Today SD has released a new report looking at the influence of the greens movement over the Australian economy. Importantly, the green movement are successfully influencing Australian government policy and restructuring, and restricting, the operations of the Australian economy based on their values. Their influence is making the Australian economy economically unsustainable.
There are numerous examples of the greens movement influencing the Australian economy. The carbon tax is an obvious case where the greens movement has succeeded in creating unsustainable false foundations of the back of a tax for their favoured industries. The new clean energy fund is equally as problematic.
But the influence of certification schemes is also becoming a problem. Voluntarily these schemes are designed to increase consumer choice and awareness about non-price value propositions. But as the greens movement is achieving, if they are legislated they are handing control of supply chains for primary industries to opaque and questionable certification bodies that green groups have significant influence over.
The long term outcome is that the Australian economy will become strangled by their influence harming sustainable economic, social and environmental development. And we will establish a poor precedent for other countries to follow.
An interesting video is doing the rounds attacking Greenpeace directly. As regularly SD readers will know we’ve raised serious concerns about Greenpeace’s behaviour and the impact on the world’s poor.This video seems to reinforce these messages.
On a local level the attacks against the CSIRO’s Canberra GM research facility were concerning. The anti-GM movement has had anti-science dimensions. But the video argues Greenpeace’s behaviour on this matter is not in isolation. Certainly attacking opportunities for developing countries to lift themselves out of poverty so they can improve their environment is of deep concern. The question is why so many people take Greenpeace seriously considering their past behaviour?
Today SD released a new report, Trading away competitiveness, on the influence of green groups that are targeting imports from developing countries and undermining Australia’s fragile free trade consensus.
A picture is now emerging that green groups are targeting politicians to impose non-tariff barriers against primary industry imports from developing countries. This is having a real impact on Australia’s already strained free trade consensus. The most concerning dimension is the success they are having.
The government has already adopted absurd non-tariff barriers against wood imports that are set to come into law. And the Opposition working with independents and the Greens have previously backed non-tariff barriers on palm oil imports. Thankfully they came to their senses before the Bill passed into law.
DEEPLY questionable tactics by environmental activists are taking away choices for consumers and business. The coupled collapse of trade barriers in developed countries and the globalisation of supply chains, creating export opportunities for developing countries, has understandably driven consumer awareness of the impact their purchasing has had on the world’s poor during the past 20 years.
SD released a new report this morning, Naked Extortion? Environmental NGOs imposing [in]voluntary regulations on business and consumers, looking at the role that environmental NGOs are playing in forcing businesses to adopt ‘voluntary’ certification standards.
There’s nothing wrong with certification schemes like the Forest Stewardship Council and the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil if adopted voluntarily. SD may have differences with the schemes and whether the actually achieve their objectives environmentally, socially or economically. But that is a difference of opinion.
It is entirely different when business and consumers are forced to adopt them. And that appears to be what is occurring. Suspicions that environmental groups collude in a game of ‘Good Cop/Bad Cop’ to push business and consumers into adopting ‘voluntary’ certification standards has traditionally been speculative. The report shows they’re now gloating about it:
‘Greenpeace is willing to play the role of good cop or bad cop in partnership with organisations. Its reputation for radical actions positions it particularly well to play the bad cop that can drive organisations to partner with groups that seem more middle-of-the-road in orientation’ (Greenpeace head of research, Kert Davies).
Basically in response to Greenpeace’s ‘Bad Cop’ routine, ‘Good Cop’ groups, like the World Wildlife Fund, offer adoption of ‘voluntary’ certification schemes such as the Forest Stewardship Council and the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil to get the ‘Bad Cops’ off their back.
Advocates of these ‘voluntary’ standards are now arguing they should be regulated for, through:
‘… governments and international organisations in consumer and producer countries should establish complementary mechanisms to create an enabling environment … [such as] national legislation [and] public procurement policies … [as well as] regulatory waivers in exchange for certification’ (WWF review).
We are already seeing this strategy employed in Australia through the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling – Palm Oil) Bill and the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill.
These are not encouraging signs if you support market-based poverty alleviation.
Open foreign investment is good for all. In Australia’s case it makes sense for developing country businesses to invest in an economy capable of delivering stable returns and property rights. For Australia it makes sense because with a large land mass and small population it has always been a capital importer.
