This is a true story. In a riveting and astonishing tell-all book called appropriately "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", John Perkins recounts his life story working inadvertently as an "Economic Hit Man".
A bright young graduate from Boston University's College of Business Administration, the impressionable Perkins served in the American Peace Corps in Ecuador in September 1968. Following that stint Perkins was recruited by Chas. T. Main Inc (MAIN), an international consulting firm that was in charge of studies to determine whether the World Bank should lend developing countries billions of dollars to build infrastructure projects.
What followed was a dizzying rise up the echelons of an organization that was, in effect an agency to over prescribe development infrastructure for developing countries - projects that were deliberately over-budgeted and over-designed. The real objective, that was unbeknownst to Perkins then, was that by convincing these developing countries such as Indonesia, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Colombia to accept enormous loans from the World Bank, these developing countries would be saddled with huge and insurmountable debts and be forever beholden to the United States. Massive funds flow into the coffers of US corporations and the American government could then extract their "pound of flesh" including access to military cooperation, natural resources and political support. The story takes on such riveting and yet terrifying dimensions with tales of fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, payoffs rivaling the darkest espionage thriller. Perkins names names and connect the dots in telling his bone chilling story of the nasty, manipulative and plainly evil practices carried out in the name of empire.(i)
Considering the concerted action against palm oil, we have to wonder whether there is more going on beneath the surface than meets the eye. NGO's such as CSPI, FOE, Wetlands and others have, for some time now, been doing a hatchet job against palm oil. In the light of the revelations by conscientious and brave people like Perkins, it behooves us to question whether these NGO's have been doing it inadvertently in the name of true conviction or as active agents in the interest of empire?
For instance, Marcel Silvius, a so-called climate expert at Wetlands International in the Netherlands, in ostensibly comparing "the benefits of palm oil to the ecological disaster from wiping out virgin Asian rain forests to grow lucrative new plantations," alleges that "the cultivation of the palm trees was found to unleash far more carbon dioxide than will be saved by oil's burning."
The report went on to argue that the carbon released from peat swamps in Indonesia and Malaysia that had been drained and burnt to make place for the palm oil trees was causing global warming. The report would be hilarious if it were totally implausible. However, the devious and deliberately Machiavellian aspect of the report is that it seeks to paint Malaysian and Indonesian palm oil with the same brush. Anyone conversant with the industry will know that Malaysian palm oil plantations are rarely planted on peat swamps as the trees prefer sandy and well drained soils and Malaysia just does not indulge in slash and burn practices that are so popular in Indonesia (perhaps because of Indonesia's larger land mass), to clear virgin jungle .
Palm oil is attractive as it is relatively abundant, cheap, and needs few or no changes to already existing power stations.
Unlike fossil fuels, it was considered that the carbon emitted from palm oil's burning is equal to that absorbed during its growth. As a vegetable oil palm oil can enhance a healthy diet, and as a biofuel it can reduce carbon emissions.
Yet, in a recent UN's environment programme report, 'The Last Stand of the Orang Utan: State of Emergency', a report bordering on the ludicrous, says natural rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia are being cleared so rapidly that up to 98 per cent may be destroyed by 2022, and the lowland forest strongholds of orang utans much sooner, unless urgent action is taken. This, the report alleges is a full decade earlier than the previous report estimated when it was published five years ago. Overall, the report goes on to contend, the loss of orang utan habitat is happening 30 per cent more rapidly than had previously been thought.
Quickly jumping on the bandwagon, the Borneo Orang Utan Survival Foundation UK, a charity which works to rescue, rehabilitate and release the animals into protected forest, warned that at the alleged current rate of deforestation by the palm oil industry, orang utans in the wild could be close to extinction by 2012.
The UN also highlights the supposed growing threat posed by palm oil harvesting, noting that large areas of Indonesian and Malaysian forest have been cleared to make way for plantations. Says the Report: "As consumer awareness about healthy eating and ethical shopping grows, palm oil is an increasingly popular alternative to trans fatty acids - more closely associated with heart disease - and is found in one in 10 supermarket products including margarine, baked goods and sweets, as well as detergents and lipsticks."
The UN Report continues: "There has been much soul searching among environmentalists because palm oil is also in demand for biofuels, seen as one of the best ways of reducing dependence on fossil fuels and so combating global warming. Palm oil is currently considered the most productive source of biodiesel fuel, and Indonesia and Malaysia account for 83 per cent of its global production."
In my view, therein lies the root of the problem. Either deliberately or inadvertently, no effort has been made to distinguish between Malaysian palm oil and Indonesian palm oil. Just because Malaysia and Indonesia are collectively accountable for 83% of the world output in palm oil, does not mean that both countries adopts the same conservation and cultivation policies.
