I just received an e-mail stating that there's a massive amount of deforestation being planned by the Brazilian Congress - and that the e-mail should be forwarded with your name to protest against it.
If memory serves, this is an old hoax that does the rounds periodically - I'm certainly sure I've seen this one before. However, two points immediately come to the for about the hypocritical nature of the problem:
1/ Firstly, deforestation does not occur spontaneously, but occurs because the rich developed nations seek to exploit poorer nations for their natural resources. The USA is often implicitly blamed for this, but certainly the EU is as responsible on many counts, as are other developed nations, such as Japan. The point being, that it represents a ridiculous contradiction that the developed world should create direct economic pressures on poorer nations for exploiting them, yet at the same time attempt to create pressure for these nations not to develop their own resources. It shows a contemptible incongruity in the way that our own countries deal with the world.
2/ The second objection is that our own nations have developed strong industrialised economies precisely because they have already ravaged their own resources. Britain is a very prime example of this, having turned to the use of coal - which powered the industrial revolution - not because of ingenuity, but from need. Britain became extensively deforested by the time of the 17th century. In fact, there are very very few trees left in Britain that can be confidently dated to before the 17th century, excepting in specialist conservation areas, such as a the Calaedonian Forest - which it itself survived almost certainly because there was insufficient soil for agriculture, and offered poor lands for grazing. The point of this objection is that if we simply object to other nations developing their own natural resources, are we not behaving hypocritically - in having ravaged our own resources, we demand that others do not so that we ourselves may benefit in environmental terms? Should poorer nations be allowed to develop their natural resources in isolation from the aggressive industrial economies of the developed world, until such time as they can find their own balance of exploitation coupled with maneagable sustenance?
An area for discussion.
If memory serves, this is an old hoax that does the rounds periodically - I'm certainly sure I've seen this one before. However, two points immediately come to the for about the hypocritical nature of the problem:
1/ Firstly, deforestation does not occur spontaneously, but occurs because the rich developed nations seek to exploit poorer nations for their natural resources. The USA is often implicitly blamed for this, but certainly the EU is as responsible on many counts, as are other developed nations, such as Japan. The point being, that it represents a ridiculous contradiction that the developed world should create direct economic pressures on poorer nations for exploiting them, yet at the same time attempt to create pressure for these nations not to develop their own resources. It shows a contemptible incongruity in the way that our own countries deal with the world.
2/ The second objection is that our own nations have developed strong industrialised economies precisely because they have already ravaged their own resources. Britain is a very prime example of this, having turned to the use of coal - which powered the industrial revolution - not because of ingenuity, but from need. Britain became extensively deforested by the time of the 17th century. In fact, there are very very few trees left in Britain that can be confidently dated to before the 17th century, excepting in specialist conservation areas, such as a the Calaedonian Forest - which it itself survived almost certainly because there was insufficient soil for agriculture, and offered poor lands for grazing. The point of this objection is that if we simply object to other nations developing their own natural resources, are we not behaving hypocritically - in having ravaged our own resources, we demand that others do not so that we ourselves may benefit in environmental terms? Should poorer nations be allowed to develop their natural resources in isolation from the aggressive industrial economies of the developed world, until such time as they can find their own balance of exploitation coupled with maneagable sustenance?
An area for discussion.
