« Obama's Phony Realism | Blog Home Page | World's Top Arms Exporters »
March 24, 2011Biofuels and Western Hypocrisy
Gordon Brown, the former British Prime Minister, has been raising a scare in the UK press about what he calls "the biggest environmental crime of our times" - the deforestation of Borneo, as reported by his sister-in-law, environmental activist Clare Rewcastle Brown.
Here's the interesting part - upon closer inspection, this controversy seems to be a classic example of a problem created by the West's policies toward combating global warming - and this controversy in particular is driven in part by Brown's own environmental policies as PM.
Let's step back a moment to look at the issue. Brown's claim is of extreme overuse of the Borneo rainforest in the Malaysian state of Sarawak, at such a rate that "only five percent of the primary forest is left where it was nearly 100 percent untouched in the 1960s." These are certainly scary-sounding figures - and worthy of the title of ecological disasters. Yet the whole thing strikes me as difficult to believe - a 95 percent deforestation rate? (Take a trip to Gunung Mulu in Sarawak or any of the wildlife preserves and you'll find that dubious.) Brown's claims certainly raised the hackles of local authorities, who've responded with significant criticism and pushback - the Chief Minister of Sarawak has challenged any international observers to come and verify that 70 percent or more of the rainforests remain intact.
In fact, if you compare Brown's claims to those made by Wetlands International, a Netherlands-based environmental activist group, you see that not even they claim the ludicrous figure of 95 percent reduction. Indeed, their calculations, apparently derived primarily from Google Earth satellite photography, show a 10 percent downturn over five years. In other words, even Brown's green activist allies in Europe are providing data-driven research which conflict with these claims.
But let's take these claims from the UK seriously for a moment. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that these claims are not falsehoods repeated by activists, but correct assessments of the situation. The question becomes: whose fault is it?
The uncomfortable truth for the Browns is that a primary driver for clearing land has come because of increased production of palm oil, in large part to meet Western demands for biofuels.
As highlighted in a recent special report in The Economist on the failings of biofuel policy, the ramifications of the European Union's mandated increases in usage of the stuff are widespread - particularly in raising the price of food. Environmental policy expert James Taylor, a colleague of mine at the Heartland Institute, explains it simply: if the government subsidizes something, there's going to be more of it.
"This is really quite amusing. Just a few years ago, the EU was acting environmentally holier than thou because they were using more biofuels than the U.S. As it turned out, the EU was meeting its biofuel goals because it was purchasing palm oil from places like Borneo," Taylor told me. "The palm oil, of course, was being produced as a result of deforestation. So, after creating a market for palm oil and incentives for Third World tropical nations to convert virgin forest to palm oil production, Gordon Brown now chastises these nations for producing the very palm oil that the EU was demanding and purchasing for years."
Of course, if the Browns would like to just continue the cycle of subsidization, Taylor has some advice for them: "If the EU is suddenly so concerned about deforestation, nothing is stopping them from offering Borneo incentives to forego deforestation."
Yet that's not the wisest course, either. There's little question that what Sarawak needs at the moment is progress - they're a province in need of an economic boost - and this progress demands funding from someone. Given the choice between using the resources they have (in a responsible fashion) and relying on the charity of other nations, it's little surprise they'd rather use what's available to provide schools, hospitals, roads, and energy to their people.
Taken as a whole, the Browns' response to this is an ideal example of Western hypocrisy on environmental policy. They apparently think green energy policy happens in a vacuum - particularly when it relates to the sacred alternative energy cow of biofuels. And they honestly seem to think that the jungles of Borneo need to be preserved in their original state even if that means continued destitution for the rural people involved.
This is just one more classic example of hypocrisy on the part of disengaged politicians, who never seem to think of the consequences of their actions. This is the sort of elitism that thinks there's something charming about people living in houses built out of sticks and mud, and thinks there's something bad about moving to brick and mortar.
Thankfully, in this case, the Browns seem to be wrong about the whole thing. But if they were right? They should just be pointing the finger at themselves. The developing world is not some zoo for the West to observe as an intact image of days of yore - it's full of people in need of significant help, help that's much better if it comes through internal effort as opposed to external charity.
(AP Photo)
Share