Personal response: On one hand, reducing deforestation is a key step in combating global climate change effectively. Deforestation reduces habitat and thus biodiversity, leads to erosion and soil degradation, and releases an abundance of greenhouse gases. Indonesia is a prime target for REDD programs because they produce so much CO2 as a result of deforestation. Still, there are some negative aspects to this proposition. For example, the ban is only for two years, which will not be enough time to have an extensive impact upon the environment. Also, a major portion of Indonesia’s economy relies upon the exploitation of natural forests to produce paper and a large supply of lumber. I would imagine that poor suppliers of trees for paper and lumber could suffer economic hardship as a result of this moratorium on deforestation. In addition, the ban will be difficult to enforce because of an inadequate enforcement agency and difficulty in defining “natural forest.” As a solution, I propose extending the ban with additional economic support from the UN’s REDD program and continued support of more developed countries. As well, the ban needs to be reworked to clearly define who is responsible for enforcing the ban and what land qualifies as “natural forest.” I think that ultimately the ban will have a positive impact. Indonesia should focus its economy on ecotourism, which would provide more incentive to maintain natural forests. Also, deforestation is unsustainable and results in global climate change. As a low-lying chain of islands, Indonesia is especially vulnerable to sea level rising. Therefore, Indonesia will benefit more from the ban in the long-run to outweigh any potential negative economic impacts now.
Belford, Audrey. "Indonesia Agrees to Curb Commercial Deforestation." New York Times 27 May 2010: n.
pag. Web. 28 May 2010.
Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/world/asia/28indo.html?ref=science
It is very good to see wealthier nations help the developing ones to help lessen their own contributions to global climate change. Many times the economy of a developing nation relies on a practice that isn't necessarily environmentally friendly. And they cannot afford to make the changes that are necessary. With developed nations beginning to make changes that will bring us closer to solving climate change, the developing ones also have to be on board.
ReplyDeleteHow will this effect the economy? Taking the staple export out of the equation seems to me like it's just asking for disaster. We of course need to think of the environment with all our decisions, but before that we need to think about human health, will reducing deforestation destroy the way of life for these people"? Will they be able to make ends meet? This just seems like a solution for a developed nation that will greatly hurt a developing nation.
ReplyDeleteIt is very good that these developing nations are receiving the funds and help from wealthier countries to control emissions, but what about the wealthy nations themselves? i mean, the U.S. emits a large portion of CO2 as it is. We need to focus on a globalized program to lower the amount of emissions we all collectively produce. Helping the poorer countries is a good step, but it is not enough in the long run.
ReplyDelete