put 25 percent and 50 percent of their forest cover, respectively, off limits to development and established extensive wildlife protection efforts. In other words, both nations are being socially responsible.

 

So what's the real driver behind the anti-development campaigns led by European green groups? First, let's consider Europe's vegetable oil producers, timber producers and paper manufacturers. They don't much like competition from the Asian market.

 

European policymakers know protectionism is illegal, so they are trying to block imports on environmental and public relations grounds. EU member states support radical green groups which then demonize trade in foreign goods. What European policymakers and companies can't do legally in global trade courts they are trying to accomplish instead via the court of public opinion.

 

Western multinationals shouldn't go along with what amounts to illegal protectionism that threatens to undo the decades-long drive to open markets led by Western nations.

 

But there is an additional and important moral dimension at play, too. Left unchecked, the Greenpeace campaign will inflict massive economic misery on some of the world's poorest nations. Tens of millions of Asian men and women rely on the jobs and economic growth provided by their export industries. How is it socially responsible to deny a livelihood to them and their families?

 

Nestlé and other firms shouldn't ignore these socially irresponsible tactics. For example, in a shameless effort to alarm consumers, a recent Greenpeace-produced ad hijacks Nestlé's iconic "Kit Kat" bar (which contains palm oil) and implies that-by using palm oil-Nestle harms orangutans. But the ad is a lie. The governments where the palm oil is produced are protecting their wildlife.

 

Instead of quietly egging them on, European authorities should be investigating Greenpeace for possible trademark or copyright violations in its malicious and willfully misleading appropriation of Nestlé's brand. Consumer goods companies and global retailers should not let anti-business zealots manipulate those brands for political gain and the benefit of special interests.

 

Running a large, global business is hard work, and success takes singular focus. Great harm can result when big companies are distracted and moved "off task" by the narrow interests of activist groups and their political supporters. It is time for Western multinationals to make a stand for real economic progress and development and take a stand against the scare tactics of Greenpeace and its ilk.

 

James M. Roberts is Research Fellow for Economic Freedom and Growth in The Heritage Foundation's Center for International Trade and Economics.

PALM OIL SHORTIES COMPETITION

Let's take a look at how students do their part in spreading awareness on palm oil through film!

I was invited by a friend to attend the Palm Oil Shorties Competition Award held in Aliyaa Restaurant Damansara Heights, Kuala Lumpur recently.

I know somehow there were many issues pertaining to palm oil in Malaysia. I feel many of us are aware of the basics; palm oil is for cooking! But we may have overlooked the factor that it also helps poverty eradication, helping the poor for a better living and a very sustainable wonderful crop! This inaugural competition aims at increasing public awareness on the subject of palm oil, and to highlight the positive aspects of the million dollar industry. 

Really impressed when Fried Chillies a local media group that took the initiative to come up with this competition. During the award show, I noticed many youth group were interested in this topic as it is about Malaysia their home country and the crop that provides food for millions around the world. Their interest were shown via short films and I would like to share the links for your viewing!

http://www.palmoilshorties.com/index.htm

I have to congratulate the team for this excellent effort and also congratulate Steven Yap the Palm Oil Shorties 2010 Winner.

Looking forward for more of this activities to get our people to appreciate palm oil! The more we know the more we can defend it from the western NGOs that endlessly attacks on Malaysian Palm Oil!

To learn more, you may also see here:-

http://www.worldgrowth.org/

http://www.ceopalmoil.com/

Kumi Naidoo - Letter for you

Lets all send this letter across to all our fellow friends & not forgetting to GREENPEACE!!!

Many negative allegations posted by Western NGOs (Greenpeace/ Friends of The Earth) towards Palm Oil, I came across this interesting piece from www.palmoiltruthfoundation.com entitled "Palm Oil: An Open Letter to Kumi Naidoo, Executive Director of Greenpeace International". How does Kumi Naidoo judge the unfairly attacks undertaken by GREENPEACE towards Palm Oil the crop that feeds the world and eradicates poverty in most developing countries?

