Indonesian floods/Tsunami

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My point was and is

...that you can not stop them from developing their economies without in some way compensating them.

Agreed, especially as those smallholders who make up a third of palm oil production were encouraged to become just that by their government as a way out of poverty. This is not just big business. China and India are the main importers of Indonesian palm oil, a lot of it as bio diesel, so if not palm oil then what? Maybe Elon should focus less on luxury cars and getting to Mars and look at the other end of the economic scale.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My point was and is

...that you can not stop them from developing their economies without in some way compensating them.

Agreed, especially as those smallholders who make up a third of palm oil production were encouraged to become just that by their government as a way out of poverty. This is not just big business. China and India are the main importers of Indonesian palm oil, a lot of it as bio diesel, so if not palm oil then what? Maybe Elon should focus less on luxury cars and getting to Mars and look at the other end of the economic scale.

Exactly, if you can pay Colombian farmers to not grow cocaine you can pay others to grow trees of your choice

pinno

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My point is that you can not stop them from developing their economies without in some way compensating them.

In terms of bio-diversity, species and carbon capture (to which we all benefit directly and indirectly) we in the West could pay then to simply be custodians of the remaining forest.
...and pay them to replant?

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

My point is that you can not stop them from developing their economies without in some way compensating them.

In terms of bio-diversity, species and carbon capture (to which we all benefit directly and indirectly) we in the West could pay then to simply be custodians of the remaining forest.
...and pay them to replant?

OK,... but... I don't think looking after the rainforest will employ all the 50 million people involved directly and indirectly in Indonesian palm oil production? How are the rest going to be employed and what will all those Indians and Chinese run their trucks on?

robert88

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Britain is the home of the industrial revolution. An island of fish surrounded by coal, what could possibly go wrong?

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.

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.

I'd say that given the population size and the propensity of trees to grow that your figures are quite impossible. Perhaps you might produce some evidence to show how so few people were able to clear and farm so much land using crude implements and a few oxen?

FocusZing

On the humane side of the argument. If you were walking down the street and a stranger was hit by a car. I'm sure all our reaction would be to stop, help and call emergency services. The trouble is we hear of terrible news every single day without fail, so are familiar with it. If we as individuals helped everybody financially who was hurt, we would do nothing else and soon be broke.

These problems have to be resolved by the governments running the country. If they can't help I am sure other civil governments help immediately if asked. So indirectly we always help.

There has to be a balance with farming and nature. In our country farmers are given incentives to leave strips of land available for wildlife. A City with no trees or parks is a sad place to be. We have national parks which is great, but I don't like the new stance of councils relaxing protection on green belts. Sprawling housing developments are not natural places to live.

We definitely should make an effort to provide natural environments for wildlife who can't vocalise objection.

rjsterry

Robert88 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Britain is the home of the industrial revolution. An island of fish surrounded by coal, what could possibly go wrong?

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.

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.

I'd say that given the population size and the propensity of trees to grow that your figures are quite impossible. Perhaps you might produce some evidence to show how so few people were able to clear and farm so much land using crude implements and a few oxen?

Here you go.

https://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-8y5bsy

And

https://aeon.co/essays/who-chopped-down ... nt-forests

Population around the Roman occupation is estimated at 5million. We also have a very detailed survey of land use in England. "Ancient woodland" in the UK need only be 400 years old to qualify (the cut off date is 1750 in Scotland). It's also worth remembering that farming machinery wasn't much more advanced than "a few oxen and a plough" right up to the 19th century.

robert88

Thank you.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Britain was a world leader in deforestation and the industrial revolution. So we should not be too critical of the Indonesians. Also the degree of forestation in European neighbours, France and Germany is much higher than our own.

It was good to read that something is being done however:

http://www.endangeredlandscapes.org/pro ... -scotland/

pinno

Robert88 wrote:

Thank you.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Britain was a world leader in deforestation and the industrial revolution.

Oh no - more flawed relativism :roll:

Then the Indonesians should go right out there and start hunting Whales?
...and whilst they are at it, use immigrants hauled out of Africa for slave labour?

ddraver

ddraver wrote:

Have there been significant mudslides? Movement of soil due to liquefaction resulting from seismic activity is a very different thing...

I had a free 15 mins...

No, apparently not. The reverse is true in this case. The liquefaction damages the tree. The shaking causes the soil to settle, essentially pulling the rug out from under the tree...

surrey_commuter

FocusZing wrote:

On the humane side of the argument. If you were walking down the street and a stranger was hit by a car. I'm sure all our reaction would be to stop, help and call emergency services. The trouble is we hear of terrible news every single day without fail, so are familiar with it. If we as individuals helped everybody financially who was hurt, we would do nothing else and soon be broke.

