- Seattle socialist: Minimum-wage discussion skewed by ‘right-wing’ GAO analysis
- U.N. warns of Muslim ‘cleansing’ in Central African Republic
- Senate blocks change to military sex assault cases
- Drug mix may have cured child born with HIV, doctors say
- De Blasio’s wife irks former mansion chef with ‘servant’ remark
- Russia’s neighbors shiver amid Putin’s Cold War moves in Ukraine
- New SAT: The essay portion is to become optional
- Military group can’t march to honor the fallen at Boston Marathon due to security changes
- Senate passes bills deleting ‘retarded’ from laws
- China announces biggest military hike in 3 years: We are not ‘boy scouts with spears’
INNIS: Seeing red over green activism
Protectionists hurt low-income consumers by favoring expensive paper products
Pity the poor American consumer. If he is even fortunate enough to have a job in this weak economy, his purchasing power is eroded by steadily rising food and health care prices. Wages are stagnant, and at the same time, policymakers in Washington are taking a breather from the long-term budget fight that is doing little to help American consumers.
As if that situation weren’t bad enough, a cadre of wealthy professional environmental activists continues to pursue campaigns that raise the prices of consumer goods. These goods include staple products such as paper towels, toilet paper, grocery bags, schoolbooks and other school supplies.
Consider the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a group established by radical green organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace a little less than two decades ago. The group, which receives government money from the United States, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the European Union, raises bogus concerns over deforestation resulting from the global trade in paper goods.
The FSC claims it monitors “responsible” forest management. It hands out its version of the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval for those paper-product producers and merchants it favors.
The certification seal of approval is a classic activist pressure tactic employed to distort trade. It is designed to force the market to rely on certain producers and suppliers at the expense of others. It’s a protectionist wolf in green sheep’s clothing.
So it’s not surprising that it turns out that most of these approved producers and suppliers are found only in the wealthy West. Given that the governments of the United States and Europe fund the group in part to help their domestic producers, would you expect anything else? The process is rigged from the start.
Low-cost countries where these goods can be produced cheaply and efficiently are locked out of the market.
The upshot is that this distortion in trade significantly raises the prices of basic goods for all consumers. The hardest hit are those in low-income and poor communities, including minorities, who must devote a larger percentage of their budgets to basic goods and products.
This would be troubling under any economic circumstances, but given the persistently weak economy plaguing the now long-suffering American consumer, such activities are risible.
If that weren’t bad enough, a new report released recently from my organization reveals something even more troubling about the FSC. While the group claims to act on behalf of ecological health, its activities are actually generating environmental harm.
We document for the first time that FSC-certified products contain tropical forest species such as red lauan. This is a species listed as critically endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
How is it that an ostensibly pro-environment organization could concoct a scheme that ends up doing explicit environmental harm?
It’s not surprising when you understand the group’s myriad conflicts of interest, such as its funding from the EU and the pressure EU businesses put on their government officials to block international trade.
In addition, the FSC is marred by a total lack of transparency. The group created its own nongovernmental-organization-influenced certification system without regard for national forest management standards or international standards bodies.
As a result of this structure, FSC lacks the critical know-how about forest management needed to avoid gross ecological errors.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
By Tammy Bruce
Get Breaking Alerts
- Bill Clinton cashes in on struggling nonprofit hospital
- Putin has transformed Russian army into a lean, mean fighting machine
- Aronofsky's 'Noah' banned in Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates
- Christine O'Donnell eager to re-engage in political debate
- Kim Jong-un calls for execution of 33 Christians
- Bill Clinton poses for photo with Bunny Ranch prostitutes
- DELAY: A revolution for the Constitution
- PRUDEN: Likening Putin to Hitler on Ukraine shows Hillary's shaky grasp of history
- Back to the Future: HUVr Tech marketing video goes viral with hoverboard release tease
- Russias Putin nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
Recent Letters to the Editor
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Turkey not committed to Cyprus peace
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Spoiled-kid culture creates greedy adults
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Obama's flawed Mideast 'peace' plan
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Foreign policy would distract Obama from social hour
- LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Hit Putin where it hurts over Ukraine