http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/06/indonesia.burning.rainforest/index.html
Summary:
This article discusses one small Sumatran village's response to degradation of the surrounding rainforest by paper companies and other large corporations. Some people view the biodiverse rainforest as a crucial component of their ancestral heritage, and desire to protect it. However, many people in the village are optimistic that new companies can bring jobs to the struggling area. While the debate rages, the forest continues to be bulldozed, and 85% of Sumatra's forests have already disappeared.Reflection:
In my opinion, the best option for everyone is to allow the new companies to come to help the local economy and to provide jobs for the struggling villagers under the condition that they must practice sustainable methods of cutting the trees. The article describes the main method of deforestation currently used in Sumatra, which is complete clear-cutting, accompanied by burning, leaving behind an empty wasteland from what used to be covered with fertile rainforest. However, if the paper companies cut only the largest trees, not only will they avoid devastating environmental destruction, they will also ensure that they may continue doing business in Sumatra in the future. By not completely depleting the rainforest's resources, the rainforest can keep growing new trees. This helps the villagers because the companies will stay on the island and create long-lasting jobs to boost the region's economy for a greater period of time.
A sustainable method of harvesting timber and other resources from the Sumatran rainforest will also minimize negative effects on the biodiversity of the area. While a longer-term investment in the rainforest will not be as immediately lucrative as clear-cutting, it will also reduce the resistance of villagers concerned about losing their heritage by the exploitation of the island's resources, facilitating the companies' arrivals in Sumatra.
The article also discussed the immense environmental implications of clear-cutting the rainforest. The soil that would be exposed by removing the trees is some of the most carbon-dioxide rich in the world. Not only would global climate change be accelerated by reducing the amount of carbon-absorbing trees, the soil would also release thousands of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, further speeding the process of global warming. The effects burning the Sumatran forest would have on the environment make this a very important issue to Sumatra and the world.
Bibliography:
Damon, Arwan. "Rainforests turned into smoldering ruins."
cnn.com. 06/12/2009. Web. 10 Dec 2009.
Clear cutting and forest removal in general is clearly devastating...but the main reason why so many people refuse to change their ways is purely for the economical benefits they reap. I'm glad, then, that you suggested a SUSTAINABLE solution for both the environment and the company. Obviously people aren't going to just wake up one day and say "We can stop cutting the trees, we don't need industry anymore." But if the action is some sort of compromise, and has benefits for them too, then maybe they'll be willing to take the first baby step. Besides, a lot of baby steps can add up to one big step, and one big step is much better than none.
ReplyDeleteSustainability really is the issue here. Without it, we are simply marching off to our own doom. If we can pass regulations encouraging, or forcing, companies to practice sustainable methods, we will all benefit in the long run. What companies seem to forget is that they are just large groups of organized individuals, every bit as vulnerable to the effects of climate change as we are. Hopefully the upcoming conference in Copenhagen will address this issue, and come up with an acceptable compromise between all concerned parties. This, I know, will be difficult, considering that everyone on this planet should, and for the most part is, be concerned with climate change.
ReplyDelete