A recent report shows that there is a growing skepticism towards environmental laws.  Governments risk a public backlash, unless they are able to do a better job of explaining environmental taxes such as charges on driving in cities, etc. (i)

According to Steffen Kallbekken of the Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, governments often fail to link green taxes to their goal of curbing energy use or helping a shift to renewable energies, "People do not understand environmental taxes," he told Reuters. "There is quite a  strong belief that the revenues just disappear into a big black hole".

As a result, there is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada. (ii)

Results of the poll were released this week in advance of the start of a major international conference in Poland where delegates are considering steps toward a new international climate-change treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 percent last year.

Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend "extra time" on the effort, an eight-point drop.

And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change. That's down from 28 per cent a year ago.

The Canadian results, from a poll of 1,000 respondents conducted in September, were virtually identical to the overall figures. There are no comparative figures for Canada because Canadians weren't included in the global study in 2007.

The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.

The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.

In the view of Deforestation Watch, not only governments are experiencing this new skepticism towards environmental measures.  The environmental movement as a whole, has not been done any favors by the likes of the inappropriately named Greenpeace and the Friends of the Earth (FOE) in trundling out scatterbrained and poorly researched campaigns targeting various industries, particularly palm oil.

This drop in public support is due to the fact that most people are waking up to the scams and dishonorable schemes that the environmental movement led by Greenpeace and the FOE, has invested in. By selecting palm oil to attack, Greenpeace and the FOE may have committed grave strategic errors of judgment and bitten off more than they could chew!

After all, palm oil is probably the most productive of oil seed crops, yielding a remarkable 4.5 metric tons of oil per hectare.  This is more than ten times the yield of its closest competitors such as soy, rapeseed and sunflower!  What this translates to is that palm oil requires far less land to produce the same unit of oil that its competitors require.

Logically, if environmental conservationists are looking for an environmentally friendly oilseed crop, they should be looking to palm oil.

Yet inexplicably, Greenpeace and FOE accuses palm oil of causing massive deforestation and the blind ferocity and bile behind their attacks knows no bounds– not even the recent RSPO certified sustainable palm oil shipped to Europe by United Plantations (UP) is spared. 

Perhaps, unbeknownst to Greenpeace and FOE, it is irrational attacks such as these that alerts right thinking individuals to question just what the true agenda of environmentalists such as Greenpeace and FOE are. 

In the view of Deforestation Watch, if Greenpeace and FOE were to preserve any vestige of credibility that they still have on this issue, the time is ripe for them to frame the debate on palm oil and global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns!  THE END.

References
(i) http://planetark.org/wen/50717
(ii)http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe