Back in the days when National Lampoon was a popular humor magazine, they published a controversial cover. In it, a gun was being held to the head of a dog. The caption read "Buy this magazine or the dog dies". Apparently a lot of people missed the joke. A scene from “The Godfather” has Don Corleone suggesting that to close a deal "either his signature will be on the contract, or his brains will be." Both of these scenes came to mind in the news sprouting from the debacle that was the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

In it, a group of developing nations, led primarily by Presidents Luis Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil and Rafael Correa of Ecuador expressed a disdain for developed nations attempt to address the issue of climate change. This article is not going to address the merits of either side of the debate on climate change. We are once again addressing how our national sovereignty suffers at the hands of world bodies who do not have our interests in mind.

In essence the developing nations have extorted the sum of $100 billion every year to not tear up the rain forest - in effect, give us the money or we destroy your precious trees. This is extortion. Beyond that it is dishonest beyond belief.

The so-called “rich” nations who are to pony up to this fund are already acting in accordance with the best environmental practices, and at significant cost. The argument is that the “rich” nations, and the multi-national corporations representing “rich” interests (who are responsible for developing these projects), are moving in with “colonial” designs to destroy the rainforest.

Environmentally sensitive development is easily done. Let us look at the oil industry as a relevant example in Brazil and Ecuador. Footprints of drilling platforms and pipelines are a tiny fraction of the size that they used to be. One drilling platform can now octopus feeds out to several oil deposits and collect the oil to a central distribution point for piping to the ports or refineries. The pipelines themselves are designed to have minimal impact on the environment. Protections are set up for wildlife, surrounding forest areas and groundwater. Access roads are constructed to minimize both land usage and effects on animal ranging.

The Alaskan pipeline, with construction completed in 1977, illustrates this principal in the infancy of the technology of environmentally sensitive collection of resources. Studies have concluded that wildlife has adapted and flourished in the presence of the pipeline, and there have been no spills associated with it. The argument that the claiming of resources from the rainforest areas destroys those areas does not prove valid.

Additionally, these development projects provide quality jobs, economic development and a raising of the standard of living for the local population. The governments share in the revenues of the resources sold and already have the ability to monitor the safety and environmental records of the current projects. Newly proposed projects can be required to be state of the art with regard to environmental concerns. This is often the default position for developers, as it is cheaper to build a safe and environmentally friendly facility than to clean up after an accident.

Laws made by the host countries can require retrofitting of facilities that have become obsolete or at risk. The “rich” nations are already acting in a responsible manner, and already committing significant funds to the cause of environmental stability to their host countries. The benefits to the people and environment of host countries is determined by the governments of the host countries.

Herein lies the problem of the dog with a gun to it’s head. It is the governments of Brazil, Ecuador, et al, who in the end control the development of these environmentally sensitive areas. It is a responsibility that they have not taken up.

The government of Brazil has encouraged the clearcutting of vast areas of the Amazon rainforest for decades. The reason for this is twofold. The timber harvested provides an immediate and available cash crop to be exported with little investment. Chainsaws and trucks cost little. Responsibly harvesting and replanting is not a practice that has been employed, or even encouraged by the Brazilian government. Instead, clearcut areas are claimed by Brazilian citizens and Brazilian corporations for farming and livestock production.

Additionally, as the population centers of Brazil grow, clearcut areas are claimed for residential uses, and commercial zones. These areas provide the ability for the people of Brazil to obtain a solution to overcrowding and poverty. There is nothing wrong with this in principle. It is the course that every nation, including our own, takes as it moves towards prosperity. It is the responsibility of the Brazilian government to oversee this development in a way that benefits the nation.

The only complicity of the “rich” nations in the difficulties that Brazil finds itself in now, is that they purchased what was offered for sale. The situation is akin to a homeowner stripping the copper pipes out of his home, holding a yard sale to make some cash, and then demanding money from all of the purchasers to repipe his house.

Now the President of Brazil sees an opportunity to profit from his predecessors short-sightedness. He seeks to exploit the “rich” nations collective guilt over a colonial past, and their own wealth to secure a welfare check for his country. Instead of developing a responsible program to manage the land usage of Brazil, and still raise the standard of living of the Brazilian people, he demands that the “rich” nations pay them not to cut down trees. Not to drill for oil. Not to seek a sustainable solution. Not to meet the needs of the Brazilian people for a better standard of living.

Here are his words, delivered at the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen earlier this month:

“I don’t want any gringo asking us to let an Amazon resident to die of hunger under a tree. We want to preserve, but they will have to pay a price for this preservation because we never destroyed our forest like they mowed down their’s a century ago”

President da Silva’s words ring hollow as an area the size of Delaware is stripped of it’s forest every year. This is done by the 30 million people who live and work in the Amazon basin – not evil colonial powers who are bent on ravaging the rainforest in a fit of consumer greed. Tossing cash at a problem accomplishes nothing without a plan in place to solve the problem.

Common Sense Dictates

Environmentalism is the purview of rich nations. It is only when we realize that we live in filth that we decide to clean things up. It is only when we realize the costs of waste that we learn to conserve and to plan. It is only when we are surrounded by gray concrete that we see the value in a grove of trees.

We stood at that threshold as a nation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. We lived in clouds of smog and drank from rivers polluted with raw sewage. A national joke at the time was the proposed slogan for the State of New Jersey – “Pave everything and we’ll put the dirt back where we want it.” The nation decided on a responsible course to clean things up, and things have improved enormously. Smog occurs, but it is not constant, and now only plagues our biggest cities. Our waterways are cleaner than they have ever been. Our forests are harvested with care and replanted. We have found that our prosperity grows with the proper stewardship of our environment.

Brazil is at that threshold now. It can choose to develop responsibly, or it can shake down the developed countries for a promise to not develop. Brazil leads the charge for all of the nations who see an opportunity for more handouts. The developed nations are torn between their guilt over a colonial past, and their implied belief that maybe these brown people really can’t fend for themselves and need to be cared for – reaffirming their colonial mindset.

The environmental movement, after having achieved remarkable success among the developed nations over the past few decades is now seeking relevance. It has become a victim of it’s own success – with the biggest polluters buying in (because they can afford to), they are now pushing their issue on nations still fighting over bread and butter economic issues – nations unready to nip the budding prosperity that their people are experiencing.

The histrionics employed by the environmental movement is proving to be counter-productive, especially in the area of climate change. Bread and butter issues have returned to this nation in the form of a bad economy. Many people are looking at the issue and concluding that while the climate is changing, the human effect on it may not be a serious as has been argued. In the bad press over the fudged data and the collapse of the Copenhagen Conference, the credibility of the issue is at stake. However, the prudence of the  wise usage of resources is obvious.

President da Silva is a shrewd politician who has seen a way to profit from the desperation of the environmental movement to regain it’s bruised stature. The $100 Billion dollar payoff is being hailed as the great triumph of Copenhagen, rather than the binding agreement to tackle climate change that was supposed to occur.

We at TPP push forward the idea that should Brazil (and other nations) seek ways to develop in a responsible fashion, we will assist in bringing that plan to fruition, on a case by case basis. We find the idea of  a standing payout to countries with no actionable development plan to be  not only counter-productive, but morally wrong. We should not blindly commit funds that will in many cases go to the same black hole of corruption that much of our foreign aid winds up in. The United States should not be in the business of tossing out protection money to keep bad things from happening to a group of trees. More importantly, we should not be funding a government that offers the well-being of  it’s people up in exchange for a payday. Gangsta environmentalism deserves a flat “NO”. Period. 

RLB