Highlights from the letter:
1) Kumi Naidoo - at the age of 15 African born became an activist, leading student demo towards eliminating 'Apartheid' (social and political policy of racial segregation and discrimination enforced by white minority governments in South Africa from 1948 to 1994)
2) Kumi has always been passionate about human rights, poverty eradication and gender equality, he even proved them with hunger strike.
3) Now being the Executive Director of GREENPEACE Int, Kumi is faced with and will have to grapple with mass volume of baseless attacks by this NGO.
4) Greenpeace has been an NGO always attacking on Palm Oil, from killing orang utan, destroying forest, using bigger land space and leading to global warming and etc. Nevertheless in this letter, the writer has lay-out various factual data to defend palm oil. In addition, expressing his views towards Kumi.
5) Writer questioned Kumi, if we were to take Kumi's past conduct, an active activist elivating poverty, human rights and etc. How would he now act when Greenpeace an NGO he is attached with from an environmental group, has morphed into a shameless lobby with a twisted extremism!

Full letter:
http://www.palmoiltruthfoundation.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2056&Itemid=66

EU MPs positive on palm oil! Great News!

I wish all these positive messages on Malaysian Palm Oil will be spread to everyone! I am impressed to have seen a few articles in our local newspapers some 2 weeks ago. A group of EU MPs visited Malaysia to understand better about palm oil. Before you read the whole article, let me highlight what some of them have quoted.

Danish MP Dan Jorgensen, who is vice-chairman of the Environment Committee and member of the Group of Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament said: “As a whole, I think, it has helped take people out of poverty, which is a very positive thing.”“From the sustainability point of view, palm oil has great potential compared with other oils,” he added.

Christensen noted that in western Europe, there was perception that palm oil is a bad thing because rainforests are being destroyed to make way for plantations.“That’s what many people believe. So, we are gratified to get assurances here that Malaysia has strict laws to ensure no more forests are destroyed,” he said. He also said it was a challenge to get this point of view across to the Western audience.

At some point of time when I read those articles, I am glad these MPs would be able to spread the positive attributes of palm oil to the westerners, nevertheless how often does Malaysia has to keep inviting and educating them in order to receive good remarks on our commodity. We do not do the same to condemn any of their commodities over there? Do we?

Here is the link:
http://biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/5/31/business/6371107&sec=business

EU's BIOFUEL NORMS FLAWED, PENALIZES PALM OIL

Which is which now? Again wrong ASSUMPTIONS by the European Union's on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. They practice double standard to favour them? It is ridiculous for EU to keep criticizing on palm oil for contributing to environmental degradation. EU dares to use the old data provided by their own scientific & technical research arm & assume?

Written by Shie-Lynn Lim of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

KUALA LUMPUR (Dow Jones)--Flawed empirical calculations and wrong assumptions on greenhouse gas emissions make the European Union's renewable energy policy biased against non-European biofuel producers, including those of palm-based biodiesel, according to Gernot Pehnelt, director of independent research and consulting institute GlobEcon in Germany.

According to an E.U. directive, biofuels must result in greenhouse gas emissions reductions of at least 35% compared with fossil fuels in 2009 and rising over time to 50% by 2017, creating a market for at least 23 million metric tons of biofuels annually.

Under the proposed renewable energy directive, biofuel producers in the E.U. are able to claim higher greenhouse gas emissions savings than biofuel producers outside the region, said Pehnelt.

"It is particularly problematic since any reasonable emissions budgeting comparison showed palm-derived biofuel is less carbon-intensive than those produced elsewhere, including Europe," said Pehnelt, who is also affiliated with the European Centre for International Political Economy.

"The E.U. has embedded protectionist measures into the directive at the behest of anti-development environmentalists and the uncompetitive European biofuels industry. These measures set unfair values on greenhouse gas savings for foreign biofuels, thus precluding market access," he said.

Most life-cycle analysis carried out by researchers estimated greenhouse gas emissions savings of 55% for palm-oil based biodiesel, but the E.U.'s calculation, done by its scientific and technical research arm the Joint Research Centre, showed the use of palm-oil based biodiesel failed the 35% requirement, as it achieved only a 19% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

The life-cycle assessments carried out on palm oil showed a wide variance in greenhouse gas emissions savings as data used by the JRC were based on old data.

The proposed directive, which will come into effect at the end of the year, also requires that sustainable biofuels should be produced with "no damage to sensitive or important ecosystems."

As palm oil is widely criticized by environmental groups and blamed for contributing to environmental degradation in Malaysia and Indonesia, some buyers may prefer to source other oils that are less controversial, palm-based biodiesel producers fear.

Europe's push for the use of renewable fuels in the transport sector has created one of the world's largest biofuel markets, with demand from the region estimated around 10 billion liters (3.5 million tons) in 2009.

Though palm oil-based biodiesel exports from Malaysia rose 20% or around 45,000 tons to 227,457 tons in 2009, that figure is abysmally low compared with the increase in general demand, as requirements under the directive are limiting palm-based biodiesel's access to the European market.

