The Green Freedom Project | Welcome!

Introduction | June 2010


About the Green Freedom Campaign
 

In the last decades, the world has witnessed an unprecedented reduction of poverty and an increase of wealth, developments made possible, in part, by giving more countries and their people access to the global marketplace. This is put increasingly at risk by those who wish to stifle growth, limit opportunity and promote policies which are harmful to the accumulation of wealth and an increase in living standards for people globally. While there are many contributors to this misguided cause, the ‘Green Freedom’ campaign focuses on the main culprit – the Green Movement – a movement that has achieved stunning success in the last two decades.

The Green Movement, during this time, has focused on promoting their worldview, one that claims environmental conservation should trump all other economic, social and political concerns. To realize this objective, the movement has endeavored to: target leading corporations that do not adhere to its agenda; pressure Western governments to erect trade barriers against emerging markets; and produce research and analysis to shape the international environmental debate in favor of its policy goals. Although successfully deploying its trademark scare tactics time and again, the Green Movement’s accomplishments have not only done little to help the environment, but also, at a time of great economic opportunity, have succeeded in keeping many people in the developing world poor.

This particular brand of environmentalism is a threat to our globalizing world, and the ‘Green Freedom’ campaign aims to stem the tide of harmful environmental policies and trends by promoting, producing and publicizing reliable research and commentary in the environmental and economic fields. We believe that taking action to counter misguided environmental policy and activism is not only a demand of science and economics, an enterprise that depends on concrete evidence and transparency, but also an ethical demand. Despite tremendous improvements in environmental technology used to increase the quality of air, water and food, claims for unwarranted and harmful environmental action are on the rise. While the need for a healthy earth and a clean environment is undisputed, we should be careful to group all environmental endeavors under one affirmative banner. Unfounded claims must be challenged, and questionable solutions that deter rather than promote wealth creation must be investigated.

The Green Movement should be about freedom; freedom to question claims put forth by NGOs, to counter dominant NGOs, to offer advice about how to approach global issues and to counter prevailing claims in the field. Being green is about being free to question, to create, to fix, to grow and to innovate.
The ‘Green Freedom’ campaign is guided by two principles:
1.       Support for Free Trade, Free Enterprise and Competitiveness – Barriers to free trade will hinder economic development in the developing world. Unfortunately, green NGOs recognize the strength of their position in advocating for the restriction of free trade, as companies in the EU and US struggle with faltering competitiveness amidst the global economic crisis and the rise in economic strength of emerging economies.  Free trade of goods and services should instead be encouraged to provide the most cost-effective and optimal benefits to developed and developing countries.

2.       Support for Ethical Corporate Social Responsibility – Green NGOs’ pressuring of major corporations to cave to their corporate social responsibility (CSR) demands undermines the core business activities of these companies, losing sight of the fact that it is corporations, not ‘green’ activists, that provide the jobs and prosperity that enable the poor in developing countries to achieve higher standards of living.

One example of the Green Movement campaign, promoted under the guise of environmental stewardship, is the debate on climate change, agriculture and forestry.  In the name of “saving nature”, it has exerted immense pressure on political actors and businesses. The effects of this dubious lobbying have spilled beyond the EU’s borders, now dictating development policies in emerging economies. If they have their way, these policies would raise serious economic development questions for millions living in tropical nations, and sentence them to a life of destitution and despair.  Our ‘Green Freedom’ campaign seeks to counter the baseless claims made by the well-funded Green Movement, to point out the damage done by these policies to people at home and around the world, and to promote a balanced approach to environmental issues based on sound research and science rather than propaganda.


Berlin Manhattan Institute Launches Green Freedom Campaign

Free Trade. Corporate Social Responsibility. Economic Development. Prosperity and Wealth Creation. This is Green Freedom | 02 June 2010

BMI’s new ‘Green Freedom’ campaign introduces a unique voice into the international environmental debate to counter the anti-development agenda espoused by environmental non-governmental organisations (ENGOs) worldwide.

For too long, ENGOs have pressured corporations and governments into accepting their view of the world – one that protects natural resources at all costs, at the expense of the world’s poor.

Sadly, these demands levied on the poor in developing countries which require that they forgo the same opportunities the developed world had to cultivate valuable resources, keeps living standards low. And that means fewer jobs, lower wages and a bleaker future for those most in need. Frankly, it is hypocritical and morally-questionable for these ENGOs to dictate such demands, as many of these ENGOs are funded by and staffed from rich, developed countries in the West.

What is worse, the agenda driven by global ENGOs is based on radical ideology, not according to conservation values or proven economic models. From “greenmailing” corporations to attacking government leaders, these ENGO campaigns have wrecked havoc on global economic development.

Thus, an alternative voice to the Green Movement is needed. BMI’s ‘Green Freedom’ campaign has emerged to fill this void.

To refute the sweeping generalizations made by these ENGOs, this new ‘Green Freedom’ campaign will focus on two, specific themes central to the international environmental debate:

·         Environmental Policy that Promotes Economic Development
With Western corporations struggling amidst the global economic downturn, ENGOs recognize that these increasingly-uncompetitive corporations are easy targets on which to push their anti-development, environmental policies. By advocating for trade barriers that help meet their campaign objectives, ENGOs steal away from the developing world’s poor enormous opportunities to gain more jobs, earn higher wages and secure a better standard of living.   
To combat these poverty-perpetuating policies, the ‘Green Freedom’ campaign will encourage the free trade of goods and services, providing the most cost-effective and optimal benefits to both developed and developing countries.

