CITES at work

[gonewild]

I wonder if that really is a far sighted decision, when you just watch the mud slide disaster in Columbia a few days ago.

The governments in South America are all near sighted or blind. And deaf.

 

[Corbin]

I'm not saying it is an OK thing. I am just saying why are we amazed that it is being done. Every one of us wants to look after #1. The man in (what ever third world country you want to plug in) looks at the people in the developed countries that have automobiles, nice houses, TVs, and the list can go on and on and he wants the good life for himself and his children. Why should he not be expected to use what ever resources he has in what ever way he can to obtain that good life. To say that he should not be allowed to do so is to say sorry you’re too late. We destroyed half (modestly) the world but that's all we can allow. You will just have to do with a mud & grass shelter, no roads, now clean water, no electricity, ..... Get real it is not going to happen if he can help it.

Unless we are willing to completely kill man’s quest to do better for himself and his own by doling out the exact same things to every living being on earth man and forbidding anyone from having even the tiniest bit more than his neighbor man will continue to use what ever resources he can to improve his well being. That is just human nature and you can not change it. You can only restrict it. But this has been tried before and it doesn’t work.

Again this does not make it right. I never said it did. I just said why are we amazed and shocked when we find out about it. Furthermore I do not think we should criticize those people for trying to better themselves even when they are burning the forest. If we want them to stop burning the forest then we have to give them an alternative path to the “good life.” If you know what it is and you can convince even a very small fraction of the people in the developing world to do it then you are going to be the next multi billionaire. I am not saying we should not be looking for that answer/s. Believe me there are a lot of people doing just that, but until we give the man in the grass and mud shelter an alternative way to join the rest of us in the affluent life do not criticize him for burning the forest.

 

[Rick]

I'm not saying it is an OK thing. I am just saying why are we amazed that it is being done. Every one of us wants to look after #1. The man in (what ever third world country you want to plug in) looks at the people in the developed countries that have automobiles, nice houses, TVs, and the list can go on and on and he wants the good life for himself and his children. Why should he not be expected to use what ever resources he has in what ever way he can to obtain that good life. To say that he should not be allowed to do so is to say sorry you’re too late. We destroyed half (modestly) the world but that's all we can allow. You will just have to do with a mud & grass shelter, no roads, now clean water, no electricity, ..... Get real it is not going to happen if he can help it.

Unless we are willing to completely kill man’s quest to do better for himself and his own by doling out the exact same things to every living being on earth man and forbidding anyone from having even the tiniest bit more than his neighbor man will continue to use what ever resources he can to improve his well being. That is just human nature and you can not change it. You can only restrict it. But this has been tried before and it doesn’t work.

Again this does not make it right. I never said it did. I just said why are we amazed and shocked when we find out about it. Furthermore I do not think we should criticize those people for trying to better themselves even when they are burning the forest. If we want them to stop burning the forest then we have to give them an alternative path to the “good life.” If you know what it is and you can convince even a very small fraction of the people in the developing world to do it then you are going to be the next multi billionaire. I am not saying we should not be looking for that answer/s. Believe me there are a lot of people doing just that, but until we give the man in the grass and mud shelter an alternative way to join the rest of us in the affluent life do not criticize him for burning the forest.

This is exactly what's going on Ed. I think the main benefit to pointing out issues like this is bringing up American awareness to problems we inadvertently create, often just by giving people the aspirations to live like us. Tom Friedman has what I consider a very good book out titled Hot Flat and Crowded. His contention is that there are huge energy technology creations and investments to make, and the developing world needs to "leap frog" past our present (oil based) technologies into these new and efficient ones to provide that standard of living that the majority of the worlds population is aspiring to achieve.

 

[Hien]

This is exactly what's going on Ed. I think the main benefit to pointing out issues like this is bringing up American awareness to problems we inadvertently create, often just by giving people the aspirations to live like us. Tom Friedman has what I consider a very good book out titled Hot Flat and Crowded. His contention is that there are huge energy technology creations and investments to make, and the developing world needs to "leap frog" past our present (oil based) technologies into these new and efficient ones to provide that standard of living that the majority of the worlds population is aspiring to achieve.

I agree w/ Rick.
I am not surprised about the thirst for betterment of any human, nor do I think they should not try to get it.
I just hope for their sake (not for our)
-that their government are wiser than our.
-that they have less lobbyists than our. And hopefully our lobbyists (or the local associates of our lobbyist) did not get close enough to their governments.
-that they pollute their local environment less than we did to our so far.

And what gives everyone outside the US the right to think that our country & our peoples are bad & selfish? For Godsake it is a myth. I am sure this country have sent out lot of help & money both officially & privately to every where.

