Industrialization worldwide is an ongoing addiction. The effects of industrialization to our environment and human health are tremendous. The increase in greenhouse gas emissions, hazardous waste exposure, polluted waterways, and climate change are all just a few repercussions, but the one that strikes me the most is the destruction of our wilderness. Since 1990 we have lost 1/10 of our global wilderness, which is an estimated 3.3 million sq. km of forest. The culprit, global industrialization and insufficient policy action.
Biologists define “wilderness” as biologically and ecologically intact landscapes free of human disturbance. Many places across the globe have lost many ecosystems and become
victim to an increase in endangered species-even extinction. The loss of particular species brought concern that led to new legislation, but the bigger picture at hand is the large-scale losses of entire ecosystems. Without any international intervention the wilderness is at stake and will drastically continue down this path.
A significant amount of deforestation has occurred in South America and Africa. The large diverse ecosystem that resides in the Amazon and Central Africa has faced extensive human pressure that has had a detrimental effect on the animal behavior and the habitat they live in. If we do not act promptly it will be to late for the ecosystems to recover and once they are gone there is no coming back. Too many policy makers are insensible to the fact that wilderness is everywhere and not just in remote locations. We humans have invaded these boundaries with disregard to all wildlife, but time is not out. Global unity still can prevail to suppress this issue.
One of the most current examples of deforestation is in the Malaysian state of Sarawak. This rainforest is falling victim to the manipulative use of power. Tokyo, Japan has been named the location for the olympics in 2020; they have also shipped more plywood in from tropical rainforest than any other country in the world. You named it, while Tokyo has been expanding their infrastructure to prepare for the 2020 olympics, the rainforest in Malaysia is now considered one of the most imperiled rainforest. The vast rising skylines across Tokyo Japan have been built by this once prominent location. This sacred place has been home to various plants, animals, and people. Many indigenous tribes live in these forests and are now facing adverse effects of human intervention. The timber company holding the reins of this project has been accused of corruption and illegal procedures of logging. Only time will tell if the rainforest has the resilience to overcome the unlawful and unjust use of monetary influence.
What do you think should be done to promote longevity of our wildernesses? Do the ecosystems in the Amazon, Central African rainforest, and Malaysian rainforest all have the ability to sustain the constant pressure? Or will they fail? Do undeveloped and developed countries deserve to continue to industrialize? Lastly, what do you think the best global solution is to this problem?
References:
https://www.globalwitness.org/olympics/
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160908130838.htm
Energy and Environmental Policy 2016 
Back in my Geography class last year, I learned of a term called “Bounded Rationality” that I think about often when it comes to these sorts of issues. A quick Google search reveals the definition of bounded rationality being: “the idea that in decision-making, rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, the cognitive limitations of their minds, and the finite amount of time they have to make a decision.” Our class has already seen a perfect example of bounded rationalism with the video about waste in Rio. At some point during the video, one of the interviewees said “when people don’t know where their next meal is coming from, they don’t have the time and energy to spare to think about cleaning up” or something along those lines.
I’m ranting a bit, but here’s where I’m going with this… Spreading information is one of the most powerful tools we can use to help stop deforestation. However, because it is human nature to act mostly on what directly affects them in the moment, I think the only real way to help the environment in general is to find a way for people to realize and feel the impact of their actions more directly. I’m not sure how this could be implemented but it is a place to start thinking.
LikeLike
I agree with Haynes that the concept of “bounded rationality” really comes into play with these scenarios. Many of these countries feel left behind in a global sense. They are largely rural, low-income countries that are rich in one thing: natural resources. The most urgent concern for many governments is to leverage the natural resources they have to supply larger countries with the building supplies they need in an effort to stimulate their own economy and raise their standard of living. Unfortunately this plan of action almost always fails to incorporate any conservation and rarely develops their economy the way they planned. What is left is a country with scarred land, a few rich people in charge, and citizens who are upset that their land has been used for someone else’s benefit.
