Indonesian floods/Tsunami
pinno
Posts: 48,611
I'm in a bit if a moral quandary with this one.
I can't help feeling that the massive deforestation in the region has been a factor in how mobile the soil became.
Then there is the dwindling Orang-utan habitat; a fraction of what it was.
Plus, that a lot of the deforestation was/is to produce Palm oil for mainly 'bio' diesel. Hardly 'bio'.
So with all of the above in mind, there's television ads asking for charitable donations.
Do we blame the Indonesian government for the deforestation (if it was a factor) and say that the people are innocent of this tragedy or do we take the line that the people get the government they deserve?
Do we bail out a country that has shown scant regard for the environment?
Surely care and concern for the rainforest is a collective notion.
I have no idea what to think.
I can't help feeling that the massive deforestation in the region has been a factor in how mobile the soil became.
Then there is the dwindling Orang-utan habitat; a fraction of what it was.
Plus, that a lot of the deforestation was/is to produce Palm oil for mainly 'bio' diesel. Hardly 'bio'.
So with all of the above in mind, there's television ads asking for charitable donations.
Do we blame the Indonesian government for the deforestation (if it was a factor) and say that the people are innocent of this tragedy or do we take the line that the people get the government they deserve?
Do we bail out a country that has shown scant regard for the environment?
Surely care and concern for the rainforest is a collective notion.
I have no idea what to think.
seanoconn - gruagach craic!
0
Posts
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
Unless everyone who reads this actively avoids palm oil in all the products they purchase then they can't even begin to think about blaming the government of a developing nation. No nation has ever become developed by being 'green'.
The tsunami is another matter entirely.
I asked the question whether the deforestation had been a factor (i'e mud slides). There may be no evidence of that.
It's not my opinion. However, it seems that given the massive spending in defence, the government have been slow to respond.
No?! It's just the way of the world is it?
If there was a hint of Fracking in an area in the UK, there is resistance. If the government decided that 2/3rds of the New Forest was going to be felled, there would be uproar.
The same thing you describe above is occurring in South America to clear land for cattle farming or general agriculture, particularly Soy and crops to go into anaerobic digesters.
We've already felled over 90% of our forest. New Forest is a tiny fragment of managed, somewhat naturally unsustainable forest. Lucky for us we don't live anywhere susceptible to tsunamis.
Do you try to avoid Palm oil based products? Cheap biscuits etc go hand in hand with taking some responsibility for that deforestation.
Soya to feed cattle to supply the ever growing red meat market, particularly in North America. That is a huge driver.
After 2 crops of Soya, the land is fallow, so chop some more forest down.
Great.
It is nigh on impossible to avoid the consumption of certain vegetable oils particularly hydrogenated vegetable oils. Though we cook all meals from scratch (this helps) and we do not buy margarine, ready made pies, ready meals etc. That still leaves soaps, paper, packaging, toothpaste, chocolate...
Without political will, this is going to continue.
I see that you conveniently cut out the important part of my post that actually answers your question, so here it is again:
You can't blame a developing nation for trying to develop as Shirley says...
You can't just go around making purchases without a care in the world, then find out you that in doing so you are indirectly negatively affecting something and suddenly be outraged by it.
And to assert that they are partly at fault for the tsunami because of their own actions is quite frankly laughable.
Britain lost most of its forest in the Bronze Age. The New Forest was originally a managed game reserve and only later became what we would think of as a forest.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
their argument was, child labour in those conditions is terrible, but going in and just closing all the factories down would just mean those kids would be on the streets begging whereas before they had a bit of money and food. you can't just stop one thing without an alternative.
It is similar with palm oil, stop it's production would stop/slow the deforestation but then what would the people who live there do for money? how would they support their families?
I don't know the solution but blaming them for making the best of what they have (admittedly without much regard for the consequences) seems pretty harsh without suggesting what they could have done instead?
- @ddraver
That was historic - i'e way before we became aware of the environmental impact.
[Greenpeace]
"Indonesia’s forests are a treasure chest of incredible wildlife. The country is home to between 10 and 15 percent of the world’s known plants, mammals, and birds. But in the last half century, more than 74 million hectares of Indonesian rainforest—an area twice the size of Germany—have been logged, burned, or degraded.
Indonesia has already lost 72 percent of its intact forests. This is threatening the habitat of species like Sumatran tigers and orangutans, as well as harming the millions of people who depend on Indonesia’s forests for their food, shelter and livelihoods.
It’s also bad news for global warming. Peatlands—including those that form the wetland-like floor of Indonesia’s rainforests—are one of the world’s largest carbon sinks. Indonesia’s peatlands store about 35 billion tons of carbon.
