As Virginians look to celebrate “Job Creator Appreciation Month” in November, Greenpeace and other radical environmental activists are doing all that they can to undermine the state’s business environment by pressuring some of the country’s largest retailers to stop sourcing paper products from the Mercury Paper Company, a Strasburg, VA-based employer. Luckily, Mercury has a robust advocate in Virginia’s Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, who has written to the CEO of Wal-Mart calling on his company to reject Greenpeace’s efforts to undermine a company that has invested $21 million in the state.
In his letter, Bolling highlights the fact that Mercury’s “reputation has been unfairly and inaccurately attacked by Greenpeace. However, this is nothing new. Greenpeace has a well known reputation for providing misinformation in an effort to impose its ideological beliefs on the policies of a major American retailer.” This statement was later picked up by Trixie Averill, state director of Americans for Prosperity Virginia, who attacked Greenpeace’s “baseless smear campaigns everywhere in the world.”
For those of us familiar with Greenpeace’s perpetual attempts to coerce the private sector and kill jobs, this is nothing new. But during a time when the economy is still extremely fragile, it’s nothing short of reckless for Greenpeace to attempt to destroy Mercury’s reputation and intimidate its clients. Mercury should be fighting and defending market share based on the quality of its products—not on the whims of irresponsible green campaigners.
Virginia’s Governor Bob McDonnell has declared November “Job Creator Appreciation Month,” a fitting tribute to the “150,000 employers in Virginia responsible for 2,940,200 private sector jobs.” Since entering office in January 2010, Governor McDonnell has quickly gained a reputation as an individual who supports pro-growth policies as the most suitable measures to create jobs. These are views also held by Lt. Governor Bolling, who is a potential successor to Governor McDonnell when his term expires. The Lt. Governor’s recent demonstration of leadership to support Mercury Paper is a worthy example of Virginia’s goal to increase private sector jobs.
Papua New Guinea: Deport Greenpeace
Imagine you’re a landowner in the Corn Belt and one afternoon a group of environmentalists decide to enter America illegally, trespass on your property, and block I-29 used to bring your corn to the local grain co-op. If this sounds absurd or farfetched, it’s not. In recent weeks, the people of Papua New Guinea, the poorest country in the Pacific, have found their country invaded by Greenpeace along with their warship, the Esperanza.
In Pomio, East New Britain, thousands of landowners turned out to protests against Greenpeace’s attempts to stop the harvesting of wood for local industry and shipping to customers overseas, a move that would have devastating consequences for the local economy. Not surprisingly the local community in Pomio has inundated The National, a popular local newspaper, with complaints about Greenpeace’s invasion and flagrant abuse of Papua New Guinea’s sovereignty.
Greenpeace’s actions are supported not least by a cabal of sympathizers and eco-activists that receive money from the U.S. Government. Responsible Asia Forestry and Trade (RAFT), a program of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and managed by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), sends U.S. taxpayer funds to poor countries to encourage them not to engage in global trade. In 2009 and 2010, Papua New Guinea received $335,000 and $190,000 respectively from RAFT. That’s more than half a million dollars to prevent commercial forestry. But the problem is much more widespread and expensive. Rather than supporting global pro-market initiatives, USAID gave $10 million to WWF in 2009, then added an additional $30 million to WWF this year so that the group could further its dogma of conservation-at-all costs, this time in Nepal. For an agency that purportedly serves to support economic development, funneling taxpayer-funded aid to developing countries to slow forest land development undercuts USAID’s mission.
All of this threatens to disrupt an economic miracle. Papua New Guinea’s economy is thriving, with some analysts predicting that the country could see GDP growth forecast for 2011 from 8 percent to a very strong 9.3 percent. Thanks in part to a thriving oil and natural gas sector, as well as continued robust trade ties with Australia, Papua New Guinea, according to one analyst, “now stands on a junction of change and social revolution on the basis of having a major resource project such as PNG LNG developing in the country and a range of other mining projects as well.”
It’s time for the people of Papua New Guinea and the government to do what Indonesia has just done—deport and blacklist Greenpeace from ever coming back into the country.
Watch Out Mickey; Are You The Next Gibson?