Their are examples of much more sustainable logging practices found in places like the United States and Canada. These practices have been developed over time and came after a long period of unsustainable logging. I think it should be our goal to help teach these countries how to sustainably harvest their natural resources, but I personally do not think we will see much of a difference until they learn the hard way. However, as long as the land is not developed after logging I think a come back will occur, but it is a very slow process.
LikeLike
In order to promote longevity of the wilderness, there must be stricter global policy on protection of such vital resources. One country cannot simply take action but all, especially in a global economy where many industries outsource where they get their products. Countries should be able to hold other countries accountable for actions, such as illegal logging. At the rate at which the human population is growing, these forests cannot sustain the amount of resources the population is currently taking, as indicated by the reduction in amount of wilderness. I believe it is hard for people to realize the damage that is being done to these pristine ecosystems because they don’t live there. They aren’t seeing the degradation every day or having it impact their daily life, so unfortunately, a lot of times people don’t care. We need to somehow connect people to these forests and show how important they are, something natives already understand. Developed and undeveloped countries all have the same right to industrialize, but at this point the question is not whether or not they can industrialize but how will they industrialize. There needs to be a movement toward cleaner more efficient ways of industrialization but that comes at a high price. With improvements in technology via engineering, it will become more affordable to industrialize in a way that doesn’t damage the environment while still allowing other countries to strive to be like current global economies.
LikeLike
Tara brings up an interesting point that it’s not a matter of ‘if’ developing countries industrialize, its when and how. On one hand, the process of industrializing could be cleaner and quicker than the industrialization developed countries went through. Several ineffective or inefficient steps can be eliminated, and the path to development can be more direct. For example, many Sub-Saharan African countries skipped having landline phones and jumped straight into having cellphones. This elminates a huge construction cost.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/20/africa-phone-study_n_7081868.html
However, even though the knowledge and sustainable practices exist, this doesn’t mean they can be implemented. Sustainable harvesting is rarely (if ever) cheaper than systematically sawing a forest down. If the state of Sarawak demanded a higher price for their lumber, Japan could easily find another nation that is willing to cut their forests down at a bargain price. While this works fine US, other nations depend on their forests for income. It would require a global agreement to implement sustainable practices. And as we’ve learned, to start policy, we need public awareness.
Perhaps a first step would be to require future buildings to be built using a percentage of sustainable materials? Then, over time, we could increase that percentage.
LikeLike
I am particularly concerned about the rain forests in Malaysia, and am very skeptical that progress is going to be made in the near future to curb deforestation in this region. As long as developed countries such as Japan continue to demand lumber with little regard as to where it comes from, shortsighted loggers and political constituents in Malaysia are unlikely to change their ways as long as the money continues to come in. This is further compounded by the fact that 85% of the world’s global supply of palm oil comes from Malaysia and Indonesia. This is a huge money maker for the region as palm oil is in high demand for baked goods and cleaning products among other things. Clearing rain forests frees up land for more oil palm trees to be planted. It is a vicious cycle that is going to be hard to break. It reminds me of an E.O. Wilson quote…”Burning a rain forest for economic gain is like burning a renaissance painting to cook a meal.” It is demoralizing to see such a precious natural resource and gift carelessly cast aside to make a quick dollar.
Similar to the theme of our environmental policy book thus far, I think that many different entities need to get actively involved for measurable progress to occur. I agree with many of the comments thus far that governments should more tightly regulate natural resources to rein in those who are detrimentally over-harvesting. I also agree that public awareness of deforestation and natural resource depletion, especially in the developed countries that are demanding these resources, is pivotal in provoking effective change. In the case of palm oil, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil was formed in 2004 and has made some noteworthy progress in trying to curb unsustainable farming practices relating to palm oil. The group is the major certifier for palm oil, putting their stamp on palm oil products they believe were harvested more sustainably. They have pressured major companies such as Nestle to buy palm oil from certified sources. As public awareness increases, perhaps more and more consumers will demand that the products they buy are RSPO certified and this, in turn, will help to deter further unsustainable deforestation practices which are leading to the near extinction of Sumatran elephants, tigers, and orangutans.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/stop-deforestation/palm-oil-and-forests.html#.V9oUQ5grLIU
LikeLike
I think the solution for this is action by the Malaysian government. Deforestation of their rain forests will only economically hurt Malaysia in the long run. The citizens of Malaysia need to band together to pressure their government into definitive environmental policy action.
