Comments on: The Wrong Kind of Green

By: Craig Mackintosh

Craig Mackintosh — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:56:16 +0000

Anon – for myself (editor), BP would be sent packing. And from my experience with Geoff, managing director of PRI Australia, who I’ve been pleased to work with for almost two years now, I am confident he’d be right next to me, waving his pitchfork and chasing them off the property. Same goes for the many collaborators we work with.

The ambitions of extractive, profit-based corporate systems are completely out of harmony with permaculture concepts. There is no allignment here whatsoever. While we seek support so we can spread training and implementation, we will not hop into bed with just anyone that comes along flashing coin.

Permaculture is centred in ethics. And, its decentralised nature protects those ethics. If one cell sells out, the rest of the movement moves on. That’s the beauty of participatory democracy.

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 23:44:12 +0000

Hi Johann Hari

I read with interest your account of the relationship that has evolved between BP and the WWF and they many other “wrong-doings” of multinationals throughout the world.

I don’t know if you ever got around to read Naomi Klein’s book “The Shock Doctrine”, however she attempts to place most of the worlds economic activities within the framework of a change from the economics of Maynard Keynes, to that of Milton Freedman and his “mathematical” view of the worlds economic structure.

To be brutally frank, most of the world doesn’t care about any of your revelations. The only time the average person will sit-up and take notice is when they are personally hurting.

I would love to be a “fly-on-the-wall” if the bad boy’s from BP ever turned-up at the Pernaculture Institute head office. Amid confessions of all the bad things they have done over the years (and, after all, if they hadn’t, someone else would), and with an offer of, say, 200 million dollars offered to help Permaculture development. This money would help tens, if not hundreds of thousands of communities throughout Africa and Asia alone. Millions of lives could be saved.

Would the Permaculture Institute refuse the money, safe in the knowledge that its integrity was upheld, whilst millions died of starvation. Or would it sell-out to the multinationals and take the money?

In return, of course, BP would expect to see it’s flag flying over a few Permaculture installations, pictures of happy smiling Africans/Asians expressing there heart-felt thanks to BP, and a couple of Permaculture Guru’s expressing the green credentials of BP.

There’s an old saying “ sometimes, to do good, you have to get into bed with the devil”.

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:11:36 +0000

We need new thinking, quick thinking. We also need the Rainforest to move into global consciousness. Any programme that sets out to protect the Rainforest with the interests of local people as a priority, has to be better than no programme. If there is action it can be criticised, iproved or applauded. But no programme is not a solution or even part way to a solution. If the Rainforest is worth more standing (however we calculate ‘more’) than it is cut down, there is a chance that we can slow degradation and deforestation. There is a plan for the oceans, it needs to be enforced. We need a plan for the Rainforest and we need to act fast. Leakage will not be solved at a regional or national level. Look at cocaine production in South America – it moves from one country to another. The underlying issue is poverty and the greed and ignorance with which it is associated. I say bring on REDD and every programme known to man that has Rainforest and local communities at its heart, and then scrutinise and pressure for improvement.

By: stephen

stephen — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 07:27:46 +0000

It is not only the ‘Corporates’ getting a green-wash through funding environmental NGO’s. I work for one(NGO)and it receives the majority of funding from government grants. These grants are handed out in line with policies set by bureaucrats and are really the ‘political flavour’ of the day, no matter how wrong or misguided they may be. You are not allowed to even suggest that the projects these funds are going towards are misguided and on the whole probably a distraction from what is required to address the ecological realities we face today. To do so would jeopordise future funding! Many NGO’s have based themselves on models that require perpetual disasters and a grab for cash no matter how dirty, to keep the organisation alive! How bad is that?