"The commission is committed to reducing Europe's carbon emissions. It is clear that the E.U. can't meet its own biofuel needs, so there is room for imports (of biodiesel). We are not against imports (of biodiesel), but the commission wants to ensure this is good for the environment and for trade as well," Marlene Holzner, spokeswoman for Energy Commissioner Gunther Oettinger, told Dow Jones Newswires, in response to this article.

But there is a ray of hope after a recent study showed the E.U. recently started referring to oil palm plantations as "continuously forested areas," a move industry experts consider positive for palm-oil based biodiesel in Europe.

A recent study by the International Food Policy Institute, commissioned by the Directorate General for Trade, under the European Commission, found palm oil to be the most efficient feedstock for biodiesel, as it produces byproducts and has an oil yield six times higher than comparable products such as rapeseed.

"All these studies have different results. We do not comment on the content of the studies. Once studies on the subjects are finalized, the European Commission is will issue a report by the end of 2010," Holzner said.

EU is BIASED AGAINST PALM OIL

EU and their unfair attitude!!! How can they act to benefit them all the way?

The EU is favouring domestic biofuel by imposing a 'default' greenhouse gas (GHG) saving level. Read the article below and do click on the link at the most bottom to see the reports from GlobEcon a German Research Institute.


EU sustainability rules 'biased' against palm oil

A European Parliament meeting today heard accusations of bias against competitive palm oil-based biodiesel from south-east Asia in the EU's contentious renewable fuels mandate.

The EU is said to favour domestic biofuel sources by imposing a 'default' greenhouse gas (GHG) saving level for foreign palm oil which falls below the 35% minimum threshold for supplying fuel towards the EU renewable targets.

The default GHG saving - which is set at 19% for palm based biodiesel - is assumed if an exporting country cannot account for methane capture on every tonne of the shipment, a condition deemed to be highly unrealistic. Domestic EU production can meanwhile fall back on higher default GHG savings for every biofuel feedstock, including palm oil.

It was asserted that the penalisation of palm-based biodiesel runs against EU attempts to ensure that the biofuels used for its renewable fuel targets have the greatest overall environmental benefits; full life-cycle analysis is said to tip the environmental balance in favour of palm oil and against other oilseed biodiesel sources such as rapeseed (used extensively in the EU), which requires more land and more carbon-intensive fertiliser per unit of energy produced.

'Protectionist' bent to EU policy

The case is made in a new paper from German research institute GlobEcon, presented today at a European Parliament hearing hosted by the Land Use and Food Policy Intergroup.

GlobEcon's Dr Gernot Pehnelt said that "the EU has embedded protectionist measures into the Directive at the behest of anti-development environmentalists and the uncompetitive European biofuels industry.

"Furthermore, the report demonstrates the rich biodiversity in oil palm plantations, the excellent crown cover oil palms provide and the yield per hectare advantages of this low-energy, low-fertilizer crop."

Pehnelt acknowledged that palm oil plantations do incur biodiversity loss when prime forest land is converted in species-rich countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, but reiterated the small share of biodiesel demand (even in light of the EU mandate) in overall palm oil expansion, and asserted that all economic activity has an environmental cost.

Environmental threat 'bigger than for other agrifuels'

While sceptical of the overall benefits of biofuels, environmental groups have taken a particularly tough line on palm oil - and have been keen to ensure that European biofuel demand does not exacerbate existing environmental problems related to the crop.

Ariel Brunner, Senior EU Agriculture Policy Officer at Birdlife International, told Agra Europe that while palm oil is a highly competitive biofuel with low land use requirements, current production patterns in south-east Asia raise a host of specific environmental problems and should put the feedstock (along with others) out of bounds for the EU's renewable fuels mandate.

Current sustainability criteria put certain environmentally sensitive areas such as undrained peatlands and biodiverse forests off limits, but major loopholes are seen to allow recently drained areas and secondary forest-land to be used, with a huge GHG and biodiversity cost. These risks are so great that even sourcing a fifth of the new 10% renewable fuels target from palm oil would negate the environmental benefits of other biofuel use, he argued.

Brunner said that EU "artificial demand" formed by the renewable fuels mandate and tax risks adding to problems which, he acknowledged, predate and go beyond biofuel production.

He indicated that using European rapeseed-based biodiesel to meet the EU targets could end up applying the same pressure on biodiversity-rich natural areas, given that Asian palm oil production would in any case expand into new areas to substitute for the oilseed areas shifted from food to fuel in the EU.

This indirect land use change (ILUC) phenomenon is the subject of internal debate in the European Commission - and could end up being factored into the sustainability criteria for fuels used towards the targets (see AE2406, 02.04.2010, P/10).

Meanwhile palm oil has been the subject of stand-alone efforts from the food industry to clean up the environmental impact of palm oil, centering on the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification scheme (see AE2405, 26.03.2010, Analysis).

For the full GlobEcon report see:
http://www.globecon.org/en/publications/globecon-research-papers.html

ORANG UTANS ARE ALWAYS HAPPY

See it for real to believe it...they are always happy orang utans.

Recently I had a chance to follow my friend to visit Sepilok Orang Utan Sanctuary in Sandakan, Sabah. These were some of the shots taken during the visit. I am aware that various Western NGOs have been condemning about orang utan and their loss of habitat. I strongly disagree when I see this. They seem to have a great living in this forested area. In fact there were many tourists coming to this place to visit them. If you see the picture below the 'Shy Orang Utan' showing his back to us while having his good food. They have a dedicated feeding time like we have daily :-). I would say these orang utans are quite pampered when everything is taken care for them! They are just happy!






























Not only Sepilok Orang Utan Centre, there are many others in Malaysia that have been established since long time ago to take good care of these orang utans. It is sometimes very sad when we here have done our best to preserve the forest, to take care of our habitats yet some CRUEL westerners throwing baseless attacks on us! They should look into their country and how much more preserved forest they have before even talking about others! It's just my piece of comment!

IT'S TIME TO EXPOSE THE ANTI-CAPITALIST GREEN GROUPS

This is a must read site. Read how the NGOs con others to make money! If only there are more people like Shane who openly oppose the unscrouplous campaings by the NGOs. Do these people even know the harm they are doing to the poor ? Would they rather see the poor beg than to be able to plant their own crops like palm oil.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2010/02/shane-frith-why-arent-green-groups-promoting-anticapitalist-policies-treated-like-pariahs.html

“Today in Britain, these groups are opposing the construction of a biofuel plant (as long as they receive no taxpayer subsidy, biofuel is an effective way to reduce our dependence on vile Middle Eastern regimes) in Bristol, on spurious grounds. Forget the economic harm to the people of Bristol – they can collect government handouts. The poor who harvest these crops in Malaysia and Indonesia will have no such luxury.”

Shane Frith: It's time to expose the anti-capitalist green groups

In most areas of society, reputation management is crucial. An organisation found responsible for a dodgy report that led a global organisation to make erroneous claims would be a laughing stock. Organisations advocating policies responsible for the deaths of millions, and the impoverishment of many more, would be pariahs. At a time when Britain needs to focus on economic growth in order to return the nation to prosperity, anti-capitalist anti-growth organisations should be shunned by conservatives and classical liberals. Yet today, organisations in these categories are courted by politicians and royalty. Others are partnered with corporations seeking to bolster their perceived corporate responsibility and image. Volunteers for these groups openly fund-raise on the streets of Britain and retain charitable status.

For some reason, the environmental movement seems to be immune to the standards to which other organisations are held. WWF’s false claim that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2050 fits well with their alarmism about climate change, but for accuracy it rates with Tony Blair’s dodgy dossier. Yet, Sky News now partners with WWF in an attempt to protect the rainforests. Have they consulted the millions of Asians, Africans and South Americans who have their livelihoods threatened by various campaigns of WWF? Their latest campaign is for a blanket ban on the importation of palm oil, despite the fact that most companies adhere to a policy of sustainable harvesting and employ hundreds of thousands. Let’s not allow discredited organisations influence public policy in this way. How can Sky News be seen to be objective on environmental issues with their WWF association? For that matter, what do their colleagues at Fox News think of such a connection?

Since the 1990s, organisations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have led hysterical campaigns against genetically-modified food. They have delayed the introduction of flood resistant rice by ten years and of golden rice for more than a decade, resulting in the suffering of millions from malnutrition or Vitamin A deficiencies (causing blindness). Throughout this time, these opponents of genetically-modified food have disputed the claims that the science on GM has been settled and that the consensus that GM is safe for human consumption. It is highly ironic given their current claims about the “settled” science on climate change. Any apologies from these groups for their involvement in the suffering of millions? Not a chance. Yet, Eurostar partner with Friends of the Earth as part of their marketing campaign. Maybe it’s time to start flying to Paris and Brussels.

