Green intentions

I have closely followed Osvaldo Coelho's comments about environmentalism and Greenpeace.

I am glad he is up to date. If I follow his logic, however, I can say that yes he must believe in environmentalism but that to him governments, businesses and Greenpeace are bad; so that if governments, businesses and Greenpeace engage in environmentalism then environmentalism is bad.

I am not quite sure that makes sense. I am also concerned about his generalizations on environmentalism being something that has just come about -- a modern trend.

First, I recommend that he listen to what tribal peoples have to say. Recently there was an opportunity to witness the very basics of environmentalism when Pak Raja from the Kei islands spoke at the CSIS in a Sejati discussion on "Rhythms of a Nation".

Second, I suggest that he put his criticism of the environmental efforts of governments and businesses in context. They are responding the way they are because there is a demand (perhaps from Osvaldo's perspective, there is potential for good business). But the other side of this equation is the fact that both the sorry state of the environment and the people are creating this demand, and business and industry must follow or loose money.

Many people are going back to basics, including those contributing money to Greenpeace to further its work. Those who are from developed countries are waking up to the fact that their lifestyle destroys their environment. That comfortable living -- with the "fast and easy" and "throw-away" mentality rob people of their roots, their soul. They know that many of current diseases are traceable to toxic effluents or emissions in the immediate and distant environment. To judge the trend as alarmist is like telling the environmental disaster victims they are lying, or telling governments that they made the wrong move at UNCED in Rio.

Those falling prey to dirty technology transfers in underdeveloped countries are also making their voices heard. One only hopes that their voices will reverberate (this is our responsibility), ungarbled by commercialism and cynics like Osvaldo.

Osvaldo judges any environmental initiative as "business- driven" and accuses Greenpeace of being a hired gun. Precisely because of this reason, Greenpeace has never accepted money or contributions from governments or industry to do its work.

Yet in his "business as usual" rap (Your Letters, Aug. 4, 1995), he forgets that millions of poor people in the North and South do not really care about increases in insurance premiums and large deductibles (whereas our rich sisters and brothers are able to pay it no matter how burdensome); that dust catchers and the like will sell even if not stamped environmentally friendly (for the mere desire to survive in an urban setting); that recycling companies should be rewarded for providing consumers the option (he'll find that urban dwellers in the greater part of Southeast Asia don't have this choice); and that "green" ratings and ecolabeling is a way to monitor environmental performance.

Years back, environmentalists and the likes of Greenpeace had a hard time convincing the world to convert to environmentally acceptable practices. Now the practices speak for themselves. No wonder governments and businesses are trying hard to be on board.

It is beside the point if environmentalism is financially rewarding, as long as these businesses are truthful and deliver the goods.

NONETTE ROYO

Jakarta