It is fashionable in some circles to say that “green is the new
black.” By this, it is meant that environmental values and mores have
become chic, trendy, and cool.
I increasingly take deep offense at this notion. Perhaps without
realizing it, environmental organizations have recently advanced
policies that are deeply harmful to developing countries in Africa and
underserved urban communities domestically in the U.S.
Unless they shift course, environmental activists run the risk of
committing a grave social injustice. In too many instances, green isn’t
the new black; instead, it’s either inadvertently or purposefully
becoming the enemy of blacks, both in the United States and abroad.
For example, in the last few years, environmental lobbyists in Europe
and the United States successfully pressured the World Bank to withhold
funds for large-scale agriculture projects involving palm oil, an
important food crop in Africa.
In September 2009, the bank’s finance arm froze all funding of palm
oil related development projects, denying $132 million to existing
projects. The bank has since undergone a system-wide review of its palm
oil lending framework.
But even if the bank lifts its suspension, a draft of the bank’s
review reveals that its policies may still harm small, medium and even
large enterprises in Africa. The review also reveals the extent of green
influence.
The bank is likely to lift the suspension while committing itself to
imposing so-called “sustainability” criteria on loans for oil palm
development. This marks a clear and unprecedented break from the bank’s
stated mandate of poverty alleviation through economic development. The
new framework is expected to be submitted to the World Bank Group’s
Management Board for its approval by March.
To give a sense of the stakes, the bank has in the past funded well
over half a billion dollars worth of projects in the palm oil sector, in
countries such as Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Ghana.
The funds have been invaluable given Africa’s immature and still
developing financial system. Withdrawing the funds has turned African
agriculture on its head, and has deprived the region of a crucial
generator of economic development and opportunities for prosperity.
Keep in mind these are nations, Nigeria in particular, that need to
diversify their economies and end their reliance on minerals for
economic growth. Palm oil, like other big agriculture projects,
provides good jobs and hope for a better future outside of the delta
regions that are plagued by violence and crime.
Moreover, palm oil plantations in Africa and elsewhere are maintained
in an environmentally conscious way by remaining sensitive to
conserving natural forests and biodiversity; palm oil is only cultivated
in areas set aside for commercial production.
The bank’s new framework will be especially harmful to small farmers
and landholders. These constitute many of the employees and stakeholders
in Africa’s palm oil sector. The bank is considering a certification
scheme mandate for individual farmers, a costly and excessive burden
that was never applied to individual farmers in wealthy nations as they
developed.
The scheme is designed to halt these farmers’ ability to grow crops
as they see fit. This constitutes discrimination by bureaucratic writ.
Applying sustainability criteria is like applying a literacy test to
secure voting rights in the Jim Crow South – a measure its proponents
defend as prudent and wise, but in reality undermines the aspirations
and rights of blacks.
Large enterprises will also suffer, as it is clear European
agribusinesses and labor unions – which give support to European
environmental groups – want protection from competition against upstart
African entrepreneurs.
At a minimum, the new framework should be submitted to the World Bank
Executive Board. At least then the bank’s shareholders, which include
developing country representatives, can meet to discuss the future of
bank policy.
Of course it’s not just the World Bank that has embarked on poorly
considered policies in recent years. The U.S. Congress and executive
branch agencies have, at the behest of environmental groups, pursued new
rules and regulations that would raise the cost of energy,
transportation, and housing.
The recent cap-and-trade bills and EPA regulations, led by
Green-influenced Members, would especially burden poor, largely black
communities throughout the United States.
The goal of the energy regulations is to diminish use of energy. It
does this by raising the price of energy. The burden for the price
spike falls disproportionately on those people for whom energy costs are
a large percentage of their income, the working poor.
This constitutes an inequitable burden on American blacks who have
enough challenges given an economy with near 10% unemployment. The last
thing they need are new laws making their electric bills go up.
Just as Africans rely on small farming enterprises to provide jobs
and decent livings, the American black population relies on small
businesses in its neighborhoods to keep communities thriving.
Most black-owned and operated businesses are not giant, multinational
firms capable of absorbing a hit to their bottom line in the form of
higher energy costs. They operate with tight margins and have to watch
every dollar.
Sometimes, it seems that in their zeal to advance a narrow conception
of environmental justice and well-being, green organizations have
forgotten about even more important humanitarian and communitarian
values.
Without healthy, thriving, economically robust communities – be they
in Nigeria or New York, Cameroon or Chicago, Benin or Boston, Ivory
Coast or Indianapolis – there can be no sustained ecological health.
Source : Washington Examiner by Niger Innis – National spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE).