·         Supporting Corporate Social Responsibility
ENGOs’ corporate social responsibility (CSR) demands undermine the core business activities of major corporations. However, it is these corporations, not the Green Movement, that provide the jobs and prosperity that enable the poor in developing countries to achieve higher standards of living.

The ‘Green Freedom’ campaign will, therefore, promote CSR policies that harmonize both the essential business operations of corporations, and these corporations’ true commitment to a more sustainable environmental future.

If ENGOs are allowed to continue coercing rich countries into dictating the development strategies of poor countries, millions of people will continue to live in poverty unnecessarily.

Green Protectionism | Commentary

Commentary on harmful green protectionism | June 2010

Climate talks failed this past December in Copenhagen, and in an effort to revitalize the Copenhagen agenda, delegates met in Bonn in April to discuss a new plan for green protectionism.  Despite the fact that no consensus was reached in Copenhagen, countries wanted to impose green protectionist measures regardless.  Some argue for taxes on carbon-intensive imports, others want to stop all imports from countries that do not cut emissions.  Clearly, the main targets are China and India, two of the world's most important and rapidly growing economies.

These types of measures threaten international trade and growth, and especially endanger poor and developing countries.  China and India are worried about sustaining growth and eradicating poverty, two worthy goals unreachable when carbon barriers are put in place.

Furthermore, carbon restrictions on trade will do little to decrease carbon emissions.  Taxing carbon-intensive imports from India, for example, would not have much of an impact because many of its emissions-heavy exports go to other developing countries.

Finally, considering the nature of global production, creating boundaries around international trade would only stunt growth, damage already fragile countries, and lead to further instability.

A De-escalation of Folly | Commentary

Commentary on Collier's stance against "Romantic Environmentalism" | June 2010

Paul Collier is a respected economist, Professor at the University of Oxford, and former director of the Development Research Group at the World Bank.  Collier is a specialist in the economic, political, and development issues of poor countries, and last week took environmentalists to task in an article in the London Times.  He calls environmentalism the "religion of our times", and says, "we are more inclined to moralise about nature than to understand the science and economics underlying it" (see article linked below for all quote references).

His important message comes down to the following points:
1. We can't afford to mess up agriculture because it... feeds us.  He says, "... the moral high ground in the West has become occupied by romantic environmentalists, often aristocrats, who view modern scientific agriculture with distaste".

2. Developing countries can't afford romantic environmentalism.  "While Europe shot itself in the foot (by banning GMO's or genetically modified organism technology), Africa copied the decision and duly shot itself in the heart. Faced by fast population growth and a deteriorating climate, Africa needs rapid crop adaptation more than any other region".

3. The "small is beautiful mythology" is false and dangerous. "For 40 years their efforts to raise the productivity of African agriculture have been exclusively focused on small farmers. Our non-governmental organisations tend to face both ways, wanting development without change; Africa’s peasants are to be preserved in aspic. Yet this is not how our own agriculture became more productive: our peasantry vanished for a simple reason — it was inefficient".

As he states near the end of the article, what we need is a "mutual de-escalation of folly".

Read the entire article here

Demonizing Koch | Commentary

Commentary on Greenpeace's smear campaign against Koch Industries | May 2010

This March, Greenpeace published a report entitled “Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine”.  On first glance, the report looks like a stereotypical environmentalist coffee table book with its dark, serious photos that are supposed to remind one of the fateful role oil companies play in our lives.  

The report lists a number of think tanks who have received support from Koch, and labels them as the “Koch Industries controlled foundations in recent years”.  As the publication’s title so subtly implies, the receiving institutions on the list are not falling hook, line, and sinker for the Greenpeace message, and they're not happy about it.

The think tank list Greenpeace provides is basically the “Who's Who” of the libertarian and conservative think tank community in the United States.  These are institutions known for their critical stance on excessive government regulations, as well as their opposition to most left and "green" positions.  Though Greenpeace thinks otherwise, it should not come as a surprise that libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute or the Reason Foundation, for example, enjoy support from other institutes and persons who share their non-interventionist, free market, classical liberal beliefs.  Contrary to what Greenpeace suggests in its exaggerated, fear-mongering report, the fact that privately owned corporations are willing to assist freedom-oriented think tanks is exemplary behaviour that should be applauded in a free society.

On a technical note, Greenpeace states that “Koch has out-spent ExxonMobil in funding these groups in recent years. From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of the ‘climate denial machine’”.

Taking into account the wide thematic portfolio of the Koch foundation and the various think tanks it funds, it would not only be naïve but also utterly wrong to assume that these think tanks deal only with “climate change”.  But Greenpeace is not adept at maneuvering through the finer details.  Clearly, the total money given from private donors to think tanks that do some climate research cannot be counted up as an accurate amount given to climate projects alone. Neither should they assume, and then propagandize, that all free market think tanks who invest time and money in climate research are churning out "climate science denial".  One would assume that reading the reports of reputable institutions would be required before attacking them.

Another remarkable aspect of this report is the underlying implication that some companies are turning toward the light & others should as well.  Greenpeace suggests that ExxonMobil is already showing some progress.  They say, “after a decade of reputation-damaging public disclosures, as well as pressure from scientific organizations, shareholders and senators, ExxonMobil implemented a new public relations strategy under a new CEO, and has begun to moderate its public statements on climate change”.  So Exxon has started to toe the line.  In our book that's not progress, it's peer pressure of the most sordid kind.

You can read about the report here at the Greenpeace site
You can download the entire report here

Food Security | Commentary