That’s why any calls to restrict foreign investment are dangerous and counter productive. But political realities always make foreign investment a touchy issue. Which is why the idea of at least steering, rather than blocking, Chinese investment into Australia’s agriculture sector is welcome.
Unfortunately the idea is receiving a cold reception from the National Party. But hopefully sense will prevail.
Last night on ABC1’s Foreign Correspondent there was a program on allegations of forest clearing in Sumatra by the company APRIL. SD was surprised at the story not because of its relevance, which is high, but at the nearly uncontested acceptance of WWF, Rainforest Action Network and Greenpeace allegations against the company, and the near dismissal of how much support economic development had in the area.
In short the story recognised in the most meaningless way that there’s actually quite a large amount of support for economic development amongst local owners.
But there were concerning dimensions to the story, particularly around the protection and preservation of property rights by local owners who claimed to have leases. According to one sago farmer he had a lease on some land which has basically been expunged because the government has given forestry rights to APRIL. SD has no way of verifying who is correct, but it is of deep concern that property rights would be waived without compensation.
Similarly, the ABC’s ongoing acceptance of allegations against industry without scrutiny raises equal concern. The ABC is supposed to be a balanced broadcaster that scrutinises all allegations. During this program that seemed lacking. Especially considering the lack of evidence that is continually found around allegations by these groups in the past by SD and others.
A few weeks ago the Sydney Morning Herald ran an op-ed by Greens Senator, Sarah Hanson Young, highlighting the issues of famine in Africa.
Irrespective of anyone’s individual opinion on foreign aid support for starving people in cases of famine is neither political nor anything anyone really opposes. And for good reason. Disasters occur that are well outside of any individual’s control. In such circumstances people often cannot help themselves and human compassion rightly overrides. And despite not endorsing all aspects of her article Hanson-Young is right to call for greater support.
But where SD differs with Hanson-Young is over disaster relief versus foreign aid. They are not the same thing. Disaster relief should be temporary and for incredible circumstances. Foreign aid has a much longer life span and normally relates much more closely to issues of human governance. The two should not be confused, as the Senator likes to do to advance her political views.
Allegations by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council that orangutans are being mistreated during a recent visit to Melbourne Zoo couldn’t come at a more heated time in the debate about the sustainability of the crop and the actions of zoos against it.
The Federal Parliament recently passed an absurd Bill on the back of political deals by the Opposition and Independents to treat the oil seed differently from other oils. In enacted the Bill will almost certainly put Australia in breach of international trade rules. The New Zealand government isn’t happy. And it’s just dumb policy which will neither achieve the objective desired and sets an appalling precedent for food labelling to be used as a political football.
Putting the policy aside the reaction of Melbourne Zoo’s spokesperson to animal mistreatment, Rachel Lowry, showed a glass jaw on the subject retaliating that the concerns were not raised with the Zoo. She made similar comments when SD produced a report highlighting that a ‘fact’ sheet on their website wasn’t based in facts at all. Lowry appears more convinced of her own moral superiority than the circumstances of the orangutan she keeps captive.
Instead of sloganeering she should have addressed the real issue which is what circumstances animals living in captivity face. Certainly being left in the cold is not acceptable. Especially for a Zoo. Even more so when they are happy to lecture others. Let’s hope it isn’t the case.
Whether the Zoo is actually mistreating orangutans remains up in the air. It’s a classic case of he said, she said. But considering the gravity of attacks against the Malaysian palm oil industry Victoria Zoo has an obligation to at least investigate whether the orangutan they have in captivity are happy and healthy. Not just sloganeering, as they have done to date.
While that happens the government should turn its focus back to the issue of the absurd law passed by the Senate and ensure that when Parliament resumes in two weeks time it sits on the books for the sake of developing world poor.
SD is often confused about why aid gets such a good run when it is both unsustainable by donor countries, and also creates dependence for recipients which is also unsustainable. Today Hugh White had an excellent op-ed highlighting why aid is not sustainable making the most obvious point of all – the evidence is against aid.
About Us Sustainable Development is a blog to promote environmentally, socially and economically sustainable evidence-based public policy for the developing world. SD supports a market-based approach to achieve sustainable development that improves the living standards of the world’s poor, environmental standards and social cohesion. Read More
