“NOTICIAS” MAGAZINE, August 23rd.
INVESTIGATION REBUKES ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
is like a bomb has fallen. It’s like telling a
four-year-old child that the Magi do not exist. The
ecological organizations, the defenders of the most innocent
and defenseless creatures of the planet, are accused of
acting for the benefit of interests far from life and close
to business, politics and in some cases to racism.
That is the way the
journalist Jorge Orduma presents it in his book “Ecofacism”,
from Planeta Publishers; he analyses the links between
environmentalists and power in the most developed countries
and how they interfere with the sovereignty of poor
countries like Argentina among some of them. It starts
tearing the reader’s confidence to pieces when he talks
about those groups ties to the theory of eugenics: “the
science that deals with the genetic improvement to give the
most appropriate races a better and quick possibility to
prevail over the less appropriate ones”. Francis Galton
(its creator) says that for the eugenicists, the great
problem is that the population of the planet tends to grow
quicker than the means to shelter and feed it. The solution?
There must be less reproduction …in the underdeveloped
If Orduma has to
make a description of what he considers ecofascism, its
characteristics would be a strong concept to protect the
natural resources, to conserve biodiversity, to develop
protected areas and to fight some types of energy.
“Electricity generation is polluting, but one of the
elements that less pollutes is nuclear energy, which these
organizations combat. If we start to condemn every form of
industrial production that contaminates, we run out of
energy. Without energy, there aren’t any industries. Without
industries we will remain partly savages”.
One of the
organizations he mentions the most is World Wide Fund (WWF)
(in Argentina World Wide Foundation, see “The Value of
Work”. The WWF has annual revenue of u$s 398 million dollars
that come from: 60% private and 21.6% governmental
donations, United Nations (UN), International Union to
Conserve Nature (IUCN), European Commission, United States
Agency for the International Development (USAID) and World
Bank contributions. Among the private contributors are
mainly: Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Exxon-Mobil, Shell
International and Duke Energy … from ecologists, nothing.
Greenpeace, on the
other hand, does not receive any contributions that are not
personal (See “Facts, not Words”). Among its contributors is
Ted Turner, the multimillionaire founder of CNN and ex Time
Warner, who presently owns 70 thousand hectares in the
Argentine Patagonia. It probably seems strange and at first
sight it seems contradictory. But for Orduna, “one of the
characteristics of these organizations is that they don’t
separate the general from the particular: they neither take
into account the country they are working in nor the general
context of the situations. The clearest example is to ban
using pesticides in some places in Africa where the tzé tzé
fly transmits trypanosomiasis, which causes “sleeping
sickness” and a terrible death. The inhabitants of the
continent have already noticed that virgin vegetation and
savage fauna help the insect come off. But the European
conservationists, worried about the extinction of the
antelope (an animal to hunt certainly) made campaigns to ban
the use of pesticides. The population started to get sick
and die as … flies. Moreover, the DDT came also into sight
and there it went the only protection against malaria, a
disease that kills more people than AIDS and cancer
together, in the poorest countries.
It is surprising the
presence in the media of many strong environmental
organizations. Publicity spots in television, endless
street banners, polemics, large manifestations in crowded
streets and public “assaults” against the use of fur in
fashion shows. Whoever talks about the existence of
ecofascism sees something more behind all those actions: the
marketing, the rivalry to get donations and the interest of
the whole public.
“That is the reason
why they stick to the advertising market laws that demand
simple and sticking slogans. Many environmental problems
involve matters of sovereignty, economy and even moving
entire towns so they require complicated answers that cannot
be explained with a slogan.
Magazine: It is simpler and
more productive to talk to people about saving seals than
saving the Tasmanian devil…
course, the organizations begin to select the campaigns
according to the telegenic potential in order to awake the
most profitable passions; certain animals seem to sell
better than others and consequently they receive more
attention from the media. When you consult the list of
endangered species, you realize many have a disagreeable
appearance or are unpopular and that is the reason they
don’t receive any attention. In some way, the scientific
objectivity of the ecological organizations is perverted.
Another subject that
infuriates those talk about extreme conservationism is the
creation of sanctuaries or natural protected areas that are
made, they say, without taking into account the detriment
caused to the inhabitants’ culture, customs and own way of
“Many of these
defenders and buyers of sanctuaries are not scientists or
biologists but come from other types of industries. They
buy extensive territories and give them to the State for it
to preserve it as a protected area. The declaration of a
National Park or a Protected Area concerns to the State and
to its own necessities of human development and they should
not be a gift of a foreigner”, says Orduna.
But there are endangered species of
fauna and flora. It would be risky to deny global warming as
President George Bush did until recently…
Certainly. But Deep ecology is the name of a philosophy
inside traditional ecology which is closely related to the
mystification of nature. It’s a concept no scientist would
share: the projection of human qualities to the animal
world. This is very good for poetry, art and philosophy but
it is not right to determine which areas are to be protected
and which not, from a scientific point of view.
