(Jakarta Post Editorial by Alan Oxley) - Writing in the International Herald Tribune late last year, Tun Dr. Lim Yeng Kaik, a former senior Malaysian Cabinet minister, characterized the campaign of Western environmental activists to restrict the palm oil industry as the environmental version of the "White Man's Burden".  The aim was to impose western values on colonial peoples. He coined the term the Green Man's burden. The Indonesian palm oil industry showed similar resentment when Nestle and Unilever bowed to pressure several months ago from Greenpeace to restrict use of palm oil and paper products from Indonesia. Small holders, representing the 20 million people dependent on the industry, protested in Jakarta and industry leaders threatened to lead boycotts of Unilever products.

(Jakarta Post Op-Ed by Alan Oxley) - Indonesian trade officials would be entitled to wonder who has a greater say in trade relations with Indonesia — the Australian government or environmental campaigners? The environmental campaigners are currently making more noise on trade policy.  They have been prodding the Australian government into taking trade actions that would effectively reduce agricultural and forestry exports from Indonesia. This would undermine economic growth — particularly in rural regions. Campaigns by groups such as Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) to put curbs on the commodities trade are nothing new. All have a history of opposing free trade.The most recent example is a push by campaigners to have the Australian government hold an official inquiry into food labeling.

(Jakarta Post Op-Ed by Alan Oxley) - Six months ago most political leaders felt bound to take action to reduce emissions.  The politics have suddenly changed. Recent opinion polls in the US and Britain show people are becoming less convinced of the need for drastic action on climate change.  There is now new political sensitivity to the high cost of cutting greenhouse emissions. This is a time when prudent people would take extra care about claims about the impact of global warming. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) apparently sees things differently.

(The Australian Op-Ed by Alan Oxley) - THE revelation that a World Wildlife Fund report was the source of an insupportable claim that glaciers in the Himalayas were melting rapidly is embarrassing for the body. The organisation has been silent about this. Little wonder. Its integrity is important. It is the largest environmental body in the world and has royalty and the cream of society and business on its boards. Its worldwide arms are estimated to turn over about $US400 million ($458m) annually, most from donations, but about 10 per cent is taxpayers' money.