Possibly the most damning activity of these green groups has been their opposition to the use of DDT in combating malaria. Like most readers of this blog, I grew up believing that DDT was a harmful chemical, one that threatens to kill all bird life as described in (the now discredited) Silent Spring. Like most chemicals (including H₂O) if concentrated it can be harmful. However, used in moderation DDT remains an effective insecticide, particularly for controlling malaria carrying mosquitoes. We know, because it was highly successful in the eradication of malaria in southern Europe after World War Two. However, using faulty science, green groups such as Greenpeace have successfully prevented the use of this important tool in Sub-Saharan Africa. This has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Most of these groups have now, reluctantly, withdrawn their open opposition to DDT, but again we receive no apology.

Today in Britain, these groups are opposing the construction of a biofuel plant (as long as they receive no taxpayer subsidy, biofuel is an effective way to reduce our dependence on vile Middle Eastern regimes) in Bristol, on spurious grounds. Forget the economic ham to the people of Bristol – they can collect government handouts. The poor who harvest these crops in Malaysia and Indonesia will have no such luxury.

These groups are driven by a green ideology that undervalues human life and prosperity. Their positions on climate change, genetically-modified food, DDT and deforestation have resulted in the deaths or impoverishment of millions. It is time that they were held to account for their past misdeeds. Politicians should not be associating themselves with the likes of Greenpeace in an attempt to win votes. It may be morally questionable to be working with these groups, but it is also politically short-sighted. Who doubts that these groups will turn into vociferous opponents of a Conservative government when it is forced to deal with economic reality, not the woolly-headed ideology of the green lobby?

Last year, Progressive Vision launched Green Monitor to highlight the activities of and harm done by the environmental movement. If we are to combat the harm done by groups such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF we must work together. We ask supporters to assist in the following ways:

• Alert Green Monitor to local campaigns these groups in where they are spreading false information
• Join Green Monitor
• Where possible avoid using companies that associate with these groups (although watching the BBC rather than Sky is possibly going too far)
• Challenge their supporters when they fundraise in our streets – most of the volunteers will be oblivious as to the actual consequences of their actions
• Ensure politicians don’t share platforms with these groups

KUDOS TO EU & SHAME ON GREENPEACE AND FOE

My dear friends in the EU finally agrees that palm oil is a forest plantation. Kudos to EU for taking such a bold move. Shame on Greenpeace and FOE for misleading the public. Read the below:-

World Growth
February 8, 2010
CORRECTION: Leak Signals EU Dismissal of Green Propaganda Says NGO World Growth
NGO applauds Brussels’ move to recognize palm oil as an effective biofuel

WASHINGTON – Official documents leaked to the public last week show the European Commission has rejected calls by environmental NGOs not to treat palm oil plantations like any other single species forest. Research shows palm oil is the most efficient vegetable oil for biofuel. This is a welcome first step towards making the EU’s 2009 Renewable Energy Directive an effective measure to encourage consumption of renewable energy in the EU. Alan Oxley -- Chairman of the pro-development NGO World Growth -- released the following statement:

“World Growth commends the European Commission for rejecting Green propaganda about palm oil and moving to correctly define palm oil plantations as ‘continuously forested areas.’ It turned down a demand by environmentalists to prohibit biodiesel derived from oil palm by regulating that palm oil was not a plantation forest. This was just another ploy to deny motorists and transport operators in Europe the opportunity to use palm oil, the world’s most efficient biodiesel, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Europe.

“It’s good to see the Commission reject claims by Friends of the Earth and WWF that palm oil is a leading cause of deforestation. A growing body of research reconfirms that poverty, not palm oil or other plantation commodities, is the major cause of deforestation. It shows that two-thirds of forest is cleared by impoverished people in search of shelter and food.

“World Growth encourages the Commission to continue to make the renewable energy strategy workable. The Directive adopted by the European Parliament still restricts entry into Europe of sustainable and carbon-friendly biofuels. These biofuels not only reduce Europe’s carbon footprint, they reduce poverty in developing countries. The measure is also unlikely to survive challenge in the WTO unless it is modified.

“Last week’s leaked government documents validate research released by World Growth over the past year. Take one example. Palm oil uses a mere one-tenth of the land and just a third of the energy (eg fertilizer) required by European vegetable oils crops to produce the same quantity of oil. It is also effective at absorbing CO2 and has a wonderful record at reducing poverty.