I also think it is a bit unethical for the Olympics committee to allow Tokyo to be the next Olympics hosts, if them preparing for the games means degradation of invaluable natural resources.
LikeLike
I agree with others that have mentioned the fact that underdeveloped counties will (and usually need to) industrialize. However, from the facts presented, it seems the issue is more about other countries coming in and using these resources themselves. I think there needs to be more global policies and rules as far as how much a forest or other important ecosystems can be used for resources while still being able to survive. It is definitely more a global problem. The countries themselves will industrialize to profit more and they should have rules as well, but it is harder for them to want to follow rules since they are relying a lot more on industrialization to make more money compared to other countries who have already “been there done that”. I am not sure the right way to go about creating and enforcing rules on deforestation and industrialization, but it needs to be fair to all countries, and the hardest part will be defining what fair actually is.
LikeLike
I feel like change in worldwide policy of deforestation and wildlife conservation is one of the few things that may save the rain forests and natural ecosystems of this world. The problem lies in the under-developed countries that rely on the exportation of these natural resources. If these countries could become more developed without utilizing their resources, the natural ecosystems could be conserved. Most countries look for the best for themselves, but it is going to take a global effort to make a difference. The public need to realize the issue that is portrayed here and ban together to form new policies to eliminate or decrease these threats.
LikeLike
I have a thing for wilderness… But for real, being in the “wilderness” is a truly breathtaking experience like no other and I think that the wilderness has benefits for humans. That being said, I think that wilderness should be one thing that civilizations sacrifice last in their expansion. Industrialization is merely a result of growth in populations, and I do not think it can ever be stopped or restricted. However it can be planned for. Creating centralized hubs of industrialization and planning for the hubs to focus growth upwards instead of outwards, will limit the amount of wilderness impacted by human expansion. Despite the expected high costs of building up, an international effort and focus on this trend, should be marketed and developed. In the end, wilderness should be the last thing sacrificed as human populations grow.
LikeLike
I absolutely do not think that the rainforests in these areas, or in any other areas, will be able to sustain the constant pressures of deforestation. Though I do think that counties, especially underdeveloped countries, should be able to industrialize, I think there needs to be strict limits on using natural resources. I think a critical approach to preserving these environments is regulation of deforestation and designation of some protected areas. Continuing to raise public awareness about these issues is key, as increased public concern could potentially stimulate a push towards making deforestation a part of the political agenda. Of course, international cooperation would be required for these kinds of policies to really be effective. It is important to remember that the ecological services provided by a natural rainforest ecosystem (http://www.rainprogram.org/ecosystem-goods-and-services/) are invaluable, and that some things about our current way of life could change if we lose such resources in our attempt to further industrialize.
LikeLike
I think the best way for us to combat deforestation is to require everyone in the world to get wood from wood farms, like you see in Georgia. If we can find a sustainable way to grow and farm enough trees for everyone we can solve the deforestation problem. I know this is an unrealistic approach, but farms for these trees would have to be across the globe so we can make it as sustainable as we can. From this I believe we can cut down on the deforestation of the rain forest.
LikeLike
I do not believe that rainforests around the world will be able to sustain the increasing pressures of industrialization and the deforestation with which it is associated. Just because rainforests were once present in an area does not necessarily mean that they can bounce back to what they once were. In the Amazon rainforest, for example, since deforestation peaked in the late-twentieth century, aggregate rainfall totals have been decreasing as a result. This is because there is not enough biomass present to absorb the water and shield it from the sun which causes it to evaporate from the heat. It is hard to predict if the Amazon rainforest can return to the glory it once was even with heavy planting efforts. The undeveloped countries absolutely have the right to use their natural resources for their benefit, but developed countries should try to teach them about the hidden values of their natural resources, such as biodiversity and ecotourism, as well as to sustainably manage their forests in lieu of clearcutting, timber exporting, and urban expansion.
