But
unlike pollution, habitat/species destruction may not be reversible. By
some estimates, elephants will be gone in the wild in a few
decades, at present hunting rates. Recent laws have slowed Brazilian deforestation, but globally we are still losing ~
100K acres/day (mostly in Bra., Indo., and Africa).
When
I was a teen, I knew species like elephants and forests like the Amazon
were under threat, but I never imagined that they could totally
disappear in my lifetime. The Amazon is so large and remote that it
won't be totally wiped out, but we might lose enough to tip the climate
change scales past the point of no return (deforestation is responsible
for ~15% of total greenhouse gases due to burning/rotting, and
disappeared forests can no longer absorb CO2). It's really scary.
So
what is going on at the ground level? As you would expect, it's poor
desperate people pitted against each other. In Brazil, indigenous forest
communities tap rubber plants sustainably for their meager livelihoods.
But others are paid by illegal logging operations to cut those trees
down (mostly for export to the US). The Bra. gov't doesn't have the
resources/interest to patrol the huge swaths of forest. So the
"defenders of the forest" take up outdated arms to keep the loggers at
bay and protect their way of life, but more of them keep coming and the
trees are cut down much faster than replacement saplings can mature.
On the other side, economically marginalized Brazilians with few
skills/prospects feel like they have no choice but work for illegal
loggers to feed their families. They know it's wrong, but what choice do
they have in that situation? When it comes to stealing vs. letting your
baby starve, and the corrupt/uncaring gov't offers no solutions, what
choice do they have?
Similarly in Africa, poorly
paid/trained/equipped rangers are fighting a losing battle to protect
elephants 24-7 (a daunting bodyguarding task) from the multiplying bands
of poachers (who are getting more and more sophisticated). But these
poachers are not getting rich either; they might fetch $100/kg from
ivory smugglers, but the end product sells for ~$2K in China. They're
just the foot soldiers fighting and dying over a luxury product that
they will never use (same applies to rainforest hardwood, or some
narcotics for that matter). $100/kg is relatively lucrative for the
poachers, but the benefits wane when you consider the physical and legal
risks they take. Again, they have very little education and other
viable economic options, and live under gov'ts that are not able to lift
much of the populace out of poverty.
We might pay more
attention to the front-line fights because those are visceral and
Hollywood-esque, but of course the root causes are less exciting and the
economic perpetrators are not held accountable. I do not know the trade
laws regarding rainforest timber, but Western importers should perform
the due diligence to find out where the wood came from (like with blood
diamonds), and boycott shadier sources. Builders/consumers should also
scrutinize suppliers and call out/shame those who can't verify the
sustainability/legitimacy of their sources. But likely illegal sellers
offer lower prices, so foreign importers can pocket more profit if they
pass it off as above-board. No one asks questions, and all we care about
is the beautiful hardwood adorning our McMansions. Maybe gov'ts and
trade orgs should demand that nations like Brazil curb illegal logging
and make socioeconomic reforms, or face tariffs/sanctions (or even
provide aid/counsel to help them reform). But the huge sums of money
made by the powerful players on all sides of the trade is too important
to let some trees and poor people get in the way.
Elephants are a
protected species and ivory is illegal in many nations, but those laws
are not well enforced in major consumption markets like China/Thailand.
The US is an advanced nation, yet we are still a top importer too, so I
guess we are not really in a position to criticize. Where is the
education and stiff punishments for ivory smugglers/buyers to help dry
up demand? Where is the global shaming/penalties on consumer markets and
source countries? Int'l orgs and other bodies can influence African
nations like Kenya to do more about elephant hunting. But even if they
do, Asian buyers will just pay higher prices and enable poachers to
defeat enhanced protections. We have to attack the demand, but then
again no one wants to anger China because they are so economically
important now.
The saddest part is that ivory and
rainforest hardwood are frivolous products without much intrinsic value.
Some fish are being driven to extinction too, but at least you could
make the argument that it's for food (even if fish are mostly being
consumed by the rich who have more sustainable protein alternatives).
There are cheaper and environmentally-friendly alternatives to wood and
ivory too, but the problem is that some buyers desire those status
products specifically because of their rare/exclusive/controversial
status (more so for ivory). "Look how rich/powerful I am; I can put
ivory all over my home with impunity." I know greed and selfishness will
always be a part of the human condition, but some societies do a better
job of teaching better values to its people. That is the best
enforcement because you don't even need the legal system - people will
"self police" because they don't value those illegal items to begin
with, so it's a moot point. Sweden and Canada are rich nations, but I'm
pretty sure ivory is not a problem there.
No comments:
Post a Comment