Blog
25.November 2009 - 22:55
Blacklisted
Nowadays, I also write a blog for the newspaper Aamulehti, and one of my readers there recently questioned why I am on environmental organisations’ black list. These organisations draw up lists of environmentally friendly MEPs and of those MEPs who are less environmentally friendly. Here is my personal point of view and my own little theory on the matter. (There will be a great deal of repetition on these pages, but it does not matter.)
The story goes like this: it is enough to fall out of favour with these organisations if one votes against their instructions. These instructions are often just a commitment to a cartel; in other words, instructions are drafted in respect of the continental European circumstances; they are very impartial and doctrinaire and just will not fit in Finland’s conditions at all. It really is great pity that in order to become accepted by these environmentally-friendly quarters, one has to clearly vote against the good of the environment. I have many examples of similar cases, but I would like to introduce just this one, rather big case: the exclusion of the pulp and paper industry from the waste incineration directive in 2000.
It was everybody’s stance, including that of the Ministry of the Environment, that it is for the benefit of the environment to recover the waste liquids generated by the forestry industry for energy, without any unnecessary measurements (since it is well-known that there are no toxic substances in wood material) and that these liquids will not end up in landfills to generate methane emissions. I pushed the amendment through to the Environment Committee.
The environmental organisations objected to my amendment on the grounds that paper should not be burnt but recycled. Erja Heino from The Finnish Association for Nature Conversation (FANC) called me in February 2000 to ask how I can, who has such a good reputation in environmental matters, propose the issue of burning paper to be included in the waste incineration directive. I merely replied that she is apparently not acquainted with the matter, as I haven’t made any such suggestion and asked her, what she actually means by this. Heino answered that she does not really know about the matter, she was just ordered to call me by somebody in Brussels.
It was a question of enormous importance to Finland’s advantage. Afterwards, the final result has been regarded as one of the most important lobbying victories. As Heidi Hautala heard that I, a first-year freshman MEP in the Parliament, had managed to make the rapporteur change his mind to submit an amendment together with me, she asked whether it was possible for her to join us and also sign the amendment. It was not possible anymore; the deadline had already passed, as far as I remember.
The environmental organisation in Brussels started to campaign against my amendment by referring to paper burning. I contacted these organisations and informed them that they possessed false information which should be corrected. The answer was that it could not be done anymore – for the sake of the campaign! Therefore, Heidi Hautala as the chairwoman of the Greens also spurred her group to vote against the amendment, according to the instructions of the environmental organisations. And there are many other examples!
The saddest thing about these organisations is that if they make a lot of mistakes, they still behave like an unerring ex cathedra: those who think differently will be stamped along with their motives: apparently we are not acting anymore in the name of the environment and whatever our motives were.
I am not the only MEP who has been threatened and blackmailed by the environmental organisations, but I know my own story the best. When I gave my speech in the January plenary session on 16.01.2006 (http://www.korhola.com/2006/01/arhusin-yleissopimuksen-maaraysten-soveltaminen-yhteison-toimielimiin-ja-elimiin-2/) and requested the organisations to be just as accurate as they demand enterprises and politicians to be, a delegation of the environmental organisations entered my room the following day and demanded that I make a public apology as well as take my words back. “Surely you don’t want to be seen in a negative light in the public eye,” hinted Ralph Hallo from the European Environmental Bureau. But I could not possibly disavow what I had said, because it all happened to be true. I have then been under this negative light quite enough, especially during the winter of 2007-2008, as the organisations were eagerly lobbying against me after having heard that the Commission predicted me to be the rapporteur in the issues concerning emissions trading.
Environment advocation and protection is a worthy task. I really appreciate the environmental work that these organisations perform. But, I also see a fundamentalist attitude all over this field, a similar kind of attitude, which I abhor in the religious quarters. I used to study comparative religion and cannot help it that some of the observations which I have made do not differ much from the actions of some sectarians.
Suvi-Anne Siimes recently wrote in her column in the magazine Talouselämä that we live in a world where political correctness demands admiration from civic organisations, and not the questioning of their expertise and means of operations. As nobody can be an entirely impartial expert, they should not stand above criticism in the role of a pet dog either.
But one can always buck up, and take the criticism as a lesson. Every one of us.
