Environmentalism For Sale

A recent article in Mother Jones magazine got me thinking. I read about a plan to save trees and forests. Much of our land is already treated as a commodity. In this case though the value would be in saving the trees and land rather than destroying it. The hope is that companies which clear cut to produce their products will fund the saving of forested areas. The businesses would pay money for the rights to print an eco-friendly logo on their product labels. This sounds more like a public relations scheme than a legitimate way to help the Earth.

The first point made in the article acknowledges the formation of a consortium of companies that would gather and formulate the rules. Their first act would be to agree to stop their deleterious ways and make amends, in the form of money, to make up for past sins. A particular dollar amount would then be paid per each acre destroyed before the groups' formation. I doubt any company will be forthright about the exact number they would then be on the hook for.

What I find so silly is the whole "eco-friendly" label concept. Assuming the best-case scenario there would be some areas of our planet saved for future generations. Others would still be co-opted as part of the manufacturing process. The label would signify that some portion of our natural resources have been rescued suggesting that the manufacturer has done its part for our planet. What is ridiculous is that the consumer will never know what land was saved and what was used in the creation of the product they hold in their hands.

The funds paid out for the right to use the eco-label would, in some part, be used to maintain valuable acreage. Developing nations earn as much, if not more, for land rights that would have been sold. Nations must be reimbursed for lost revenue and for the costs of maintenance and upkeep. Assuming that each governing body gets an equal share of corporate funds there is still a flaw in this logic. As land continues to be used in the manufacturing process fewer untouched areas will remain standing. Over time fewer parcels will receive an ever-growing share of money. These areas will end up richer than originally intended and corporations will see less of a reason to keep shelling out for that which is rapidly disappearing.

I have offered a simplistic summary of the program written about in Mother Jones. The details may help to illuminate the process and procedures but my observations were never discussed in the article. There seem to be some obvious questions, some of which I have brought up, that should be asked nevertheless. When companies that base their business model upon the destruction of land offer to help that same land you have to ask why. Paying for the right to label their products differently seems like a smokescreen to me. This is just another example of how corporate funds can make up for any evil they commit.