“It’s encouraging to see the European Commission heading in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go.” Also visit http://www.worldgrwoth.org/

"A TASTE OF GREENMAIL"

Read the scam by the NGOs...a.k.a most badly behaved protest group'


Washington Times 'A Taste of 'Greenmail' (Alan Oxley)
February 4, 2010

If there was an award for "most badly behaved protest group," Rainforest Action Network (RAN) would be contender for the title. Now, the Berkeley-based group of activists is trying to pull U.S. business (as well as an Italian fashion house and an Indonesian paper manufacturer) down with them. Americans will need to brace themselves, because they're about to get a taste of greenmail.

Greenmail is a dubious but common practice in which large environmental groups threaten aggressive campaigns to publicly besmirch businesses in order to coerce them to alter successful business practices that don't fit with activists' agenda. This unscrupulous tactic is often at the front of RAN's playbook. Before coming stateside, the group campaigned in Europe - subjecting the fashion house Gucci to attacks over shopping bags purchased from a company that sourced its paper from Indonesia.

RAN accused the Indonesian paper manufacturer of everything from human rights violations to rainforest destruction. Even though reality didn't match these damning accusations, Gucci caved. Turning their attention stateside, these activists recently zeroed in on General Mills' headquarters - levying claims that the company's purchase of palm oil (a type of vegetable oil) from Cargill is destroying rainforests in Indonesia. RAN launched a similar attack on Cargill's own offices almost two years ago. Some Western companies - Whole Foods retailers in the U.S., Lush cosmetics in Britain, and Cadbury chocolate in New Zealand - have already succumbed to anti-palm oil campaigns and made a show by pulling the much-maligned commodity from their products.

Yet, there's reason to suspect that caving to satisfy these demands will not only hurt U.S. business and the workers who count on them, but will also increasing poverty of millions in the developing world. Consider the facts..:

NORTH HIDES NEFARIOUS AIMS UNDER GREEN CLOAK

North hides nefarious aims under green cloak

THOMPSON AYODELE- Published: 2009/12/17 07:21:01 AM

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=89781

ENVIRONMENTAL groups from rich countries have for years waged a campaign against those in poor countries who want to harness their natural resources for economic growth. Their efforts threaten to do lasting harm to the aspirations of millions of poor people in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and must be resisted at all times and in all places.

One of those places is the Copenhagen climate change summit taking place in Denmark. Thousands of delegates from around the world are gathered there trying to work on ways to limit global warming. But it is increasingly clear to those of us in the south that the north is using the summit as a way to maintain their living standards, while keeping the developing world in a state of destitution.

For example, just this week a document emerged that outlined a plan to stop poor countries from clearing some of their forest lands to make room for more productive uses, such as palm farming, rubber farming and urban development. The suggestion — encapsulated in the so-called “Danish text” — is risible and morally obtuse and its emergence threatens to torpedo the entire conference.

Every nation in history has harnessed its resources in the early stage of its development. Indeed, Europe itself was arguably the most forested region on the planet for most of its history until it started its economic growth path several centuries ago. Over the course of many decades, Europeans sensibly altered and re-altered their land use to permit more productive agricultural use and enterprise, with the resultant job creation.

Today, nations across the developing world aim to do the same thing — to harness some of their natural endowments to create products for sale in world markets. And so countries in Africa and Asia develop palm plantations to sell palm oil across the globe. Farmers in Latin America alter land uses to grow fruits, vegetables and flowers to satisfy customers in their region and beyond.

Tese efforts come with some ecological costs, just as they did in Europe , North America , Japan and other places in the north in decades past. Only once the northern nations became rich — and not a moment before — could they afford the environmental protections they now demand of their poorer neighbours to the south.

The environmental campaigners scored a victory this week, forcing a major multinational corporation, Unilever, to stop purchasing palm oil from a southern hemisphere producer.

The victory by the environmental activists will do nothing to protect the environment but it will toss thousands of poor people out of their jobs.

How Greenpeace employees can sleep well at night after an effort such as this is a mystery . Of course, they live in rich countries where everyone has soft pillows, fine linens, heating and air- conditioning, which must make sleeping with a guilty conscience easier.

The victory over Unilever is just a start, and green groups are hoping to use Copenhagen as their vehicle to, in effect, outlaw developing world vegetable oils across the globe.

If they succeed, millions of people whose livelihoods depend on natural resource industries will be thrown into economic chaos.

A little-reported but critical aspect of this story is that green groups are making common cause with large European vegetable oil producers. The European producers do not like the competition from Africa and elsewhere, and so they are pressing the European Union to halt imports of competing vegetable oils.

