Just when you thought you had heard the last about Royal Weddings, Prince Charles has decided to exchange vows with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and become the president of its branch in the United Kingdom. This match is hardly a surprise—Prince Charles has long used his position as the heir to the British throne to promulgate alarmist environmental rhetoric. Unfortunately for the developing world he has an additional vehicle to express these anti-development views.
In his first remarks as president, Charles stated that history “will not judge us by how much economic growth we achieve in the immediate years ahead, nor by how much we expand material consumption, but by the legacy for our grandchildren and their grandchildren.” For those countries – and former British territories – such as Malaysia who are leading the way in global conservation efforts and utilizing their natural resources for economic growth and job creation, this kind of rhetoric is hardly welcoming—especially to people living in poverty.
Hypocrisy aside, Charles has now dedicated himself to “reshaping our economic system so that Nature sits at the very heart of our thinking.” Of course, not everyone in the developing world has the benefit of inheriting wealth or owning land close to $1 billion, but then again what else would we expect from Prince Charles?
Rather than “reshaping” the global economic system, Prince Charles should embrace those countries willing to take the necessary risks of entering global markets in order to aid their people. The more damage and control perpetrated on the developing world is widely seen as success by WWF. When it comes to pushing anti-development policies that keep people poor, there are no parameters within WWF.
But the Royal Family has a long history of working with WWF to prevent economic prosperity — specifically attempting to halt forest land development in Borneo — Prince Charles is merely preserving a tradition. Like the Royal Family, WWF receives millions in funding from the British taxpayer. According to information on its website, WWF received £12 million “to reduce poverty in Latin America, Asia and Africa and improve environmental governance at community, regional, national and international levels.” Yet standing in the way of economic growth through forest land conversion contradicts WWF’s alleged aim to “reduce povety.”
Although he is not yet king, Prince Charles is already acting like a monarch reminiscent of Britain’s colonial past. Through his various charities, Prince Charles advocates an agenda that is thoroughly anti-development, anti-consumer and undermines attempts by some of the world’s poorest countries to drag themselves out of poverty. The only way for Britain to help the developing world is to ignore Prince Charles and his servants at WWF.
Voice your concerns today on the British Monarchy’s Facebook page about Prince Charles’ unholy alliance with WWF, an extremist organization that undermines global economic growth.
Rainforest Bonds = Snake Oil
WWF, the Global Canopy Programme (GCP) and the Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) announced plans this month to start pushing “rainforest bonds,” debt securities that could be used “for the conservation and sustainable use of forests.” According to reports, these bonds could “mobilize private-sector money to augment public sector finance needed to the early stages of the REDD+ program, which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.” However, with any financial instrument or security, someone is taking a risk in order to get a rate of return, which makes “rainforest bonds” a little bit of a hard sell.
The report calls for countries with forests to issue these bonds to investors so they can then provide funds for the United Nations’ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) scheme. Investors will receive a yield on these bonds through government’s instituting higher environmental taxes and other services. But the report even acknowledges that this market might require some initial government intervention in order to make the bonds attractive, with either governments or multilateral banks “stimulating the market” through acquiring these bonds through Treasury investments. What’s more, the report notes that during their initial phase, these bonds “could offer a lower-than-benchmark guaranteed return,” raising yet more questions as to why someone would undertake this risky investment. Nonetheless, the program’s promoters acknowledge these bonds may only appeal to “socially responsibly investors” and “governments of donor countries that have relatively high taxes” who believe in “environmental returns.”
Two questions surface here:
First of all, rather than creating what looks like a debt security with all the attractiveness of a sizeable snake oil investment, why not just allow developing nations to control their own natural resources and invest in their own futures? This would eliminate the need of grand standing Westerners to purchase large swaths of land purchased solely to prevent development nations from growing their economies.
But most importantly, once you wipe away the financial rhetoric, this is simply another aid program. If the potential of these bonds can only be realized through government intervention and higher taxes on Western consumers, then can we honestly say that they have any real value?
