Ein Service von![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||
Now, if that is not a good reason for banning palm oil in a policy which at least pays lip-service to climate change mitigation, then I don't know what is a good reason! And if the WTO agreement is a barrier, then surely WWF and others should be joining all the NGOs already campaigning against WTO rules: saving our planet from possible runaway global warming and meltdown surely must take precedence over the defence of free trade. As for north-south relations: What about relations with the millions of Indonesian's impoverished, many evicted, many made ill because of oil palm expansion? The bad news from the EU Committee is that they don't call for a ban on soya and sugar cane from South America, and, closer to home, that they are wanting to abolish set-asides, which will consign many more bird, insect and plant species to oblivion. And, of course, if they are successful in banning ONLY palm oil whilst maintaining the 5.75% target, will they drive up the price of soya which will increase logging in the Amazon and other rainforests? Now, I'd say that's a reason for a moratorium on the directive until a really sensible policy is developed, NOT for using palm oil. www.tropenbos.nl/news/mini%20symposium%20Wardojo/Marcel%20Silvius%20-%20Tropenbos2-7-'06.pdf ALL INFO FROM Bioenergy mailing list bioenergy@fern.org mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bioenergy
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Lesen Sie weiter auf www.ECO-World.de, dem Portal für ein bewusst genussvolles Leben & ökologisch nachhaltiges Handeln. |