LikeLike
I think preservation is the most influential approach to the longevity of our wildernesses. Designating areas such as national parks are valuable in creating appreciation for the wilderness within different cultures. I do think that these rainforests have a natural tendency towards balance and that they will be able to sustain this constant pressure. However, I think that we will play a part in preserving these regions.
I do think countries deserve to continue to industrialize. However, I do not think they deserve the right to industrialize irresponsibly as more developed countries (like us) have. I also think that these countries deserve assistance from more developed countries. Lastly, I think the best global solution to this problem is conservation – as mentioned at the beginning of this comment. I think cultural shifts are invaluable and it’s crucial to allow people to form connections with wilderness areas. Once this connection is formed as a culture, I think we will begin to see more shifts.
Side Note: I suggest looking into the nonprofit “Remote Footprints”, which is headquartered out of Florida. I think the work they do is a responsible approach towards an appropriate solution.
LikeLike
When politicians say “oh we have enough forest area, look at all the trees around us,” they don’t consider how we’ve created really tiny compact areas of trees and severely limited the hunting and territorial bounds for animals. This has lead to the rapid decline of predatory species like wolves, coyotes, bears, mountain lions, etc. And this, as perfectly demonstrated in Yellowstone National Park, has a huge impact on the environment. In America, we don’t have any excuses-we half to increase our Preservation as opposed to increase our Conservation. But how do we tell peripheral countries to do the same? If tearing apart the rainforest creates a steady economic flow, who are we to stop that? This is what motivates me to want to travel as an engineer and help with this process of creating economic stimulation while protecting those incredibly diverse and important biomes.
LikeLike
I don’t think the rain forests will be able to sustain the increasing pressures of industrialization without significant global policy changes that are aimed at conserving forests and further investment to make sure the management of forest systems becomes sustainable. I know that with sustainable foresting initiatives we are able to get a decent harvest of timber without clear cutting which allows the overall ecosystem to remain relatively in tact. When forest canopies are dotted with openings, young saplings can quickly regenerate over time especially since established forest systems also have the added benefit of mycorrhizal fungi and other beneficial ecological relationships that wouldn’t be there if the forest was regrown from clear cutting alone.
LikeLike
Thanks for posting, I believe that with a growing industrialized economy, all rainforests will fail. We will not be able to replant as many trees as we cut down to build. People, not just Americans, are addicted to industrialization. There needs to be a heavier focus on reusing wood/building materials and using sustainable building materials. The rainforests cannot supply the global needs of industrialization forever. There will need to be a major change in the next 100 years if we want to see our rainforests continue to thrive, otherwise we will be an overpopulated, treeless planet as temperatures/CO2 levels continue to rise. Knowing humans and the importance they place on industrialization, the rainforests could all be doomed for extinction.
LikeLike
I think its important to consider the causes of industrialization– population growth and economic growth (the latter being both a cause and effect of industrialization), because I don’t think industrialization will stop, or even slow down, until those two factors do. This mostly applies to developing countries. As for developed countries (like the US), our population growth has finally slowed down, allowing the population to level out a bit. I think it is incredibly irresponsible for the US to continue deforestation, as we are already so advanced compared to the rest of the planet. It’s a little bit trickier for underdeveloped countries, and as an American, I don’t even feel comfortable saying what is or isn’t “right” for them to do, but is does seem like they have a bit more environmental responsibility because the issues that come with industrialization are much more known now than they were before.
I do, however, believe that natural areas have a great ability restore themselves once they are left alone (take chernobyl for example). Of course the catch here is that humans don’t get access to as many resources. I guess we need to find a way to live that isn’t so parasitic to the earth, but I don’t foresee us voluntarily going back to agrarian ways any time soon.