Recent News from the Green Movement
Nobody can say they were surprised, but when President Obama had the opportunity to break from his failed policies, he used a joint session of Congress to double down on a tax and spend “jobs plan.” Rather than getting the U.S. further into debt, the president should have used the speech to push for the free trade deals with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. As this Wall Street Journal piece by former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle and former Bush White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card highlights, the U.S. is falling behind China and the European Union when it comes to realizing the vast trading opportunities in Asia and Latin America. Although movements are afoot to finally get these deals through Congress, this is not down to the endeavors of the president. Free trade creates jobs. It’s therefore hardly surprising that the president is not an advocate.
A leaked report from the World Bank just goes to show how far some are willing to go to undercut global economic prosperity. Rather than breaking down trade barriers and leveraging the creativity of entrepreneurs in developing nations, the World Bank recommends that wealthier countries end “$40-$60bn” in fossil fuel “subsidies” in order to redirect funds towards helping poorer countries cope with climate change. Of course, much of these so-called “subsidies” are nothing of the sort and are in fact tax credits. Only this week the World Bank’s president, Robert Zoellick, highlighted the various lessons that some developing nations could teach countries like the U.S., primarily down to their pro-growth and sound regulatory policies. It seems completely hypocritical then that some faceless bureaucrats at the World Bank would seek to overhaul the tried and tested methods that spur prosperity in favor of more welfare policies.
The Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC), the world’s largest forestry certification scheme, accepted a membership application from the China Forest Certification Council (CFCC). Ben Gunneberg, PEFC secretary general, remarked the CFCC’s participation demonstrated how the “Chinese commitment to sustainable forest management and forest certification is to be welcomed.” CFCC’s membership is a coup for PEFC, and a major rebuttal of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a rival organization and one whose paper products are more expensive for consumers and business and contain tropical endangered species. It’s confusing why the U.S. government continues to promote FSC and their questionable standards.
When discussing other certainties in life, one might want to add failed climate change conferences to death and taxes. In November and December 2011, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meets in Durban, South Africa to discuss the future of the Kyoto Protocol, described recently by the Economist as never having “looked sorrier.” Although the threats from climate change are very real, it’s safe to say that the vast majority of developed and developing countries are simply not willing to accept mandatory cuts on emissions due to the sheer economic sacrifices involved. Rather than pushing an agenda that will rein in economic growth, global leaders should instead look for an alternative that actually harnesses the creativity of markets that creates innovation and clean energy. Right now, a second stab at Kyoto is simply a non-starter.
It’s not often we get the opportunity to sing someone’s praises, but the below remark from H.M. Mansur, chairman of the Indonesian Pulp & Paper Association (APKI), is at least worth acknowledging: “The Greenpeace report on global toy companies and Indonesian packaging material demonstrates little understanding of Indonesia’s strict forest protection laws and about our industry’s commitment to preserving this priceless natural resource. Government law about wood legality is both clear and enforced. Companies ignore the law at the risk of prosecution – and losing their plantation concessions.” Greenpeace getting their facts wrong? What next?
Although Canada escaped much of the global economic turmoil over the last few years, officials have recently conceded that headwinds in the United States may take their toll on growth. As a result, the Keystone XL Pipeline has now taken on added importance. Unfortunately the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada has decided to protest and lobby against the deal, an agenda that could cost both countries billions in key investment. Although there’s been similar protests from radical groups in the U.S., the State Department has decided to move ahead with hearings from September 26 – October 07 — a key stage towards full approval of the pipeline. Figures show that as many as 340,000 jobs could be created and bolster revenue to the government by $34 billion, solving challenges pertaining to jobs, fiscal health and energy security. In particular, states such as Nebraska could see a major windfall — with $150 million in new taxes and personal income soaring by as much as $300 million. As analysts warn of another recession in the U.S., the Keystone XL Pipeline has now become a project of utmost national importance.
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.