end of the worlds forests?

April 4, 2002 7:45 AM

end of the worlds forests? are there other very important issues for the world that are slipping by us while the we are caught up with the problems in the middle east the the "war on terror"? should there be US leadership in this area?
posted by specialk420 (33 comments total)

Yes.
posted by Postroad at 7:51 AM on April 4, 2002

No.
posted by aaron at 7:53 AM on April 4, 2002

Maybe.
posted by dong_resin at 7:59 AM on April 4, 2002

silly mefi peeps
posted by folktrash at 8:00 AM on April 4, 2002

Hey, this is a standard MeFi political argument thread. We're just learning to streamline it finally.
posted by aaron at 8:19 AM on April 4, 2002

1 - Hope Not.
2 - Of Course there are.
3 - A big resounding NO!
posted by twistedonion at 8:28 AM on April 4, 2002

i thought the CIA laid it out pretty well in "a dialogue about the future with nongovernment experts" -- global trends 2015 -- here're some fun pullout maps & pics 'n stuff :)

• growth in megacities
• AIDS public awareness poster
• current HIV prevalence rates
• challenged water supply
• world water supply
• world trade as a percentage of world GDP
• pirates!
• current world illicit trafficking
• matrix

(and from the WHO -- health: a key to prosperity -- charts and conclusions)
posted by kliuless at 8:37 AM on April 4, 2002

The US isn't the only country in the world. What about France? How come nobody asks if France should take a leadership role?
posted by rocketman at 8:56 AM on April 4, 2002

Heh. Good one, Rocketman. :-)
posted by five fresh fish at 9:05 AM on April 4, 2002

Leadership in which, acting defensively snooty over a milquetoast avant garde culture, or bowing down before Germany?
posted by dong_resin at 9:14 AM on April 4, 2002

`Cept for Jean-Pierre Jeunet, of course, who's a fucking genius.
posted by dong_resin at 9:16 AM on April 4, 2002

The US isn't the only country in the world. What about France? How come nobody asks if France should take a leadership role?

I imagine the question was posed about the US on this site because the majority of users on this site are American, the site is based in the US, and most of the topics published on the site are US-centric. Why shouldn't the discussion be about something the majority of the Mefites have some (however little) say in?

It's fair enough to say, "no, the US should share responsibility for leading on this issue with other industrialized nations". It's not very fair to dismiss the argument altogether.
posted by daveadams at 9:18 AM on April 4, 2002

Leadership in forming policy around all the alarmist news articles that mince down the pike, I think.
Recipe for specialk420 front-pager: Link article claiming imminent environmental destruction. Blame USA. Use lots of question marks.
posted by darukaru at 9:19 AM on April 4, 2002

dismiss the argument altogether

I meant "dismiss the question". Sorry for the mistype.
posted by daveadams at 9:19 AM on April 4, 2002

dong_resin: Leadership in which, acting defensively snooty over a milquetoast avant garde culture, or bowing down before Germany?

France: We surrender.

Apologies for the Farkism. I couldn't resist.
posted by rocketman at 9:20 AM on April 4, 2002

daveadams, I've got to disagree with you on your point about this question being posed because of this site's demographics.

International media often point out a lack of US leadership on issue X and Y. Check out the Bush administration in the Middle East or on the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.

We're only a global leader because nobody else seems to take any initiative. This is why the Saudi peace proposal was so refreshing--somebody else came up with an idea and got involved for a change.
posted by rocketman at 9:30 AM on April 4, 2002

At least on the East Coast of the USA there are more forests now then 100 years ago and it continues to grow. The result of farming production moving out west and fewer people living in the country. Western Maryland for example has fewer people living in it and a larger forest now then it did 100 years ago.
posted by stbalbach at 10:23 AM on April 4, 2002

Living in northeast PA we have no lack of trees.
posted by revbrian at 10:40 AM on April 4, 2002

We're only a global leader because nobody else seems to take any initiative.

And because we've got big guns. Don't forget the big guns.

sorry: offtopic, random and snarky all at the same time. I'm going for the record.
posted by ook at 10:51 AM on April 4, 2002

gosh. now that you mention it.... we have lots trees here in minnesota too..... no sense in being concerned with deforestation in places like indonesia espcially when there is good news like this to be found.
posted by specialk420 at 11:06 AM on April 4, 2002

International media often point out a lack of US leadership on issue X and Y. Check out the Bush administration in the Middle East or on the Kyoto Treaty on global warming.