In referring to the federal government’s ongoing war against Gibson Guitar, last week’s newsletter noted that Gibson’s history of embracing the radical forestry standards set by green groups had clearly gotten it nowhere. In fact, to say the very least, Gibson’s propensity to accede to radical green demands clearly only just emboldened them. And where has it got Gibson? Under federal investigation. One could also say the same about Disney, who as you will remember, was subjected to a campaign by Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and other green groups because they purchased paper products from sources that were not endorsed by the flawed Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
Well, having raised the white flag once, Disney again finds itself under attack from the Mateel Environmental Justice Foundation, which claims Disneyland exposes “children to lead at some of the theme park’s most popular attractions.” Of course, Disney has disputed the allegations, but from research, it’s pretty clear that Mateel thrives from filing lawsuits, particularly those related to California’s Proposition 65, a law that’s widely regarded as a gift to progressive activists and trial lawyers.
What can you say, though? Obviously the last thing Disney should do is cede yet more ground to radical environmental groups—they must fight back against these frivolous accusations. Unfortunately after raising the white flag last time around, Disney is more susceptible to attacks from radical green groups. Hate to say it, but we told you so.
Luton Council Embraces FSC, Wastes Taxpayer Money
It’s a little odd. Most of the British news stories that have made it across the Atlantic in the last year have either related to the Royal Wedding or to the coalition government’s budget cuts. According to most reports, the Brits have been tightening their belts due to the fiscal mess that the coalition government inherited from their socialist predecessors. But it seems that not everyone in Britain is getting the message.
Luton Borough Council, a local government outside of London, has just pledged that, after pressure from WWF, it will commit “to buy only wood products such as paper, furniture, fencing and doors that come from recycled and certified sources such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).” Given that FSC’s entire purpose is to inflate costs and protect market share for Western companies, Luton’s residents should be infuriated. In an age of austerity when local services are being cut, residents of Luton will have to pay so their elected councilors can have new – and expensive – furnishings.
Recent News from the Green Movement
Conservatives often accuse the Obama administration of “picking winners and losers.” After bailouts and the Solyndra debacle, it’s pretty clear that the government does no such thing: it only picks losers. This has become even more apparent after Beacon Power Corp., which received a $43 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, filed for bankruptcy. This merely highlights the administration’s sheer folly of throwing good money after bad at an ideological agenda that bears no positive economic outcome. And it looks like people are taking notice—in the United Kingdom. The British government appears to have remembered that propping up zombie companies with subsidies didn’t work in the 1970s and is unlikely to work now. Yes, the British government is cutting subsidies to manufacturers of solar panels. Will President Obama follow suit?
Most of us will admit that we’ve watched the news coverage of “Occupy Wall Street,” primarily as an apt substitute for our favorite comedies. But in addition to the college drop-outs, OWS is being spearheaded by the Alliance for Global Justice, an organization that seeks to spread pro-Chavez propaganda in the U.S. and even close down the pro-democracy efforts of the bipartisan National Endowment for Democracy. But just when you were about to take them seriously, do feel free to take a look at their 990 form where they claim their purpose is the “Education of human, enviormental (sic) and worker rights.” For the time being, international capitalism appears safe.
Given that the United Kingdom is now a net importer of energy and is sourcing much of its energy from Russia and the Middle East, you would think that the good folks across the pond would be overeager to tap into a NATO allies’ vast energy assets. Not so. Well, as long as you’re Greenpeace. Greenpeace is putting the British government under pressure after ministers called for greater consultation amidst the European Union’s moves to ban Canadian oil sands imports. Unlike Greenpeace, it would appear that some members of the British government actually like the prospect of tapping a secure source of energy. But if the EU moves to ban oil sands imports, the Canadian government has already suggested that they will not hesitate to “defend its interests,” a clear indication that retaliatory measures may be afoot.
For those of us following energy policy, many journalists have written so creatively about the Keystone XL Pipeline that most award-winning fiction writers would be proud. But even after environmental activists picketed the White House and launched legal action, the pipeline still looks set to go forward. In order to mitigate some of the ludicrous claims being made by radical groups, Reason published a fascinating piece that closely dissects some of the key arguments against the pipeline. In addition to the obvious economic benefits, the piece completely destroys accusations that the pipeline would destroy drinking water in Nebraska. Obviously more obstacles are in the way, notably some last gasp efforts in Nebraska’s legislature. However, with nothing but vacant scare tactics to back up their arguments, it’s only a matter of time before the authorities completely dismiss the case being offered by radical environmentalists.