There is a growing global debate over biodiesel and its potential role in deforestation of species-diverse lands. Yes, for more than a year the biodiesel industry has been trying to set the record straight on indirect land use, and has succeeded in some measure, but there is much more to the complex issues at stake.

It's been said that environmental policy is a luxury only rich nations can afford. Some argue that the number one enemy to the environment is the poor-not the rich. What is interesting about this is that much of the "misguided," or "unsustainable," growth in less-developed nations occurs to satisfy markets created by the rich. Deforestation of rainforests for palm plantations is not a new phenomenon. The increased demand for palm oil by rich nations has for years been ongoing, and only recently has biodiesel become the scapegoat de jour on which to blame all the planet's environmental ills.

One of the most vocal groups on this topic is World Growth, which heralds the idea that the lack of development-not inattention to sustainable development-is the real environmental scourge. Only after people can attain fulfillment of their basic needs of food, water, shelter and safety, can they then be in the position to be good stewards to the environment.

Is it fair for Western industrial countries to stop less fortunate nations from developing, despite the West's recent enlightenment regarding environmental stewardship? Species annihilation, clear-cutting virgin forests, unfettered industrial pollution, rivers and lakes irreparably poisoned, social injustice-these are just a few of the detrimental activities that mar industrial nations' pasts, and in some cases still, the present. The developed nations of today were built on such practices, so is it fair to say to others don't do as I do-do as I say? Is this sound environmental policy or the newest mode of oppression?