For one, the adorable Orang Utan is the Malaysian national animal mascot. The orang utan thus holds a special place in every Malaysian heart and conservation efforts are vigorously pursued. For another, how can the UN report have a shred of credibility when Malaysia, despite its tiny land mass still retains, up to now, close to 70% forest cover, and has been doing so for quite a number of decades. This has been so, despite rapid growth in the Malaysian palm oil industry and industrialization for the past fifty years. We have to ask, just how is it even remotely possible for 98% of the Malaysian rainforest to be destroyed by 2022 when 70% has been preserved for the past 5 decades?
Due to the stringent enforcement of The Environmental Quality Act, and effective planning on land use, the expansion of Malaysian palm oil production has come about through better R&D and the replanting of superior palm oil clones on existing palm oil land, agricultural land or previously logged over areas. For an august body like the UN to insinuate that 98% of the forest cover in BOTH Malaysia and Indonesia will be destroyed by the year 2022, is thoughtless, irresponsible and foolhardy, to say the least! The UN will have to do some soul searching to rein in the reckless elements within their organization and to come up with guidelines to prevent this august body from being manipulated by opportunist NGO's such as the Friends of the Earth (FOE)!
It would not be remiss, to query as to the reasons for this organized and concerted action against palm oil by these so-called environmental NGO's like the FOE. A hint as to the real reason lies in an article written by Rhett A Butler entitled: "Why is oil palm replacing tropical rainforests? Why are biofuels fueling deforestation?" published on April 25th, 2006. In the article, Butler offers a clue for the virulent attacks against palm oil, viz: "The answer lies in the crop's unparalleled productivity." He goes on to unwittingly give the real motive away: "Simply put, palm oil is the most productive oil seed in the world. A single hectare of oil palm may yield 5,000 kg of crude oil or nearly 6,000 litres, according to data from JourneytoForever." Then, the confessional: "For comparison, soybeans and corn - crops often heralded as top biofuel sources - generate only 446 and 172 litres per hectare, respectively!" (ii) Isn't it time for the media and right minded individuals and institutions such as the UN to wake up to this insidious and vile misuse of the environmental agenda against an innocent crop.
Let's now examine whether the contention that deforestation is leading to global warming which in turn is leading to extreme weather conditions around the world can stand up to the scrutiny of available data.
Numerous studies have shown that there is no increase in extreme weather. In fact, in a 1996 study by Nicholls Landsea, et al, this group of geophysicists found strong evidence that there was a distinct downward trend for the last fifty years in the extreme weather in the Atlantic. (iii) This was borne out in another study in 1997 by Henderson-Sellers, et al in a post IPCC assessment of tropical cyclones and global climate change. This group of weather scientists again found no evidence of any such increase. (iv) According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a detailed examination of meteorological data fails to support the perception of increased frequency and severity of extreme climate events, in the context of a long term climate change. In a 2001 IPCC Report, the UN Panel reported "no long term trends" were evident for tropical and subtropical storms as well as no systematic changes in the "frequency of tornadoes, thunder days or hail (v) The data confirms that US Hurricane strikes over the last hundred years are clearly not increasing. (vi) It is therefore clear that extreme weather is not more frequent globally - the data simply does not bear that out and in fact, disproves it!
It is easy to understand why environmental NGO's love this theory of global warming so much. Everytime these NGO's run a campaign on pollution, for instance, their cash register rings. It rings because pollution scares the hell out of people. Tell people that they'd get cancer and the money rolls in!
However, these environmental NGO's like the FOE and Treehugger have bitten off more than they can chew, with global warming. For one, there is too little scientific evidence to back the theory and an abundance of data proving that the theory is false, probably motivated more by financial skullduggery than solid science. To make matters worse for the NGO's, data painstakingly collected for over a century disproves and discredits their theory.
In the view of the Palm Oil truth Foundation, it's about time that the media wakes up to this fact, and not allow themselves to be manipulated by these irresponsible NGO's. For that matter, every time it snows or the mercury hits a new low, any right thinking human being would and should question this junk theory on global warming! After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating! THE END
--
Palm Oil Truth Foundation (TRUTH Foundation) is an international non-governmental and not-for-profit organisation, without strings to the world of commerce and power. We are a people organisation, organised for the people and founded upon the principles of integrity and responsibility as a global citizen with the sole purpose of representing TRUTH to the global community about health, environmental and economic benefits of palm oil.
The TRUTH Foundation is an international network of social conscience and cooperation among peoples in industry, government, academia and the ordinary global consuming public, strengthening the forces devoted to respect, justice and equality for a more just and sustainable world and for global peace.
Author RSS Views:
Print this article
Ask about this article