I remember the flood of notifications on my phone when Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris suffered partial destruction due to a fire. Every news outlet buzzed me when the fire started and continued to notify me with live updates on the development of the fire. Everyone on campus—and worldwide—was talking about the fire, and, before firefighters completely put it out, fundraising efforts began to restore and rebuild the iconic gothic cathedral.
The efforts to rebuild Notre Dame were inspirational and welcomed: it was humanity coming together to save a landmark monument of the West. Within weeks of the fire, the effort to save Notre Dame raised between $835 million and $1 billion USD (Cuddy & Boelpaep). Many breathed a sigh of relief knowing that the cathedral would survive, and would continue to serve as a historic place for Parisians and many others.
The reaction to Notre Dame resulted in many criticizing the donations when, at the same time, we are losing so much of our rainforests to man-made climate change. Months later, disturbing and devastating images surfaced of the fires that struck parts of the Amazon Rainforest in South America. Again, as with Notre Dame, people began donating and tried to help limit the destruction of the fires, which, according to some experts, impacted an area twelve times the size of New York City (Dwyer).
The difference was that we could not just patch a new roof on the Amazon and save the day. While the influx of cash is generous and helps, saving our forests consists of more than just a quick pump of cash when the forest reaches the worst spike in deforestation in over a decade (Dwyer). Saving our rainforests consists of taking action to limit our use and dependency on the products that are destroying our planet.
Sadly, that does not seem to be the direction we are heading in, as CNN has released a story on how the Indonesian Borneo is facing strong deforestation due to our increased demand of palm oil, an oil used in many products ranging from chocolate to shampoo. Indonesia supplies more than half of the world’s palm oil (Wright et. al). In hopes of getting in on the palm oil “gold rush” many farmers create unnatural fires to clear space for more crop growth. The strong demand for palm oil—and the fires as a result thereof—has altered the geography of Borneo, resulting in changing landscapes and destruction of habitat: both of wild animals as well as humans. This loss of habitat has resulted in a further loss of life for the orangutan population in the region, which has already decreased by half in the last forty years (Wright et. al). In three months, the fires have impacted roughly 3,311 square miles of the jungle, releasing more CO2 than the country of Australia did all of last year (Wright et. al).
Unfortunately, the problem is not stopping anytime soon. While companies that are heavily dependent of palm oil for their products have released statements on their intent to push for sustainable ways to create these products, consumer demand for palm oil has only risen in recent years. While this product has in part benefited the people of Indonesia through new wealth and resources to live better materialistic lives, Borneo, considered the “Asian Amazon” and one of the major “lungs” of our planet, continues to shrink in size and burn. The Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) hopes to create a better path for sustainable investing in palm oil, but the group fears that its efforts will not be strong enough.
The RSPO notes that, ultimately, it comes down to us, the consumers. It comes down to how much we really need to use palm oil. An estimate funded by the Parliament of the European Union estimates that each of us consume 17 pounds of palm oil per year (Wright et. al). Over the last twenty years, Indonesia’s palm oil exports have gone up 1,500% (Wright et. al). Economics teaches us that producer supply reacts to consumer demand; the companies that are using the palm oil from the rainforest are going to place money over all. While the European Union has started to phase out palm oil and encouraged its citizens to use the product less and less, these regulations are not applicable to the other countries. The RSPO and the EU believe that if we phase out palm oil, we may still be able to save Borneo.
A resident of the area, through tear-filled eyes, said that he hopes to one day be able to bring his daughter to the forest and show her the beauty of the area. His big ask of consumers: “please, no more. Just stop it.” The report on Borneo appeared at the bottom of CNN’s page. I did not receive a notification on it, nor is everyone talking about saving Borneo. We take these places, which serve as the lungs of our planet, for granted. We believe that we can manipulate them and do as we please. At what point will we realize the costs of destroying these places? Notre Dame is an iconic place, and it is a great thing that we saved it. However, Notre Dame is not essential for the continuation of our planet; the future of Earth does not depend on a cathedral. The future of our species—and many others—on Earth depends on having rainforests and other sources of oxygen. We must step up and save these places that, on top of being our planet’s lungs, house many humans and other species. And, the best part is, it is easier than many think. We don’t have to donate billions of dollars. Individually, to make a difference, all we have to do is take steps to reduce our contribution to the destruction of the planet. So, next time you reach for that enormous bottle of shampoo because of the sale price, think about what that will do to the environment.
Bibliography:
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2019/11/asia/borneo-climate-bomb-intl-hnk/index.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48039770
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/27/amazon-wildfires-how-to-help.html
