Protect the Rainforests, but be wary of double standards


Uncontrolled logging in the Indonesian Rainforest is causing serious damage to natural habitats and local populations according to a report by the Environmental Investigation Agency today. Despite years of “save the rainforests” campaigning, immense environmental damage is still being inflicted on these precious world resources. We cannot decry this strongly enough.

But it got us thinking.

A few years ago I spent some time in the rainforests of central America, where a number of local inhabitants told me that they were busy clearing areas of forests so that they could graze cattle and crow cash crops. The proceeds of these activities were allowing them to enjoy more affluent lifestyles, build schools, invest in their communities and have access to some of the luxuries that many of us take for granted.

It occurred to me at the time that we were being more than just a little selfish with our cosy Western Co2 emitting lifestyles by expecting these people to leave their trees in place so that they can soak up our emissions whilst living in poverty.

Ok, it’s more complicated than that and only a select few benefit financially from deforestation. But don’t they have a right to do as they wish with their trees just as we have a right to economic growth, cars, central heating and air conditioning?

This week the United Nations Human Development report again reminded us that the poor will be most a risk from climate change and that Western nations are not acting quickly enough. Yesterday it was disclosed that a group of rich countries including the EU, Canada, Switzerland and New Zealand had failed to honour a pledge to donate $1 Billion to help poor countries deal with the impacts of climate change.

We’re not suggesting that we solve the problem with the proceeds from destroying the rainforests, just that we should be wary of double standards. Remember that it is our industrialisation that has allegedly caused the problem in the first place. What we should also remember is that whilst we spend vast amounts of money and resources on securing green energy to power our future, there are plenty of other practical problems in the world right now to which we can apply our ingenuity.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
November 29th, 2007
3 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
News
Our Environment
Politics

Other Posts
Should governments give up on climate change and let business take the lead?
Google Energy: The start of a green energy revolution?

Tags


Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Kyeann
Posted on:
November 29, 2007 at 9:58 pm

One of the central things we have to remember about the focus on the rain forests is that it started when Bush I did not want to endorse C02 caps in Rio in 92. It was much easier to focus on Brazilians and their forests than our disproportionate emissions. The Japanese had emissions-reducing technologies then, but we did not want to increase their economic edge at the time. Also — what about our Indonesian foreign policy interventions? How have they enabled deforestation?

Global warming is not an environmental issue, it’s about power, democratic participation and foreign and domestic policy. (Don’t be fooled by the shallow version of “it’s not an environmental issue” in Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s Break Through — their goal seems to be to distract us from real issues).

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
Calvin Jones
Posted on:
November 29, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Hi Kyeann,

I assume you read this article, hence angle of your comment. So a few things: You are right climate change mitigation becomes a power issue, however in 1997 peat fires and deforestation in Indonesia made it a greater emitter of ghg’s than the US! Also, deforestation and peat fires are the probably the cheapest forms of reducing carbon emissions. We have the responsibility for action so should pay the cost. Workers don’t clear forests for subsistence farming, or atleat at a VERY small scale. Overwhelmingly deforestation is for cattle ranching which is very extensive and biofuels such as palm oil. These export activities are carried out on behalf of the wealthy land owners: the elite of the poorest nations. There workers are often treated in slave like conditions. Social, environmental and economic issues are all intertwined here. We do however need to deal with the issue, preferably in a progressive not power sturcture re-inforcing way.

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
Kyeann
Posted on:
November 29, 2007 at 11:07 pm

The point is not that there aren’t actual, very complicated issues to contend with, but that yes, there have been double standards. One giant one began with blaming local governments/peoples for deforestation rather than focusing on first world (in my example U.S.) consumption and regulation. The fires in Indonesia have a tremendous impact, I know, but in the context of this post, it seems relevant to point out that the U.S. could have taken meaningful steps to reduce emissions on the global stage 15 years ago, but instead directed attention toward Brazil.