Palm Oil and the great Gulf oil spill of 2010

The Obama Administration and senior BP officials are frantically working to stop the world's worst oil disaster when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 22nd 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico, making it probably one of the world's worst ecological catastrophe.

Senior researchers tell us that the BP drilling hit one of the oil migration channels and that the leakage, estimated at 200,000 barrels of oil per day could continue for years unless decisive steps are undertaken, something that seems increasingly remote with the present strategy.

The leaked oil has already washed up on the delicate Louisiana shoreline, and may soon reach the coasts of other gulf states as well, closing down fisheries and threatening the region's fragile ecosystems.
William Engdahl, writing in Financial Sense says: "Without doubt at this point we are in the midst of what could be the greatest ecological catastrophe in history. The oil platform explosion took place almost within the current loop where the Gulf Stream originates. This has huge ecological and climatological consequences."

He continues, "A cursory look at a map of the Gulf Stream shows that the oil is not just going to cover the beaches in the Gulf, it will spread to the Atlantic coasts up through North Carolina then on to the North Sea and Iceland. And beyond the damage to the beaches, sea life and water supplies, the Gulf stream has a very distinct chemistry, composition (marine organisms), density, temperature. What happens if the oil and the dispersants and all the toxic compounds they create actually change the nature of the Gulf Stream? No one can rule out potential changes including changes in the path of the Gulf Stream, and even small changes could have huge impacts. Europe, including England, is not an icy wasteland due to the warming from the Gulf Stream."

Yet there is a deafening silence from the very environmental organizations which ought to be at the barricades demanding that BP, the US Government and others act decisively.

That deafening silence of leading green or ecology organizations such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (FOE), Rainforest Action Network (RAN), Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club and others may well be tied to a money trail that leads right back to the oil industry, notably to BP. Leading environmental organizations have gotten significant financial payoffs in recent years from BP in order that the oil company could remake itself with an "environment-friendly face," as in "beyond petroleum" the company's new branding.

The Nature Conservancy, described as "the world's most powerful environmental group," has awarded BP a seat on its International Leadership Council after the oil company gave the organization more than $10 million in recent years.
Until recently, the Conservancy and other environmental groups worked with BP in a coalition that lobbied Congress on climate-change issues. An employee of BP Exploration serves as an unpaid Conservancy trustee in Alaska. In addition, according to a recent report published by the Washington Post, Conservation International, another environmental group, has accepted $2 million in donations from BP and worked with the company on a number of projects, including one examining oil-extraction methods. From 2000 to 2006, John Browne, then BP's chief executive, sat on the CI board.

Further, The Environmental Defense Fund, another influential ecologist organization, joined with BP, Shell and other major corporations to form a Partnership for Climate Action, to promote ‘market-based mechanisms' (sic) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental non-profit groups that have accepted donations from or joined in projects with BP include Nature Conservancy, Conservation International, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and Audubon. That could explain why the outcry to date for decisive action in the Gulf from these green groups have been so muted.

Yet ironically these green groups, especially Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Rainforest Action Network, are so vocal about palm oil, probably one of the most sustainable edible oil crop ever cultivated.

Perhaps, with their history of canoodling and siding with whichever group butters their toast, it should come as no surprise that palm oil should be targeted by these dishonest brokers with their alphabet soup names.

Evidence has now emerged that the EU is funding up to 70% of the annual budgets of green groups like FOE and consequently, wittingly or unwittingly their anti-palm oil campaigns. This has raised the ugly specter that green groups are used to erect trade barriers against palm oil in the guise of environmental concerns!

Another dead giveaway is the discriminatory EU Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) requirements for palm oil usage as biofuel issued by the EU which placed onerous green house gas emission default values on palm oil and yet competing oils like rapeseed and sunflower which are not as sustainably cultivated as palm oil are given higher default values. Curiously, unlike palm oil, these competing oilseeds like rapeseed and sunflower are cultivated in the EU which raises the likelihood that all these palm oil bashing are just cleverly disguised trade protectionism!

If these green groups really care about the environment, why do they remain silent on the 33 millions tons of carbon emitted during the annual process of coal mining in the UK. Yet the cultivation of palm oil which has been hailed recently by researchers from Wageningen University in the Netherlands as "the most efficient energy crop," is systematically demonized as destructive of rainforest and contributing to global warming.

The university's finding is a rejection of environmental NGOs and the anti-palm oil lobbyists who consistently claim that palm oil is unsustainable.

Its research found that palm oil, sugar cane and sweet sorghum are currently the most sustainable energy crops. These commodities also produce "far smaller quantities of greenhouse gases than fossil fuels".

The university's analysis considered nine different energy crops against nine different sustainability criteria with palm oil coming out on top while biofuel from maize from the United States and wheat from Europe scored far lower.

The report's author, Sander de Vries, concluded that sustainable sugar canes and oil palms get the most energy per hectare and cause the least environmental damage.

Another researcher, Dr Gernot Pehnelt, founder and director of GlobEcon, an independent research and consulting institute based in Germany, released a new study that revealed the biased and prejudicial nature of the EU's Renewable Energy Directive towards foreign biofuels.

The report, entitled "European Policies Towards Palm Oil: Sorting Out Some Facts," demonstrated that the assumptions contained in the directive about the ecological impact of foreign biofuels reflected political and not scientific or economic reality.

Dr Pehnelt came to the defence of the rich biodiversity in oil palm plantations, their excellent crown cover that oil palms provide and the yield per hectare advantages of this low-energy and low-fertilizer crop.

"Sadly, many of the claims that foreign biofuels, specifically palm oil, are a threat to the environment are seriously flawed, some even completely unfounded," he said, adding that the side effects of the flawed policies could give rise to political friction and trade disputes to severe economic handicaps for developing countries.

"This new study makes a strong case that RED discriminates against non-EU producers of biofuels, such as Asian palm oil.

"Perhaps most importantly, palm oil acts as a substantial driver of economic growth in the developing world, drastically reducing hunger and poverty in regions that actively cultivate this valuable crop.

"It's time for Europe to not only recognise the energy and environment benefits of palm oil, but also the suffering in low-income, tropical countries that palm oil critics continue to perpetuate," said Dr Pehnelt.

Given the selective amnesia of green groups like Greenpeace, FOE and RAN to ecological events of catastrophic proportions and their ominous manipulation and cherry picking of facts to get consumers and multinational food manufacturers like Unilever and Nestle to ostracize palm oil, the media should have been adequately alerted to the probability that there is more going on beneath the surface than meets the eye with these green groups! THE END.

About the Author

Palm Oil 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.

by: palmoiltruthfoundation

Rating: Not yet rated

Comments

No comments posted.