I didn't say that asking "should the US lead the world in issue X" didn't happen elsewhere, but I did say that on this site, given its demographics, it's a question that makes sense.

If Mefi were dominated by French members, it would make far less sense to ask "should the US lead?"

Besides, the US is leading, as you pointed out. When the foreign press complains, it's often because they feel the US is leading in the wrong direction. The Kyoto Treaty is a good example. The US is by far the biggest contributor to the problem Kyoto is trying to solve. If the US won't sign on, then the whole thing is pretty pointless.
posted by daveadams at 11:21 AM on April 4, 2002

Maybe the rest of the world can look at Minnesota as an example of how to have lots of trees and be a happy man in his 30s.
posted by stbalbach at 11:28 AM on April 4, 2002

[no sense in being concerned with deforestation in places like indonesia]

If I was an indonesian citizen then it would be my business what they do with their trees.
posted by revbrian at 11:38 AM on April 4, 2002

By the way, exactly what is the USA supposed to do about the Chilean government policies which "encourage people to clear native forests that are thousands of years old to make way for plantations of exotic species"? Or Venezuelan and Indonesian loggers? Are we supposed to meddle in other nations' politics and economies, or not?
posted by darukaru at 11:50 AM on April 4, 2002

im with ya revbrian.

just like it like it was none of our or damn business what the afganis did with their statues....
posted by specialk420 at 11:58 AM on April 4, 2002

daru.

is there any question in your mind as to as to whether the US "meddles in other nations' politics and economies" when it suits our interests?

the question is whether having clean air to breath for this and future generations is in our national interest?
posted by specialk420 at 12:19 PM on April 4, 2002

You didn't answer my question. Are some kinds of meddling okay, while others are completely verboten? Where's the line? Where, in short, does it become 'none of our or damn business' (sic)? Please answer without using rhetorical questions of your own.
I like clean air as much as the next guy, by the way. More, if anything, because I'm an asthmatic.
posted by darukaru at 12:32 PM on April 4, 2002

Also, in what ways is the US supposed to put political and economic pressure on Chile, Venezuela, and Indonesia? What if they tell us to bugger off?
posted by darukaru at 12:33 PM on April 4, 2002

hey daru.

sorry to hear about the asthma. have you looked into the causes?

as you may have noticed the environment is a bit of a hot button issue for me....

to answer your question - there are many ways for the US to use its economic might to pressure any country in the world to change its destructive practices - remember flipper and how fast the worlds tuna fishing fleets at the very least made an attempt to change thier fishing practices when they thought the US market may close them...?? on the surface the tariffs put on canadian timber could in some small way have been a move to pressure the canadian timber co's...(though i am skeptical that this had anything at all to do with it) to ease up on their clear cutting in british columbia.
posted by specialk420 at 12:58 PM on April 4, 2002

from an economist's point of view, the line falls on whether you think clean air qualifies as a public good or alternatively if you think pollution is an externality. in which case government intervention makes economic sense because as the literature goes, "it constitutes a market failure."

ways to intervene is of course more complicated. international regulation and enforcement i think, as the kyoto protocols showed, are not very strong, especially when the economic incentives to "cheat" are so strong (or the costs are too low). pollution credits was an idea floated as a pseudo-market alternative to direct regulation (quotas, fines and such) but didn't work because they couldn't agree on the ground rules or game parameters or whatever.
posted by kliuless at 1:52 PM on April 4, 2002

My asthma was caused by my parents both being smokers when I was very young. Either that or just a bad genetic dice roll; it was diagnosed when I was 2, a good bit before I had a chance to inhale many industrial poisons. But thanks for your concern.
posted by darukaru at 2:04 PM on April 4, 2002

And thanks for answering.
posted by darukaru at 2:04 PM on April 4, 2002

it was diagnosed when I was 2, a good bit before I had a chance to inhale many industrial poisons

Thus, it's obvious that no other child has ever gotten asthma from such?
posted by daveadams at 4:46 PM on April 4, 2002