When these peatlands are drained, burned and replace by plantations, it releases thousands of tons of carbon dioxide and sets the stage for devastating forest fires."
So who is the Palm oil production really helping?
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
This is the bit that I cannot reconcile. We are actively (or by inaction), undermining the very fabric which we rely on to survive.
Saying things along the lines of "...it's just the way of the world..." is actually naive, apathetic and ultimately, suicidal.
There's a very good documentary by Chris Packham which covers this subject.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09qjlfs
It's about him trying to track down a girl from a tribe of hunter gatherers, who he briefly met in the Sumatran rainforest 20 years ago. At the start of the film he has quite a black and white view about the rights and wrongs of the transformation that Sumatra has undergone, and this evolves over the time he spends in Sumatra. It's well worth a watch.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition
I am not sure. You have no chance.
Apathy is the view that '... it's the way it is and it's down to evolution, finance, progress or the way of the world..." or whatever and there's nothing we can do about it.
I'm not expecting an epiphany, i'm hoping that consensus reaches critical mass and political will can be altered but i'm not optimistic.
Yup, PB, I know you've said that before and I totally agree.
Surprisingly this may be due to the reformation when we broke loose from the influence of the Church of Rome. An early Brexit.
If we'd stuck to farming we'd be more in tune with the planet.
And Indonesia may well suggest that if we care about trees so much we return our country to it’s preindustrial revolution levels of forest action.
Relativism again!
We now know much more about how critical forest and particularly rain forest preservation is to the planet, to global warming, to carbon absorption.
Deforestation in Indonesia may be beneficial in terms of generating money but it has simply displaced who the money goes to at the expense of all those who once relied on the forest for their existence and living. It's also at the expense of the forest and the species within it.
The argument that we had an industrial revolution and in the process diminished our forests, therefore Indonesia have a right to do the same, is flawed.
Firstly, huge deforestation occurred way before the industrial revolution. It took 250 Oak trees to build the HMS Victory for example (1620).
Secondly, it is moral/environmental relativism.
It's in the same politically correct vein of thrashing ourselves for having had an empire and feeling guilty about the sins of our past.
What was acceptable then is not acceptable now.
I would suggest (without categorical knowledge and evidence of Indonesia), that the production of Palm oil is in the hands of big business. It's exploitative. Local communities and indigenous peoples who once existed in harmony with their natural environment have been disconnected in the name of progress and commerce.
We are also the architects of environmental destruction in terms of global capitalism and the huge, obscenely unbalanced distribution of wealth.
It requires the cooperation of the countries involved and it also requires us in the West to curb consumption. So If we sit here in apathetic resignation of the fact, then you are in denial of our role in the exploitation and destruction of the environment.
Brilliant post Pinno and exactly my thinking (you just put it across better than I could).
FYI - the wife and I and many of our friends actively stopped using palm oil products many years ago. It's been tough, because producers hide it under various names, but once you know their tricks it's not that hard. It also means you can reduce the amount of processed [email protected] that you eat.
What's happening to the Indonesian rainforest is a total tragedy. It's just staggering.
When you say 'now', when was before 'now'?
Cycling in some mountains a year ago, I noticed a lot of terracing had been done but it appeared very ancient and overgrown. A bit of research showed it had been a state-organised operation, not as I'd thought for agriculture but because the dangers of deforestation and benefits of the trees had be recognised. Over 150 years ago.
Or we could replant forests in our country acre for acre for what they cut down.
That's really going to help the ecosystem.
Could be tricky that one:
Indonesia, 1.905 million km²
UK, 242,495 km²
ALthough a great deal of the English woodland was consumed for shipbuilding and iron smelting (and sheep farming in Scotland) in the 18th and 19th centuries so we have done at least our fair share of de-forestation.
The UK has 3.138m hectares c.13% forestation; by way of contrast, Germany has forests of 11.4m hectares or about a third of the country and France has 16.9m hectares c. 30%.
ps
When I look at the globe using google I notice the UK no longer exists, only Ireland appears.
https://www.google.fr/maps/@39.8290351,-0.8049243,2.62z
Historical point of order: Britain was not deforested by the industrial revolution or even 18th century shipbuilding (although that did use up a lot of what was left). It's been mostly farmland with pockets of woodland since the Bronze Age. It's reckoned that at the time of the Roman invasion, forest covered about 25% of Great Britain. By the 1086, this was down to 15% and by 1905 a low point of 5.2%. By the 18th century we were already having to import significant quantities of timber from America and the Baltic. Woodland coverage is now back up to 13%. As R88 points out mainland Europe has also significantly re-forested since the 19th century.
Just to knock the tsunami connection on the head, 96% of Indonesia's palm oil production is on Borneo and Sumatra, not Sulawesi.
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition