I read the Times
I've been into the Amazon. I've seen what happens when it is clearcut. I've met the people who make their livelihood from both the trees and the soil. And I am not convinced, by any stretch of the imagination, that deforestation could be contrued as positive development. (1)
Kelly and London, you have a good argument. I'll concede that, and I hate to deny Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, and Indonesia (2) the opportunity to develop their natural resources as they see fit, but I also cannot believe that the decision should be left to them alone.
White people created this problem, and white people should help clean it up.
These countries are desperately poor, not becuase of paucity of natural resources, but because people beyond their borders are in control of those resources. This means export prices are not under the control of the countries of origins. Institutions such as the WTO, a body committed towards free trade, exacerbate the problem by slapping the hands of nations that try to fix the prices of their resources. (3)
If we open up the Amazon basin, as Kelly and London are suggesting, the same thing is going to happen. In a capital-driven market, the raw material is going to be the cheapest commodity. Value-added processes will add to sales value. The WTO will never allow Brazil and Cambodia to set and maintain "artificially"(4) prices for raw materials, and if they did, the global supply chain would simply be routed around them in search of cheaper sources. In the end, they would be completely undermined (bad, bad, bad pun).
We need to continue to to find ways to protect the economic infrastructure of developing nations, while allowing them to exploit some of their native potential. But this doesn't necessarily mean mining and logging. Eco-tourism is booming across South America and South-East Asia. Countries are free to fix prices, and to tax, tarriff, and cajole tourists into supporting the nation's economy. It's a fickle solution -- tourism is an unpredictable industry, susceptible to fads and runs of bad luck. But it's still better than the alternative massive deforestation in the search of baubles.
There are several reasons to halt deforestation. One is that we can not be sure that the forests will come back. Secondary growth in west Africa can take 20 years to return. (5) Who knows if the primary growth will take 30, 300, or 3000 years to return. Second, despite what George Bush's America™ believes, the climate is in a state of flux. What mankind's impact on the process is, we cannot be sure. However, it is widely believed that equitorial forest belts play into the global climate in significant ways. Before we destroy that factor, we need to understand much more completely what the impact will be.
And finally, biodiversity will be severly curtailed. Studying the diversification of species and evolution is vital to our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world. Anytime we destroy a species, we make our whole understanding of the universe more incomplete by and order of magnitude. This has to stop. Nature has to take charge again. We cannot play God anymore.
What can we do in the meantime? Be willing to give something up. Investigate rainforest and ocean land-holding trusts, find a reputable one, and invest in it. Support efforts to increase patrols and law enforcement in developing areas. Be a tourist in these places -- you'll come away with a completely different understanding of "natural resources" and help to build the economies of these desperately poor nations. Use less energy -- turn off lights, wash the dishes by hand twice a week, and buy a hybrid or an electric car. Reduce your overall consumption of raw and refined resources. And share your newspaper with someone -- or at least recycle it.
1. Kelly, Brian, and Mark London. "Bright Spots in the Rain Forest." New York
Times, 22 Ap. 2004, A27:1.
2. Just to name a few. In reality, virtually every country between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn could be similarly addressed.
3. "Free Trade" is really a code-word for malicious mining of underdeveloped nations for the benefit of the developed. Jamaica tried to increase the cost of bauxite exports by pennies per ton in the 1980's and was sharply rebuked by the world market, who shifted their major bauxite mining to Africa. While the tarriff was in effect, the government was able to provide education and health care for its citizens. When the bauxite market moved across the Atlantic, Jamaica once again became a desperately poor nation.
4. Another BS word -- "artificially" high prices may be perfectly reasonable and cost-effective for both seller and purchaser, but may still be more than an industry is willing to pay.
5. still trying to find this resource
Kelly and London, you have a good argument. I'll concede that, and I hate to deny Brazil, Peru, Ecuador, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, and Indonesia (2) the opportunity to develop their natural resources as they see fit, but I also cannot believe that the decision should be left to them alone.
White people created this problem, and white people should help clean it up.
These countries are desperately poor, not becuase of paucity of natural resources, but because people beyond their borders are in control of those resources. This means export prices are not under the control of the countries of origins. Institutions such as the WTO, a body committed towards free trade, exacerbate the problem by slapping the hands of nations that try to fix the prices of their resources. (3)
If we open up the Amazon basin, as Kelly and London are suggesting, the same thing is going to happen. In a capital-driven market, the raw material is going to be the cheapest commodity. Value-added processes will add to sales value. The WTO will never allow Brazil and Cambodia to set and maintain "artificially"(4) prices for raw materials, and if they did, the global supply chain would simply be routed around them in search of cheaper sources. In the end, they would be completely undermined (bad, bad, bad pun).
We need to continue to to find ways to protect the economic infrastructure of developing nations, while allowing them to exploit some of their native potential. But this doesn't necessarily mean mining and logging. Eco-tourism is booming across South America and South-East Asia. Countries are free to fix prices, and to tax, tarriff, and cajole tourists into supporting the nation's economy. It's a fickle solution -- tourism is an unpredictable industry, susceptible to fads and runs of bad luck. But it's still better than the alternative massive deforestation in the search of baubles.
There are several reasons to halt deforestation. One is that we can not be sure that the forests will come back. Secondary growth in west Africa can take 20 years to return. (5) Who knows if the primary growth will take 30, 300, or 3000 years to return. Second, despite what George Bush's America™ believes, the climate is in a state of flux. What mankind's impact on the process is, we cannot be sure. However, it is widely believed that equitorial forest belts play into the global climate in significant ways. Before we destroy that factor, we need to understand much more completely what the impact will be.
And finally, biodiversity will be severly curtailed. Studying the diversification of species and evolution is vital to our understanding of ourselves and our place in the world. Anytime we destroy a species, we make our whole understanding of the universe more incomplete by and order of magnitude. This has to stop. Nature has to take charge again. We cannot play God anymore.
What can we do in the meantime? Be willing to give something up. Investigate rainforest and ocean land-holding trusts, find a reputable one, and invest in it. Support efforts to increase patrols and law enforcement in developing areas. Be a tourist in these places -- you'll come away with a completely different understanding of "natural resources" and help to build the economies of these desperately poor nations. Use less energy -- turn off lights, wash the dishes by hand twice a week, and buy a hybrid or an electric car. Reduce your overall consumption of raw and refined resources. And share your newspaper with someone -- or at least recycle it.
1. Kelly, Brian, and Mark London. "Bright Spots in the Rain Forest." New York
Times, 22 Ap. 2004, A27:1.
2. Just to name a few. In reality, virtually every country between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn could be similarly addressed.
3. "Free Trade" is really a code-word for malicious mining of underdeveloped nations for the benefit of the developed. Jamaica tried to increase the cost of bauxite exports by pennies per ton in the 1980's and was sharply rebuked by the world market, who shifted their major bauxite mining to Africa. While the tarriff was in effect, the government was able to provide education and health care for its citizens. When the bauxite market moved across the Atlantic, Jamaica once again became a desperately poor nation.
4. Another BS word -- "artificially" high prices may be perfectly reasonable and cost-effective for both seller and purchaser, but may still be more than an industry is willing to pay.
5. still trying to find this resource
<< Home