Amidst growing talk from pundits of all political persuasions that the Copenhagen climate conference was a royal flop, President Barack Obama attempted to challenge these interpretations on Friday, saying the United States, China and other participants had achieved an “unprecedented breakthrough” in the battle to cut global climate emissions.

After months of anticipation and two weeks of intense political wrangling, diplomats from around the world — including representatives from growing financial powerhouses like India, South Africa, Brazil and, of course, China — have said that they will take action to cut pollution, though specific benchmarks and targets have not yet been announced.

One feature of the Copenhagen climate summit that stood out like a sore thumb was the striking fundamental differences that emerged between the rich and poor nations. Representatives from developing world nations had threatened to walk out of the conference over the last week. Developed world diplomats thought this was just conference drama.

There is a serious issue. The rich world has been making extreme and morally questionable demands of poor countries.
If they persist, no effective global strategy on climate change is possible.

One such example to consider is the issue of cultivation and trade of palm oil, a valuable product produced in developing nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America and sold in markets across the globe.

Wealthy western countries, prodded by green activists, have demanded that poor countries severely curtail their palm oil production.

Says Alan Oxley, Chairman of World growth International: “The demands constitute an unconscionable attack on the livelihoods of
millions of poor people. Developing nations will resist and they are right to do so.”

Led primarily by the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, the environmentalists claim that palm oil is a leading generator of greenhouse gases. A rash of reports produced by these organisations blame palm oil for deforestation and for destroying orangutan habitat in Southeast Asia.

However, as pointed out by Oxley, these assertions are simply not true. He explains: “Development and forestry experts know that two-thirds of forest clearance is driven by low-income people in poor countries searching for land for habitation and food production.”

Oxley observed that palm oil is the most environmentally sustainable vegetable oil available. “It uses one-tenth of the land required by other vegetable oil crops to produce the same quantity of oil - including that produced in rich countries in Europe and North America,” he said.  “Palm plantations are effective sinks for absorbing carbon dioxide” and “palm oil is also a more effective and greener renewable diesel fuel than biodiesel made from other vegetable oils such as rapeseed in Europe or corn in the United States,” said Oxley.

Oxley also pointed out that palm oil producers across the globe are working with conservationists to implement effective strategies to preserve orangutan habitats. Says Oxley: “Indeed, they are making a bigger contribution to conservation efforts than the environmental protesters!”

“Critics also overlook how palm oil satisfies growing consumer demand and, most importantly, how it provides opportunity and hope to the developing world,” he observed.

Since the turn of this century, palm oil has emerged as the main global source of vegetable oil and is enjoying growing adoption rates in rich country markets as a biofuel to power transport and electricity generation systems. Deforestation Watch has to agree with Oxley’s observation that “Of course, low cost agro-imports are rarely welcome in Europe. Following its well-established pattern of protecting its agribusinesses, the EU has set environmental standards that would impede palm oil imports.” “It's a blatant effort to hand the market for renewable fuels over to their domestic producers,” says Oxley.

The losers here include European consumers seeking the most energy efficient and cost effective alternatives to coal and petrol; and the European environment as well as EU food manufacturers and retailers.

The green groups have advanced their agenda on several fronts. They have successfully pressured Western buyers of palm oil to halt their purchases of the product. Unilever is a major multinational firm that recently announced it would cease buying palm oil from some developing world producers. This successful green pressure campaign thus condemns these residents of the developing world and their families and communities to continued poverty.

The irony of Unilever’s decision is that it portends a gradual gravitation of the palm oil market from the EU.  What will eventually happen, in the view of Deforestation watch is that palm oil planters will focus on the growing Asian market and EU food manufacturers will have to switch to higher priced substitutes which will add significantly to their costs of production, ultimately leading to loss of competitiveness of these products on the world market.  In the face of the current economic climate, it will eventually impact on the recovery of the EU economy.

Says Oxley: "Or consider steps taken recently by the World Bank, an agency ostensibly dedicated to helping poor countries climb the ladder of economic success." "The Bank once commended Indonesia for developing an indigenous palm oil industry, knowing that any successful country must cultivate domestic natural resource industries to provide jobs and economic growth for its people."

"But now the World Bank and major aid donors have succumbed to pressure from green groups and have agreed to lean on developing countries to halt the conversion of forest land to more productive uses. These steps are designed to put the palm oil industry out of business, killing jobs and taking away opportunities for poor people to learn skills that will help them advance."

He said,"Denying the developing world the right to develop a vibrant palm oil industry denies them the right and opportunity to reduce poverty and raise living standards. This is no way to advance human or environmental welfare."

Finally says Oxley: “If developed countries and development agencies want developing countries to sign on to a new global strategy to reduce greenhouse gases, they must advance strategies that raise living standards and not regard increases in poverty as unavoidable collateral damage!” THE END.