 

[gonewild]

Again this does not make it right. I never said it did. I just said why are we amazed and shocked when we find out about it. Furthermore I do not think we should criticize those people for trying to better themselves even when they are burning the forest. If we want them to stop burning the forest then we have to give them an alternative path to the “good life.” If you know what it is and you can convince even a very small fraction of the people in the developing world to do it then you are going to be the next multi billionaire. I am not saying we should not be looking for that answer/s. Believe me there are a lot of people doing just that, but until we give the man in the grass and mud shelter an alternative way to join the rest of us in the affluent life do not criticize him for burning the forest.

Actually it does make it right. That does not mean it is wise but certainly "right" for the people that live in the forest. Most people that actually live in the jungle areas being developed aren't really looking for a way to improve their lives. They don't feel there is anything wrong with their lives as they are. Sure they want more money to buy stuff but most of them would not trade their forest for a new way of life if given a choice. It is not local people that are clearing forest and planting oil palm, it is large companies from the outside world. The local people will not realize profits from that production yet they suffer the loss of the forest and it's local resource value. The outside world will have oil and the local people will not have charcoal to cook dinner with.

I agree with the things you said, in fact we started a company in the Peruvian Amazon that is doing exactly what you say needs to be done. We purchase waste wood that would otherwise be burned and sell it to craftsmen here in the USA. The concept does give opportunity to local people and a reason not to sell their land to companies that want to cut it down. Give people a choice and a chance and they may make the right decision.

It is not the man that lives in a grass hut that is burning the forest, it is all of us that live in the "advanced" world. We want to stop using fossil fuels in favor of renewable bio fuels. Guess where big companies will produce bio fuels. Not here in North America because we don't want it done in our yard.

Videos like the one that started this thread really target human emotion to promote a one sided point of view.

 

[gonewild]

His contention is that there are huge energy technology creations and investments to make, and the developing world needs to "leap frog" past our present (oil based) technologies into these new and efficient ones to provide that standard of living that the majority of the worlds population is aspiring to achieve.

Is the majority of the worlds population aspiring to achieve the standard of living we have? I think the majority of the worlds population is much more realistic.

 

[Renegayde]

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/1119-madagascar.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081123/wl_time/08599186114500

you can find several more articles on the net about this.....but I am guessing this means a lot of acres of rainforest will be cleared
Todd

 

[Hien]

Actually it does make it right. That does not mean it is wise but certainly "right" for the people that live in the forest. Most people that actually live in the jungle areas being developed aren't really looking for a way to improve their lives. They don't feel there is anything wrong with their lives as they are. Sure they want more money to buy stuff but most of them would not trade their forest for a new way of life if given a choice. It is not local people that are clearing forest and planting oil palm, it is large companies from the outside world. The local people will not realize profits from that production yet they suffer the loss of the forest and it's local resource value. The outside world will have oil and the local people will not have charcoal to cook dinner with.

I agree with the things you said, in fact we started a company in the Peruvian Amazon that is doing exactly what you say needs to be done. We purchase waste wood that would otherwise be burned and sell it to craftsmen here in the USA. The concept does give opportunity to local people and a reason not to sell their land to companies that want to cut it down. Give people a choice and a chance and they may make the right decision.

It is not the man that lives in a grass hut that is burning the forest, it is all of us that live in the "advanced" world. We want to stop using fossil fuels in favor of renewable bio fuels. Guess where big companies will produce bio fuels. Not here in North America because we don't want it done in our yard.

Videos like the one that started this thread really target human emotion to promote a one sided point of view.

You are absolutely right.
I cringed when I saw on TV a CEO of the car company says that who are we to deny every indian (in India) the ownership of a car (what a selfserving sale pitch disguise).
Imagine everyone in India own a car, with that population, the cars will be permanently in gridlock.
Think of the city blocks around New York city Holland tunnel around 4 pm & magnify the situation 100 times, I used to work in a building 1 block from the tunnel ( and by the way I did take the train to work)

 

[Rick]

Is the majority of the worlds population aspiring to achieve the standard of living we have? I think the majority of the worlds population is much more realistic.

I'm not so sure they are more realistic. His book is a good read, and he's spent allot of time in India and China. He details a conference he spoke at to Chinese auto manufacturers that includes discussion very similar to the one we are having about " who has the right to stop us (the growing Chinese middle class) from enjoying the same level of consumption and standard of living as the Americans".

Some of this is very scary.

 

[Rick]

We want to stop using fossil fuels in favor of renewable bio fuels. Guess where big companies will produce bio fuels. Not here in North America because we don't want it done in our yard.