Then, what are the reasons for
environmentalists to declare protected natural areas?
Not every protected area is good, the
World Bank and the urban planners know that human impact on
the environment isn’t always negative, it depends on the
concerning elements. Notwithstanding that, the population
believes that every protected area which has been created is
good. Which are the reasons to create the National Parks?
They depend on the people, but they can be related to the
paralyzation of the area: factories and roads are banned.
The unavoidable consequence is to stop development. Whether
it is intentional or not is something secondary, many things
are done pretending not to be aware of what is being done.
Do you think there might be ecological organizations that
work well somewhere or do you think all of them have an
No. There are serious organizations but as they depend on
public or governmental funds, they end accepting the market
laws. And they cannot count on reason or science as they
have to stick to the style of massive products: they compete
with imprudent NGOs that show beheaded animals to stimulate
What would be the characteristics of a group that serve the
interests of our countries then?
A group that takes into account the sovereignty of each
nation, its long term interests and its human and scientific
context. The idea is not to defend a fundamental ecology
but the ecology that takes into account endemic diseases and
malnutrition, for example.
I’m sorry to insist, but the climate change exists and the
consequences are at sight.
This subject has a unilateral side. It has certainly been
five general extinctions on earth: some of them took 95% of
aquatic species. They were produced by volcanism, meteorite
fall and glaciations. There has been a moment of serious
debate in the analysis about global warming: we can measure
warming, but the problem is who is to blame for it: the
human beings or the planet itself. The right sectors see an
opportunity when they see people that are afraid of
factories, transgenic soy and development. But the other
side must be seen: scientists who give less relevance to
the human presence and industrial development over global
warming are given little press.
THE VALUE OF WORK
Written by Caudio
In our country,
several public welfare associations are concerned about
environmental matters. There are some very old ones like the
Argentine Birds Association, created in 1916. Another case
is the Argentine Association for Animal Protection. I think
nobody daresay they represent foreign country interests and
they perform actions to fulfill their aims. However, in
other countries there are several theories with respect to
foreign environmental entities, especially the international
ones. There are people who import these ideas for the sake
of having press and establishing them in our society where
reality is much more different.
In World Wide
Foundation Argentina, a national public welfare association,
we think that the prestige of an institution – or of a
person – is reflected in its or his work. When we look
backwards and see that we could buy the land and donate it
to the State to create two National Parks for all
Argentinians (as Monte León and recently Campos del Tuyú),
we are deeply proud. It is the same when we defend the
natural resources endangered by looting or destruction. We
surely make mistakes, because whoever works makes mistakes,
but it is demonstrated that a group of honest people can
organize to achieve objectives that will benefit society.
However, the level of environmental misinformation and the
courage of “those who always have an opinion for
everything”, who are trendy, can be so important that such
achievements seem to be undervalued or even be unnoticed.
FACTS NOT WORDS
Written by Martín
Is there any
contradiction between the environmental objectives of
Greenpeace and the ones of our country?
The answer is a
categorical denial. Our work consists in safeguarding what
article 41 of the National Constitution states: all of us
are obliged to preserve the environment and to satisfy our
present necessities without endangering the necessities of
Evidence on the
matter: we achieved, with the support of one million and a
half Argentines, the enactment of the National Law of
Environmental Protection of native forests. In this way we
stopped the eviction of ten thousand miles of aborigines and
creoles who live in and from the forest; additionally the
forest mass that naturally prevents floods and climate
change will be preserved. We also made a campaign against
importing nuclear waste that came from a nuclear reactor and
consequently violated article 41 of our Constitution. We
could also save Pizarro Reserve (Salta), benefiting
biodiversity and the wichi community that lived there; some
weeks ago, the Supreme Court named us pro-controllers of the
sanitary plan of watershed Matanza – Riachuelo and today we
are intending Buenos Aires City Council to enforce the Zero
Who pays the work
Greenpeace does in Argentina? Seventy thousand inhabitants
that donate a little sum of money (average $15.-), as
donations are so small, they cannot deviate the course of
our campaigns. We don’t receive donations from national or
international firms or governments. These are publicly known
data which we inform to AFIP (Federal Tax Bureau) by means
of an annual balance sheet published in our website:
IUCN is the largest
environmental net in the world. It is formed by more than
1.000 members, among them there are governments and NGO’s,
and it is present in more than 160 countries.
was founded and financed by Quakers in Canada in the ‘70s.
Today its headquarters are in Holland and receives donations
of individuals (some of them like Ted Turner, the owner of
more than 70.000 hectares in Argentina).
Society: it promotes the
eugenics idea which many actual conservationist
organizations are based on.
admits to have around 5million members and offices in more
than 90 countr