Nowadays, I also write a blog for the newspaper Aamulehti, and one of my readers there recently questioned why I am on environmental organisations’ black list. These organisations draw up lists of environmentally friendly MEPs and of those MEPs who are less environmentally friendly. Here is my personal point of view and my own little theory on the matter. (There will be a great deal of repetition on these pages, but it does not matter.)
The story goes like this: it is enough to fall out of favour with these organisations if one votes against their instructions. These instructions are often just a commitment to a cartel; in other words, instructions are drafted in respect of the continental European circumstances; they are very impartial and doctrinaire and just will not fit in Finland’s conditions at all. It really is great pity that in order to become accepted by these environmentally-friendly quarters, one has to clearly vote against the good of the environment. I have many examples of similar cases, but I would like to introduce just this one, rather big case: the exclusion of the pulp and paper industry from the waste incineration directive in 2000.
It was everybody’s stance, including that of the Ministry of the Environment, that it is for the benefit of the environment to recover the waste liquids generated by the forestry industry for energy, without any unnecessary measurements (since it is well-known that there are no toxic substances in wood material) and that these liquids will not end up in landfills to generate methane emissions. I pushed the amendment through to the Environment Committee.
The environmental organisations objected to my amendment on the grounds that paper should not be burnt but recycled. Erja Heino from The Finnish Association for Nature Conversation (FANC) called me in February 2000 to ask how I can, who has such a good reputation in environmental matters, propose the issue of burning paper to be included in the waste incineration directive. I merely replied that she is apparently not acquainted with the matter, as I haven’t made any such suggestion and asked her, what she actually means by this. Heino answered that she does not really know about the matter, she was just ordered to call me by somebody in Brussels.
It was a question of enormous importance to Finland’s advantage. Afterwards, the final result has been regarded as one of the most important lobbying victories. As Heidi Hautala heard that I, a first-year freshman MEP in the Parliament, had managed to make the rapporteur change his mind to submit an amendment together with me, she asked whether it was possible for her to join us and also sign the amendment. It was not possible anymore; the deadline had already passed, as far as I remember.
The environmental organisation in Brussels started to campaign against my amendment by referring to paper burning. I contacted these organisations and informed them that they possessed false information which should be corrected. The answer was that it could not be done anymore – for the sake of the campaign! Therefore, Heidi Hautala as the chairwoman of the Greens also spurred her group to vote against the amendment, according to the instructions of the environmental organisations. And there are many other examples!
The saddest thing about these organisations is that if they make a lot of mistakes, they still behave like an unerring ex cathedra: those who think differently will be stamped along with their motives: apparently we are not acting anymore in the name of the environment and whatever our motives were.
I am not the only MEP who has been threatened and blackmailed by the environmental organisations, but I know my own story the best. When I gave my speech in the January plenary session on 16.01.2006 (http://www.korhola.com/2006/01/arhusin-yleissopimuksen-maaraysten-soveltaminen-yhteison-toimielimiin-ja-elimiin-2/) and requested the organisations to be just as accurate as they demand enterprises and politicians to be, a delegation of the environmental organisations entered my room the following day and demanded that I make a public apology as well as take my words back. “Surely you don’t want to be seen in a negative light in the public eye,” hinted Ralph Hallo from the European Environmental Bureau. But I could not possibly disavow what I had said, because it all happened to be true. I have then been under this negative light quite enough, especially during the winter of 2007-2008, as the organisations were eagerly lobbying against me after having heard that the Commission predicted me to be the rapporteur in the issues concerning emissions trading.
Environment advocation and protection is a worthy task. I really appreciate the environmental work that these organisations perform. But, I also see a fundamentalist attitude all over this field, a similar kind of attitude, which I abhor in the religious quarters. I used to study comparative religion and cannot help it that some of the observations which I have made do not differ much from the actions of some sectarians.
Suvi-Anne Siimes recently wrote in her column in the magazine Talouselämä that we live in a world where political correctness demands admiration from civic organisations, and not the questioning of their expertise and means of operations. As nobody can be an entirely impartial expert, they should not stand above criticism in the role of a pet dog either.
But one can always buck up, and take the criticism as a lesson. Every one of us.