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
This is a really interesting blog post Fred! It raises a lot of issues regarding when humanity is willing or able to act during certain crises. I think that several factors are at play here. For certain international crises, the people who are most able to help (because of their means or their wealth) are often distant from the location of the crises. This means that the problems are less visible to them, and thus they are less moved to help. This issue is compounded by the fact that news/media outlets might not cover certain stories or give prominence to them, as you mentioned. Also, this distance could mean that those able to help are not as impacted by the crisis and thus less likely to assist.
Furthermore, as the Notre Dame case illustrates, some crises receive more attention because of their cultural, religious, or political significance. The Notre Dame is significant in all three of these regards, especially to the Western world. In contrast, Boreno is not as well known to westerners, and has more cultural significance to people living there. However, this is problematic: these forests are of incredible importance to all citizens of the world, since they provide us with oxygen and sequester carbon dioxide. People are just not as focused on these issues and instead choose to focus on the ones most visible to them.
It’s quite unsettling to keep hearing about situations like this. At the beginning of the semester, I remember being shocked to hear that the Amazon rainforest was burning for such an extended period of time, but even more shocked to learn that similar fires were induced ever year to clear land for cattle ranching, and I think also palm oil. Like you said, these practices are motivated by consumer choices. I did not realize that palm oil was in so many products (like shampoo!), but it’s hard for me to imagine that there’s no good substitute for it. Unfortunately though, even though one surely does exist, in our profit-driven global culture, it would take a large coordinated effort to encourage companies to switch to the (probably more expensive) alternative.
But the deforestation of the Amazon and Borneo rainforests are contributing greatly to a number of environmental problems, and they must be stopped. The fires are actively contributing to greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while also removing a significant carbon sink, and therefore are a major factor in increasing climate change, but they seem to be gaining very little attention as such. The current bush fires in Australia are an example of the vicious cycle going on here, in which human-induced fires are adding to the warming climate, which has exacerbated natural fire seasons, causing extreme human health hazards. And that’s just a single example of the many impacts coming from these unnecessary, money-driven fires. I hope that news agencies pick up coverage of these disasters, and that something is done soon to stop them.