These problems have to be resolved by the governments running the country. If they can't help I am sure other civil governments help immediately if asked. So indirectly we always help.

There has to be a balance with farming and nature. In our country farmers are given incentives to leave strips of land available for wildlife. A City with no trees or parks is a sad place to be. We have national parks which is great, but I don't like the new stance of councils relaxing protection on green belts. Sprawling housing developments are not natural places to live.

We definitely should make an effort to provide natural environments for wildlife who can't vocalise objection.

I am not in favour of concreting our green and pleasant land but the green belt was an arbitrary post-war designation and includes a lot of crud. There was a recent report that reckoned you could build 1 million homes on London's green belt that were within 1km of a station.

surrey_commuter

Pinno wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Thank you.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Britain was a world leader in deforestation and the industrial revolution.

Oh no - more flawed relativism :roll:

Then the Indonesians should go right out there and start hunting Whales?
...and whilst they are at it, use immigrants hauled out of Africa for slave labour?

Think of it as the Indonesians see us as asking them to bear the cost of saving the planet

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Thank you.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that Britain was a world leader in deforestation and the industrial revolution.

Oh no - more flawed relativism :roll:

Then the Indonesians should go right out there and start hunting Whales?
...and whilst they are at it, use immigrants hauled out of Africa for slave labour?

Think of it as the Indonesians see us as asking them to bear the cost of saving the planet

Or pointing out the mistakes we made so they can avoid them.

pinno

"We are losing 25 orangutans every day. Their home - the rainforest - is now being destroyed by companies that supply palm oil to brands making such products, like Kit Kat, M&M’s and Dove cosmetics.

Palm oil is in many everyday products we all buy – from bread and shampoo, to hand soap and chocolate bars. In Indonesia alone, an area equivalent to a football pitch is lost every 25 seconds, much of it to make way for palm oil. This so-called dirty palm oil drives the orangutans to the brink of extinction as their rainforest home is turned into plantations.

But palm oil doesn't have to be dirty. It is possible to source clean palm oil from responsible producers that don't destroy rainforests. "

https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/what-we-d ... /rang-tan/

pinno

I've signed a petition calling on the UK government to ban “problem plastics” (like black plastic trays and styrofoam). The UK produces up to 5.2 million tonnes of plastic waste a year - and it’s far too much. ‘Problem plastics’ - non-recyclable, too expensive to recycle or hazardous to the environment - are some of the worst offenders. The government can help stop the flow of plastic into our oceans by preventing these hard-to-process plastics from being made in the first place. The more people who add their names to the petition, the stronger the message will be. Please join me in calling on the UK government to ban
“problem plastics”

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/problem-plastics-es-1

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Please join me in calling on the UK government to ban
“problem plastics”

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/problem-plastics-es-1

I know Man City fans are annoying but isn't that taking things a bit far?

(Yes I'll sign it before you flame me...)

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Please join me in calling on the UK government to ban
“problem plastics”

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/problem-plastics-es-1

I know Man City fans are annoying but isn't that taking things a bit far?

(Yes I'll sign it before you flame me...)

So says the Chelski fan from Redka.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Please join me in calling on the UK government to ban
“problem plastics”

https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/problem-plastics-es-1

I know Man City fans are annoying but isn't that taking things a bit far?

(Yes I'll sign it before you flame me...)

So says the Chelski fan from Redka.

Me - annoying? I've never been so offended (which doesn't sound out of place in Cake Stop)

pinno

I'm offended on Stevo's behalf.
Is that more like it?

ballysmate

Pinno wrote:

I'm offended on Stevo's behalf.
Is that more like it?

I'm sure he has taken refuge in his safe space.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I'm offended on Stevo's behalf.
Is that more like it?

I'm sure he has taken refuge in his safe space.

Yep, in the study as I can't hear the trouble n strife from there.

pinno

The food chain Iceland have made a pledge not to use controversial Palm Oil.
There's a petition to remove the ban on this ad:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... dpspllWI2o

https://www.change.org/p/release-icelan ... PITpDrAZjE

shirley_basso

Why is it banned?

pinno

Shirley Basso wrote:

Why is it banned?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... -orangutan

shirley_basso

Pinno wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Why is it banned?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/ ... -orangutan

Thanks. Mum just banned Nutella at home home. Guess that's the last time I ever visit.