I recently learned of a United Nations study on environmental funding for projects around the world. The UN wanted to know what programs are working. One of the researchers shared an example of 'what's working' with me.
An oil exploration/services company wanted to operate off of the coast of Panama. In order to obtain permission from the Panamanian government, this corporation agreed to work with an indigenous group of Indians who have been living in and cutting down their forest habitat. The corporation offered to provide 15 years worth of compensation to the Indians in exchange for their commitment to stop cutting the trees. Payment would be on an annual basis. In order to monitor the project the oil exploration corporation required that the Indians give up their ownership title to their land for the 15 year period. If they didn't cut the trees they would get their land titles back in 15 years. An independent third party non-governmental organization would monitor the land for the 15 year term.
The oil exploration corporation would then own the land for 15 years and be able to sell carbon credits for that land on the international market.
The oil exploration corporation would then own the land for 15 years and be able to sell carbon credits for that land on the international market.
When I was told about this plan I asked the following questions:
Why did the Indians need the oil exploration corporation to make this agreement for carbon credits? Couldn't an NGO arrange this for them without a middle man and without them having to give up ownership of their land?
Are the carbon credits projected to fully compensate the oil exploration corporation for their 15 years of payments to the Indians? Will there be a profit for the oil exploration corporation besides the profit on oil drilling?
What will the Indians do for 15 years? Will they have to change their lives and traditional way of living? What happens at the end of the 15 years? What other impacts might result from loss of land ownership over a generation? How would the NGO monitoring the land use change the relationship of the Indians to their land?
What is the nexus between oil drilling and Indians besides exploitation?
The researcher was angry and disgusted with me for asking these questions, and said that I was biased against seeing that it was a benefit for the people. I said that these questions should be explored and answered fully before any agreements were made. The researcher said that the questions had not occurred to him and that as far as he was concerned it's a 'win-win.'
Is it? We'll know in 15 years, if anyone cares to look. It's not too hard to figure out that moving people out of the rural and suburban areas (a goal of UN Agenda 21) is well-served by this oil company/Indian exploitation-or-windfall scheme. At the end of 15 years will there be any Indians left in that village? The carbon sink game is one that is sure to benefit those with big money and power. Very soon now you'll be paying for your carbon-heavy travel and lifestyle. You can pay voluntarily when you book travel on some airlines, but this is just the start.
Think globally, act locally. The biggest public relations scam in the history of the world has cast a big net.
Why did the Indians need the oil exploration corporation to make this agreement for carbon credits? Couldn't an NGO arrange this for them without a middle man and without them having to give up ownership of their land?
Are the carbon credits projected to fully compensate the oil exploration corporation for their 15 years of payments to the Indians? Will there be a profit for the oil exploration corporation besides the profit on oil drilling?
What will the Indians do for 15 years? Will they have to change their lives and traditional way of living? What happens at the end of the 15 years? What other impacts might result from loss of land ownership over a generation? How would the NGO monitoring the land use change the relationship of the Indians to their land?
What is the nexus between oil drilling and Indians besides exploitation?
The researcher was angry and disgusted with me for asking these questions, and said that I was biased against seeing that it was a benefit for the people. I said that these questions should be explored and answered fully before any agreements were made. The researcher said that the questions had not occurred to him and that as far as he was concerned it's a 'win-win.'
Is it? We'll know in 15 years, if anyone cares to look. It's not too hard to figure out that moving people out of the rural and suburban areas (a goal of UN Agenda 21) is well-served by this oil company/Indian exploitation-or-windfall scheme. At the end of 15 years will there be any Indians left in that village? The carbon sink game is one that is sure to benefit those with big money and power. Very soon now you'll be paying for your carbon-heavy travel and lifestyle. You can pay voluntarily when you book travel on some airlines, but this is just the start.
Think globally, act locally. The biggest public relations scam in the history of the world has cast a big net.
RSS Feed