Not exactly since there are a bunch of big corn ethanol projects going bust in the US now. I've been in the MW where a bunch of this is going on, and the environmental damage caused by mass agriculture in this part of our country makes the impact of an ethanol plant a drop in the bucket. There is no shortage of ethanol supportors in the MW (NIMBY's are very rare).

But that's just corn, and the GH gas and other economics of corn as energy are crap compared to other plant materials. There are other great ideas for biofuels, but the biggest impediment write now is the low (temporay) cost of oil, and the rising cost of food.

There's some great promise for algae based biofuels that are orders of magnitude more efficient than any terrestrial based plants, but presently oil rules all big R&D so who knows if any of this will see the light of day.

 

[gonewild]

I'm not so sure they are more realistic. His book is a good read, and he's spent allot of time in India and China. He details a conference he spoke at to Chinese auto manufacturers that includes discussion very similar to the one we are having about " who has the right to stop us (the growing Chinese middle class) from enjoying the same level of consumption and standard of living as the Americans".

Some of this is very scary.

More realistic as to how it relates to the remaining rainforests and the people that live in that zone. The Chinese middle class don't live in a still "natural" environment. Perhaps no one has a right to stop them from enjoying the same level of consumption as us. But I have always felt that people that permanently live in a region should decide how it is managed. At the moment China is buying nearly all the lumber in Peru and they have contracts to purchase every last bit of it until it is gone. Then they will likely consume all the bio fuel produced on the land that is left behind. It is going to happen and you are right it is scary.

 

[gonewild]

Not exactly since there are a bunch of big corn ethanol projects going bust in the US now. I've been in the MW where a bunch of this is going on, and the environmental damage caused by mass agriculture in this part of our country makes the impact of an ethanol plant a drop in the bucket. There is no shortage of ethanol supportors in the MW (NIMBY's are very rare).

Yes but they are going broke because we regulate what they can do and how they can do it to the point they can't compete with countries that are willing to cut rainforest to produce the product.

But that's just corn, and the GH gas and other economics of corn as energy are crap compared to other plant materials. There are other great ideas for biofuels, but the biggest impediment write now is the low (temporay) cost of oil, and the rising cost of food.

We're screwed. I can't come up with anything else to say about that.

There's some great promise for algae based biofuels that are orders of magnitude more efficient than any terrestrial based plants, but presently oil rules all big R&D so who knows if any of this will see the light of day.

They won't decide to use algae until they already have cut down all the rainforests in tropical regions. Then they will decide to produce the algae in the middle east so it can be controlled by the petroleum cartels.

 

[Hien]

More realistic as to how it relates to the remaining rainforests and the people that live in that zone. The Chinese middle class don't live in a still "natural" environment. Perhaps no one has a right to stop them from enjoying the same level of consumption as us. But I have always felt that people that permanently live in a region should decide how it is managed. At the moment China is buying nearly all the lumber in Peru and they have contracts to purchase every last bit of it until it is gone. Then they will likely consume all the bio fuel produced on the land that is left behind. It is going to happen and you are right it is scary.

The buddhists maintain that all things in the universe are mutually interdependent, causes & effects of each others. We, consumers & greedy corporations in the US & European countries (infact those corporations may be the same identities regardless which continents they have their base offices in) are partially the cause of the new chinese middle class whose appetite will destroy South american countries.
At certain point in the future, when china economic & influence spread world wide, it will be no longer relevant whether American buy no product from China .
I pray that the future chinese generation are better enviromentalists than we are.
The sad thing is that Chinese philosophers in the past think that MODERATION is one of the great behaviour, while new emergent chinese upperclass thinks that american model is the ultimate golden measure.

 

[Corbin]

Most people that actually live in the jungle areas being developed aren't really looking for a way to improve their lives. They don't feel there is anything wrong with their lives as they are. Sure they want more money to buy stuff but most of them would not trade their forest for a new way of life if given a choice. It is not local people that are clearing forest and planting oil palm, it is large companies from the outside world. The local people will not realize profits from that production yet they suffer the loss of the forest and it's local resource value. The outside world will have oil and the local people will not have charcoal to cook dinner with.

Thanks Lance. Now we can take this right back where it started because this is no different either. Think King of Spain, Queen of England, etc & etc. sending their agents to the new world, at first to find riches, but later to clear the land and grow the crops that would bring them wealth. Did they ask the Indians if they wanted to give up all their land? Not exactly. It's still about somebody trying to make more money to live a "better" life. Unfortunately the unscrupulous will rape the land and kill all the buffalo... and that is why free enterprise has to be regulated by somebody that has the "guns" (don't take that word literally) to see to it that all interest are protected. Isn't that a novel idea.