LikeLike
I’m reminded of a quote from the movie we watched in class, which was something along the lines of, “Other countries that are trying to develop can’t industrialize because we, the first world, have used resources to their capacities.” The Earth’s forests and wilderness simply can not sustain the level of deforestation that is currently going on in the world. Are there really any solutions? I’m of the opinion that the damage has already been done.
LikeLike
Very interesting article. I think that like you mentioned in your article, the loss of ecosystems and loss of wild jungles/forests happen mainly on third world countries. Due to poor timber regulations, corruption in politicians that get paid not to pass any type of regulations, and also the illegal cut of timber. I think that third world countries should apply regulations similar to the ones in the U.S, which according to the “Food and Agriculture organization” (FAO) there are more trees in the U.S than there were 100 years ago. The increase in trees is due to a number of factors, including conservation and preservation of national parks, responsible tree growing within plantations — which have been planting more trees than they harvest – and the movement of the majority of the population from rural areas to more densely populated areas, such as cities and suburbs. So if these types of policies are applied in some of these countries, we can see probably start seeing some increase in the forest/trees population in these countries. Other 2 things that I think would work, is that countries that are purchasing wood should look if these wood was cut sustainable. In order to know this, they have to see if the wood has international sustainable certifications (such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)) which is an organization that promotes responsible management of the world’s forests. There are local and other international certifications that show if the wood you are buying was cut sustainably or illegally. The other potential solution I see is for organizations such as the UNESCO, which determine sites as world heritage sites, to make the amazon jungle and other important forest/jungles that are the base for thousands of ecosystems, as world heritage. In this way it will give them certain “untouchable” status.
LikeLike
To promote longevity of our wildernesses, we need to adopt stronger and stricter policies. Businesses can move to become deforestation-free, and consumers can make sure businesses know this is a priority. Voluntary agreements between businesses, policymakers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as the Soy Moratorium in Brazil, have proved to be a promising approach. We need to make smart decisions that shift consumption and land use patterns in less wasteful directions. Encourage people to experience the wilderness in hopes they fall in love with it.
LikeLike
Industrialization is a force that we cannot hope to stop, so at the very least, we should aim to replenish the supply of trees that are being razed. I believe that the ecosystems of each major forest are in extreme danger. Even if the logging is minor and controlled, the effects can still be detrimental. Less trees can cause the area to become more arid. Even if logging is minor, the reduction in trees will lead to less rainfall for each area which will ultimately lead to the death of the forest anyways. I believe that there can be hope if humans choose to fulfill their ecological responsibilities, rather than prioritizing private gain. I believe that every country has the right to industrialization but there is always a better way if we are willing to look. Stricter regulations on the logging industry could aid in the retention of the forests and if we could at the very least plant more trees, that would be a minor push towards the retention of our forests.
LikeLike
I first impression after reading this was wow, this is horrible. They have no right to deforest this land. But then I saw a comment talking about how this country that is being deforested may have a struggling economy and logging may be a way to get it going. This person also brought up the point of who are we to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do when we did it our self during the industrial revolution. But my thought is that, they should learn from our mistakes. While they may view the US as a bully for trying to tell them what they should and shouldn’t do, we have had a lot more experience with growing an economy and they should listen and heed our advice and warnings. Deforesting rain forests is NOT sustainable, and it should not happen. Especially when intrudes on someone’s way of life and is used for something that claims to be “sustainable”.
LikeLike
I think that this is an issue that all world leaders need to discuss and regulate together. The issues spawning from deforestation are very similar to the issues surrounding our world’s oceans, which were discussed in last week’s Our Ocean convention. Thousands of marine species are becoming endangered and extinct, and coral reefs that take hundreds of years to grow are being destroyed. Many people don’t worry about issues like deforestation and ocean degradation because they are not immediately affected by it, but small peoples around the world are. Island people are being displaced by their homes literally disappearing into the ocean because of rising tides caused by rising climate temperatures.
LikeLike