Why We Can’t Settle For Compromise When It Comes To Rainforest Protection
Protesting and voting for rainforest preservation while buying excessive, destructively harvested rainforest lumber would be a hypocritical and empty statement. Foregoing more destructive purchases, but failing to vote and protest, is really not doing anything at all, it’s just the bare minimum of reducing the harm one does. To protect the rainforests, or at least to do our part to not contribute to the problem, it is necessary to take multiple approaches.
On a larger, governing level, this is true too. Laws and rulings that protect the rainforest can be pushed for in the long term, while in the short term, rigorous standards must be implemented. Nothing happens all at once. To think only of quick-fix solutions would be short-sighted. To not think of quick-fix solutions at all might leave us with no future to protect. Both must be a part of how we handle this crisis.
Studies have even suggested that rainforests are worth more to these interests if kept alive. With this in mind, it is time to begin restricting this consumption beyond what is convenient and agreeable to corporations. Compromises have been made, and they are an important ongoing part of the solution. Compromises have allowed regrowth in areas of rainforest that had previously been depleted. However, if we hope to get true, comprehensive protection, we need to more than just compromise with destructive forces. As long as the rainforests are viewed not as valuable in their own right, but as an exploitable source of profit, they will be in danger. If those who maintain the rainforest only out of economic interest see a way to exploit the rainforest in a way that maintains profit while destroying the parts of it that are vital but “less profitable” they will. This could include whole species. This could include the homes and lives of the native people living there. If one of the parties interested in profit becomes dedicated to exploiting the rainforest in the short term rather than maintaining it for the long term, this could also create devastation. Ultimately the rainforest must not belong to the whims of the economy. We should work, instead, towards preserving the rainforest entirely, not “just enough to be profitable”.
Many quotas, certifications, and limits compromising with these destructive forces have already been established, and in the UK a law has recently been proposed that would strengthen those regulations for consumers. With this in mind, it is time to begin moving towards a focus on the more long-term solutions.
Splitting these solutions into categories and trying to choose the “best” is a false dichotomy, but we have already established much along the lines of regulation, and restriction. We have our quantity approach mostly covered, while the quality style of approach has gone largely ignored. Very few all-out bans on logging, or truly protected areas, have been established. Ultimately, this land must be placed in the hands of the people who live there, and who need it to survive, not chipped away at, even at a reduced rate.
Farming the rainforest should be banned, not just limited to percentages. It’s great to have protections already in place, but the rainforest is still at risk, and still fundamentally belongs to the people who live there. As consumers, we can limit our intake of products sourced to the rainforest such as palm-oil. This of course, is not the only action that we as individuals can or should take. WE should also protest and push vocally for more protections. We should seek to see rainforest preserves expanded and new preserves created. Organizations such as the Rainforest Trust offer opportunities to give money, serve as a “rainforest ambassador” to your communities, even donate your old car. The time to push forward with declarative, powerful conservation is now.