They mask their protectionist efforts under a cloak of environmental urgency, but the end result is the same — Europeans maintain their jobs and living standards while the poor countries are denied opportunity.

The rich-world campaign against palm oil is worrying on many levels. It shows how easy it is to promote a one- sided argument regarding forest destruction without balancing it with the many benefits that can arise from changes in land use — principally benefits to some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people.

It also shows how easy it is for protectionists and businesses to use environmental issues to pass laws and regulations so as to further protect their interests, regardless of the implications for trade, the world’s poor and consumers around the globe.

This episode also exposes the troubling hypocrisy at play in the climate change and broader environmental debate.

Europeans used their own resources and those from many other nations in order to advance, become powerful and improve the living standards of ordinary men, women and children.

Poor countries need to be given the same opportunity. Basic notions of decency insist on it.

- Ayodele is the director of the Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, Lagos, Nigeria.

WESTERN COMPANIES CAMPAIGNS LEADS TO UNETHICAL IMPACT

THE PARADOXICAL RISK OF 'ETHICAL' INVESTMENT

How campaigns by big Western companies like Whole Foods can have a very unethical impact

By Alan Oxley

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/06/palm-oil-whole-foods-climate-change-opinions-contributors-alan-oxley.html

Some notable major brand names have joined the "green" bandwagon in the lead up to the U.N. climate negotiations at Copenhagen in December. Suddenly, palm oil is "bad," so Whole Foods retailers in the U.S. , Lush cosmetics in Britain and Cadbury chocolate in New Zealand have made a show pulling this maligned commodity from their products. Even government is in on the act, with the E.U. recently placing restrictions on imports.

Yet just what is the business aim? Doing good, riding the marketing buzz or protecting the value of the brand? Whatever the reason, companies are heading into murky territory. Shareholders ultimately rate companies by the business they do, not the causes they support.

Environmental activists like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth now blame the crop for everything from spreading deforestation to increasing greenhouse gases and, as such, are pressuring business and government to go along. Yet, there's reason to suspect that being "ethical" to satisfy activists will have a very unethical impact—namely, increasing poverty.

A newly released analysis by the NGO World Growth shows that this is just the risk these companies run.

Palm oil is vital in two respects. First, it is a basic food product for the poor in the developing world. The main consumers of palm oil are not wealthy shoppers at Whole Foods or lovers of Lush or Cadbury; they are the hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who use it as food staple.

Second, palm oil is something of a miracle food. Like "miracle rice"--which lifted millions out of poverty in the '60s and '70s--this vegetable oil uses less land to produce more energy at a lower price than competing oil seeds in Europe or the Americas . That's one of the reasons why the World Bank described oil palm in Indonesia as a most successful tool to reduce poverty. (Heck, it's even trans fat free.) Having already raised living standards in Southeast Asia, it can do the same thing in Africa and the equatorial Americas .

The green movement doesn't see it that way. They charge oil palm with destruction of habitat of native animals. These groups are right that forest is being reduced in the developing world, but are wrong about the reason. A much more powerful force than growing agriculture industries is at work here.

Deforestation is a primordial drive by poor, hungry people to gather wood for building shelter and to clear land for growing food. Researchers at the Food and Agricultural Organization report regularly that deforestation in developing countries is result of the search for firewood and land to house and feed people. When Nobel Peace prize winner Mangari Maathai from Kenya was asked recently by CNN what the key to stopping deforestation was, she replied "end poverty."

This was how Europe and North America developed, and it is how the third world is growing too. The Malaysian Government promoted palm oil, making it the world's largest producer for several years as a deliberate and successful strategy to provide prosperity and economic security to previously landless workers.

Palm oil is also very greenhouse friendly. Properly managed, plantations absorb more carbon dioxide than natural forest, though Western consumers hear none of this. "Wash your hands of palm oil," is the kind of message driven by "green" groups instead. Their game--in the name of tackling climate change--is to lock measures that halt commercial forestry into the new convention.

They claim this is essential to protect biodiversity. It isn't.

Five years ago the U.N. concluded that the biodiversity target of preserving 10% of the world's forests had been reached. There is more forest preserved in the developing world now than in Europe .

This is now merely a campaign to satisfy a Western urge to see pleasant landscapes.

Whole Foods, Lush, The Body Shop, Cadbury and all the other Western-based corporations might feel they have protected their brand by gathering under the banner of "corporate social responsibility." Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth approve. But what is the ethical position they are in?

