Seeking Sensible Solutions to “Climate Histeria”

by Roger Helmer


AS someone who has lived and worked in Malaysia, I have

watched with interest the growth of a nation that, in the 20 years since I

left, achieved middle-income status, enjoying some of the most robust economic

growth in the region.

I am aware that much of this growth can be attributed to the success of

plantation industries, first cocoa and rubber, and then oil palm.

Watching now as an elected British member of the European Parliament, I am

struck by the challenges these industries currently face, challenges that

originate in the developed West, based on an ideological belief in climate

change.

The definition of and terms under which environmental sustainability is

achieved in the developing world is dreamed up and pursued relentlessly by

Western, taxpayer funded environmental groups, and prove both appealing and

convenient for an increasingly protectionist European Union.

In collaboration with domestic industry, media and academia, the EU confidently

extends the hand of “green colonialism” in Southeast Asia. For my views, I am

identified as a “climate sceptic”.

For their views, may I suggest anti-development, anti-growth,

anti-prosperity, anti-business, anti-capitalism?

The EU has decided that it wants to set a target for reducing carbon dioxide

emissions in the EU by 20 per cent by 2020, while some call for targets of 30

per cent and higher.

The EU can do all it wants to call for 20 per cent or 30 per cent

reductions, but what we are actually going to see is an increase.

What I term “climate hysteria” will, in the long term, cost worldwide industry

and the taxpayer dearly.

Even the EU’s energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, has rejected these higher

targets which, he has said, will result in a faster process of

de-industrialisation in Europe.

Perhaps Oettinger is aware that the small changes in mean global

temperatures which we’ve seen over the last hundred years are entirely

consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles, and do not

serve as a basis for the EU to pursue business damaging, green protectionist

policies.

And there is going to be great demand for palm oil, whether for food or for

fuel.

I am convinced that in 10 years, the issue will no longer be climate change.

The issue will be energy security and energy availability.

The pressure will then be to diversify supply and technologies and to use every

available source of energy. So, I see a great future for biofuels and palm oil

as a biofuel.

However, despite the role commodities such as palm oil could play in global

long-term energy solutions, the apparent consensus is that such industries

should be limited.

How then is this second school of thought driving Western policy towards palm

oil?

It is what Europe calls “participative democracy” and it wields great influence

in the hands of non-governmental organisations. It is the opposite of what we

call “representative democracy”, with the people electing their representatives

and representatives making their decisions. There are a number of voices within

the EU saying that representative democracy has had its time, and we need a new

model.

But what is participative government? Instead of going to the people, you go to

“civic society”. Civic society simply means NGOs. What is fascinating is that

virtually every NGO that engages with EU institutions is actually funded, in

part, by the European Commission itself.

The European Union has created is its own Hall of Mirrors. It has paid for its

own set of interlocutors who reflect what the EU wants to hear.

Think of the incentives and motivations of an NGO. They are driven by the need

to survive and the need to fund themselves. They also need to get funding from

the public. And so their story must be alarming.

If you said last year that the sea level is going to rise by 10 feet, that is

not a story. You have to say that the sea level is growing to rise by 20 feet.

Each time, your prediction has to be more dramatic and alarmist than the last

one.

A recent report by the United Kingdom Taxpayers Alliance found that in 2009/10,

green NGOs received from the EU and the British government a total of £10

million (RM49 million) — three quarters of it from the EU and a quarter of it

from the UK.

Now, why should we worry about that? By taking the public out of the loop, you

are actually producing an anti-democratic structure. A structure designed to

reinforce the prejudices of EU institutions. It means that the nexus of the

NGOs and EU are pursuing the interests and preoccupations of a narrow elite.

As you may be aware, the NGOs have an enormous place in EU decision-making. The

European Commission, when it is developing a legislative proposal, may talk to

the industry, but it will also have Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the

World Wildlife Fund talking to them as well. And that is in my view profoundly

anti-democratic.

Certainly, in the UK, you get little old ladies leaving money to the World

Wildlife Fund in their wills.

You get two million people contributing to the Royal Society for the Protection

of Birds (RSPB), the bird protection organisation. They are interested in

conservation, not environmental advocacy. And yet their money is used for that

purpose.

When we look at some of the more aggressive and strident of the green NGOs,

people are neglected. They do not consider the needs and aspirations of real

people.

How can you influence the work these NGOs are doing and the criticisms that

they are levelling against your industry?

You have to keep telling the right story over and over again. We have a phrase

in politics — sunlight is the best disinfectant. The best way to deal with lies

is to tell the truth.

But it does really matter that you respond with the facts in a targeted way.

Public opinion is very important but, of course, it is people like the members

of the European Parliament (MEPs) and the European Commission who are creating

the misguided regulations.

The word is getting around, but a presence, probably in Brussels, where the

decisions are being made will be key to navigating and influencing the

complicated legislative process.

The task is difficult but not impossible. I believe that demographic changes

and energy shortages and, indeed, food shortages mean that sensible solutions

will have to prevail because we need the food and we need the fuel.

The writer is a member of the European Parliament

Source: New Straits Times

You can share this posts:

Leave a Reply