While the impact of green protectionism is real for consumers in developed countries like Australia, the worst impact will be on jobs and investment in the developing world.

Unfortunately the impact of protectionist policies is often lost in developed countries like Australia. Though fortunately the Washington Times understands and also accepted a post from Sustainable Development on its Watercooler Blog. The post is here.

Today Sustainable Development has launched its latest report Green excuses: Collusion to promote protectionism? looking at the emerging collusion in messages by unions, industry and green groups to push for trade protectionism using environmental disguises.

Overseas green groups, unions and industry have a history of collaborating to stop imports in forestry products using environmental arguments. It now appears to have arrived in Australia.

For Australians the impact is concerning because it will result in the increase of the cost-of-living for products like toilet paper by as much as up to 42 per cent in the cost of a roll.

For workers in affected industries in the developing world the impact is likely to be far worse with the loss of jobs and employment.

The report breaks down the key examples of industry, unions and green groups pushing consumer activism and using political and legal avenues to achieve their objectives. Its time their push for green activism is exposed before industries and jobs get lost for some of the poorest people in the world. The report can be found here.

It’s important to understand that zoos have a reasonable role to promote conservation campaigns. And they have a reasonable right to promote facts about conservation issues. But Zoos Victoria’s Don’t Palm Us Off campaign does neither.

As the report highlights, of the twelve ‘facts’ promoted by Zoos Victoria on palm oil, only two can be substantiated with evidence. The remainder are directly contrary to evidence, or there is no evidence to support them. And while Zoos Victoria has a broad mandate to promote conservation and zoological resources, the Don’t Palm Us Off campaign doesn’t qualify. It is simply a political campaign based in dodgy facts.

Below is Agricultural biodiversity and Sustainability for the Future by Jack Lundee.

—

Since the beginning of the green movement, there has been a rise in the number of organizations and businesses that are doing their part in the promotion of sustainability through conservation. The climate is continuing to worsen, and individual, as well as collaborative acts are important for any successful green campaign.  As human beings, we’re constantly told to reduce our carbon footprint, consume less unhealthy foods, and spend less time in the shower! But let’s take a minute to step back and look at this from a different perspective; one that Gary Nabham strongly suggests.

Gary Paul Nabham, phD., is a Arab-American writer/conservationist who’s extensive farming work in the U.S./Mexico borderlands region has made him world renown. Specifically speaking, Nabham is known for his work in biodiversity as an ethnobotanist. His uplifting messages and attitude towards life and culture has granted us access to multiple beneficial theories including his latest of eat what you conserve.

According to The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, about three quarters of the genetic diversity of crops been vanished over the last century and that a dozen species now gives %90 of the animal protein eaten globally. In accordance, just 4 crop species supply half of plant based calories in the human diet.

Nabham claims that by eating the fruits and vegetables that we are attempting to conserve/save, we’re promoting the granular dissemination of various plant species. But this goes beyond what we typically buy in supermarkets, particularly because of price and abundance. We must remember to try new things and immerse ourselves in the very concept of diversity. Keep in mind; the benefits of splurging for that costly fruit/vegetable supremely outweigh the cons. Not only does one promote biodiversity and further eliminate the need of farmers to remove rare, less purchased crops off their agenda, but one also effectively encouraging healthier lifestyles.

Agriculturist Marco Contiero mentioned that “biodiversity is an essential characteristic of any sustainable agricultural system, especially in the context of climate change.” Contiero believes that people should eat localized crops, spending less time purchasing imports and becoming heavily reliant. Although, has our carelessness set us back a bit already? And what can we do to catch up? How long can we rely on values and suggestions like that of Contiero, granted climate change is a direct result of an increased carbon footprint?

In theory, climate change is a direct result of what we’re doing to our planet – Some would argue the importance of investing in new ways to alter crops to endure such change.

With sustainable crop efforts being lead by the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) and the IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) the duo plans to provide a more sustainable crop, untouched by natural disasters, much like the consistent flooding in Southeast Asia. Brainchild behind the operation,  Doug Band, the CGI, and the IRRI are investing in ways to genetically alter rice crops; It’s mere research at this point, and previous attempts at genetically altered crops have been known to fail, so what does this mean for biodiversity? Generally speaking, if these engineered plants continued to fail, it could be equal to billions of eco-dollars lost. But we must look at this from both sides of the spectrum; it’s more important that we locate a solution sooner than later, and while the climate continues to worsen, some types of crops (like the rice crops found in SE Asia) simply cannot withstand.

Nabhma and Contiero’s theories both rely profoundly on an action oriented approach at conservation and sustainability. With an abundance of green movements following Earth Day 2010, organizations and individuals have taken a stronger following to expert opinions like the ones demonstrated by both of these highly influential agriculturalists. Disregarding outside influence (i.e. – carbon emissions), these theories are naturally sound and prove noteworthy. So next time you’re in the grocery store, remember to cultivate new agro-products.

Jack Lundee – Supporter of all things green and progressive

Green groups have been proclaiming loudly that the palm oil industry is responsible for the clearing of 300 football fields in Indonesia each hour. That’s a lot of tree clearing!

But the FAO has identified that Indonesia’s forests are still as big as France and Spain combined. That’s a lot of forest!

And it is only being reduced by 2.2 per cent a year.

At that rate it would take at least 40 years to remove all forests. And somehow that doesn’t seem likely since 27.5 per cent of all forest is being kept for protection, nearly 20 per cent is being used for conservation and only around half will be used for production. And then there’s conservation space for orang utan.

So the real question is where this claim of 300 football fields being cleared by the palm oil industry come from? In 2005 Greenpeace Indonesia calculated the number in its campaign against industrial and illegal logging. No mention of palm oil.

But that hasn’t stopped the World Wildlife Fund just transposing the number over to the palm oil industry. And now they’re claiming it is South East Asia-wide. That’s a lot of region!

There’s clearly a discrepancy in the numbers and, presuming Greenpeace’s number was accurate in the first place (which we’re not so confident about at SusatinableDev.org), it seems WWF has taken a lot of exaggerative license. But that’s nothing new in green politics!

Meanwhile the FAO estimates that less than a third of deforestation is related to the palm oil industry. And the rest is mostly cleared by poor farmers who need wood for fires and land to grow and collect food.

But the problem is that Nestle is now, yet another, company that appears to have fallen for the green con.

No doubt it’s an easy decision to make in the rolling hills of Switzerland. But there’s the 2 million odd people who rely on palm oil for their livelihood in Indonesia and Malaysia. We doubt they’re taking it so well.

Eds note: In the original posting of this story numbers were used regarding the clearance and protection rates of Indonesian forests. Fortunately, the rates of clearance were too high, and the rates of protection were too low. This post has now been updated with the correct numbers. Apologies for any confusion.

The theory behind tobacco-based biofuels is that it won’t increase the price of food but may increase the price of tobacco and either cut tobacco company profits, or increase the price of tobacco for consumers and price them out of the market. But to get there the world will need to get over its objection to genetically modified agriculture products to reap the true benefits.

It’ll be interesting to see how this debate progresses because it will require debating over some sacred cows.