They have business strategies that satisfy western based NGOs but reduce the capacity of poor countries to raise living standards, which produces in the future consumers for their products in emerging markets.

Denying opportunities for growth is clearly unethical. Shareholders will note something else: It's bad business in the long run.

Alan Oxley serves as Chairman of the NGO World Growth, which just released a report, "Palm Oil – The Sustainable Oil," at the UN Bangkok Climate Change negotiations as part of an effort to restore balance to the larger debate.

BIO-FUELING A TRADE WAR

In Europe, protectionism passes as environmentalism.

By BENEDETTO DELLA VEDOVA

Europe is facing the twin challenge of trying to get economic growth back on track while being a good steward of the environment. These goals are not necessarily in conflict with each other—unless of course the protectionists get in the way. The European Commission in June adopted regulations about the international trade of green energy technologies that might trigger a global trade war that would harm the economy and the environment in the process.

The “Renewable Energy Directive” pushes the European Union to generate increasing amounts of energy from green, renewable sources, including biofuels. A good idea in principle. But European biofuel producers—fearful of increased competition from the U.S. and Asia—succeeded in pressuring Brussels to restrict imports of biofuels from abroad. The Commission wants to impose onerous production standards on Asian and Western Hemisphere biofuels that wouldn’t apply to European producers. What’s more, a coalition that includes European biofuel producers and NGOs are pushing the EU to use the so-called Indirect Land Use Change policies to further discriminate against U.S. biofuels. Indirect Land Use Change is a fundamentally flawed concept whereby European government bureaucrats would seek to punish biofuel producers—in this case American—for the supposed indirect impact that their production has on land use and food prices in the developing world. The problem is that this is virtually impossible to calculate accurately and objectively, which leaves too much room for protectionist tinkering with the numbers.

Biofuel producers, particularly in Germany, also complain that large American agribusinesses are “dumping” subsidized biofuels on the market. No doubt U.S. producers enjoy generous government handouts—but so do their German competitors. Moreover, Europe’s consumers would certainly benefit from access to cheaper clean energy sources precisely when their economy needs a boost. While German producers might chafe at the competition from America, Europe’s automobile drivers and manufacturers who rely on biofuels as a key power source would be the beneficiaries.

Meanwhile, Europe’s biofuel producers have argued also for limiting Asian imports. Asian producers can’t be accused of dumping, so instead European producers argue that their fuels aren’t environmentally friendly. Their claims are amplified by NGOs such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. But these allegations don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Most of Europe’s biofuel comes from rapeseed while most American biofuel comes from soybeans and corn. Biofuel made from these sources provide two to three times the amount of usable energy required to produce it. In contrast, most Asian biofuel comes from palm oil, which generates as much as ten times the amount of energy required for its own production. As a result, palm oil uses significantly less land to generate the same amount of usable energy. This leaves more land for the generation of food and other products while satisfying growing demand for renewable energy.

The environmental NGOs who decry the Asian biofuels actually oppose all forms of biofuel because they fear it may lead to a reduction of rainforests. This argument is seriously flawed, however. For example, Malaysia restricts its palm oil production to 20% of the land which is allocated for agricultural purposes. Sixty percent of Malaysia’s territory is reserved for forest (the average in Europe is 25%). The NGOs prefer wind and solar as energy feedstock. But given the EU’s pressing economic needs right now, it is foolish to think that the continent’s economy can be powered by wind and solar in the near future. As such, biofuels—from both Europe and abroad —must play an important role in the energy mix.

Meanwhile, Europe’s biofuel producers cynically echo the arguments made by the NGOs knowing that while European regulators won’t limit the growth of Europe’s biofuel production, they might well be counted on to block imports. The real reason for their effort to block Asian imports is plain old protectionism masked as environmentalism.

And it’s not that Europe’s biofuel producers are struggling. They enjoy a strong competitive position in their home market. EU biodiesel production accounts for 78% of the biofuels consumed in the EU, according to the European Biodiesel Board. Europe is also a major player on the global stage, responsible for 65% of the world’s biodiesel production. At a time, though, when European producers are under pressure from the economic downturn, it is understandable they would look to Brussels for help.

Let’s hope far-sighted policymakers will resist the siren call of protectionism and defend free-trade in biofuels and other goods. Protectionism in the 1930s turned a bad situation into a disaster. Let’s not repeat that mistake.

Mr. Della Vedova is a member of the Italian Chamber of Deputies and aformer member of the European Parliament.