17 ms·

Indonesia is burning. So why is the world looking away?

586 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

kevindeasis 11y ago
If the "world" as defined as other countries, the comments suggest it's because the "world" can't tell them what to do. If the world is referring to people, we can see that the article has 386,059 shares and 1569 comments. The world is definitely not looking away. If the question was, "can we change how some people are apathetic to Indonesia burning?" I think that would be an interesting question. Nice hook btw, the title got me to comment. Then, I looked at your website. Of course OP has experience in click baiting and copywriting ;)
hellofunk 11y ago
I really wish there was a reasonable answer to this question. I lived in Singapore for many years, and its proximity to Sumatra, where most of the burning is happening, is a huge burden on everyone in Singapore for most times of the year, and it is getting worse. I was there during the 2013 haze crisis and had to leave Singapore for several days just to get a breath of healthy air. Birds were dying in-flight and roads had flocks of them dead all over the pavement, and on park grounds. Yet nothing changes. This year, the haze crisis has been its worst in 20 years, and Indonesia fails to address it. It is illegal to start these fires, but the law is not enforced. If this happened in proximity to a nation like the U.S., after numerous warnings, the country would just cross borders without permission and put out the fires. But no one will do that in SE Asia. Singapore and Malaysia have every right to protect their citizens, but they also respect the sovereignty of Indonesia, so aside from public comments by leaders, they do nothing, and nothing changes. Even if you don't live in SE Asia, it is a devastating reality for the whole planet. Massive rainforest are getting destroyed. After decades of no action by Indonesia, it is clear the only way to fix this is for neighboring nations to be more forceful and go in there and do something about it. But fear of conflict in SE Asia is high, so I'm worried that this problem is only going to get worse without worldwide pressure by major nations.
- nabla9 11y ago
  In the North America analogy Indonesia would be U.S. burning and Mexico and Canada suffering. Indonesia is 4th most populous country in the world (250 million people). Singapore and Malaysia are outmatched in population, GDP and military.
  - michaelflux 11y ago
    About being outmatched in GDP and military - you're joking right? Have a look at the figures over the last few decades for Singapore and Indonesia. Singapore is a tiny spec when it comes to size and population, but economically it's in a league of it's own.
    - xyzzyz 11y ago
      Sure, per capita GDP of Singapore is vastly higher, but here it's total GDP that's relevant, not per capita. Last I seen, GDP of Indonesia was 3 times that of Singapore.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >GDP of Indonesia was 3 times that of Singapore. So, like 40-50 times less per capita. Total GDP doesn't matter much when there are size discrepancies that large.
        mikeash 11y ago
        Why not? The amount of weapons a country can buy is related to its total GDP, not per capita. The number of soldiers a country can field is related to its total GDP and actually goes up when per-capita GDP is lower, because you don't have to pay them as much.
    - AlphaSite 11y ago
      Per capita it's much larger than Indonesians, yes, but Indonesians total gdp is significantly higher, 300 billion vs 2.8 trilllion.
biot 11y ago
As discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010 (22 comments) and about a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10433288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10433288 (163 comments)
- thoastbrot 11y ago
  Thanks, I was wondering if I was the only one to remember...
jsnell 11y ago
Discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010
wobbleblob 11y ago
Why is the world looking away? Indonesia is a sovereign nation, we can't tell them how to manage their natural resources. Well we can tell them but they won't listen. If we did, they could point that finger right back at us and ask us what happened to our forests and peat? Uhm, we chopped it down and burned it all before Indonesia was founded. But you shouldn't do that.
- bkor 11y ago
  That's an amazingly simplistic answer. Burning is one way to ensure you have really cheap palm oil.. Most of the palm oil demand is foreign, it is NOT Indonesia making it purely for themselves. For one, Indonesia should have rules banning the burning practice. AFAIK, they have been offered money to combat the need for burning (as compensation) and they ignored these offers (probably reputation thing). Secondly, other countries should enforce that companies ensure that the palm oil is produced in a ecological friendly manner. Ecological way is NOT expensive btw; cost wise it makes almost no difference. Lastly, countries should pressure Indonesia to enforce this. Economic pressure is used all the time. Indonesia is NOT sovereign, especially in this case. They're quite good in responding to the palm oil demand from other countries!
  - wobbleblob 11y ago
    I meant it as a descriptive answer: why is the world looking away? This is why. Indonesia does have laws against these practices, but it seems they cannot or will not enforce them. Indonesia is also a major regional power so it seems its neighbors can't do anything about it either.
- JimmyAustin 11y ago
  I'm not sure you understand exactly how bad this is. It becomes incredibly hard to breathe. I was in KL in mid-2014 when they started the burns and I couldn't walk 200m without being out of breath. No one is saying that you can't pollute your own country, but you shouldn't be allowed to pollute others to the point where it is inhospitable.
  - 11y ago
danmaz74 11y ago
> why is the world looking away? Maybe it's some kind of "Apocalypse fatigue"? At some point, you become desensitized when so many bad news follow each other, and I have the impression the Western public is at that point. Which, of course, is a bad thing.
- speeder 11y ago
  Also maybe sometimes is that you are worried about your own problems. Example: I am from Brazil, since about a year ago I stopped paying much attention to international news, because we have enough trouble here (severe drought, countrywide power supply problems, 10% inflation, -2% GDP growth, unemployment, Olympics preparation is sucking, World Cup, the one that already happened, is still with buildings under construction and creating problems, massive corruption found, parts of the military seemly preparing a right-wing coup, while other parts are seemly preparing a left-wing coup, and the list of problems goes on for a looong time. Also our president has 7% approval rating, probably is one of the most hated politicians in the world right now).
furyg3 11y ago
Here is a live map of the (known) fires in the past week. It's really disturbing. http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/#v=map&x=121.59&y=-1.01&l=5&lyrs=Active_Fires&dirty=true http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/#v=map&x=121.59&y=-1.01&l... You can turn on layers in the Forest Use tab to see the correlation between where fires are/have been burning and where palm oil concessions are. It's pretty clear what's going on. You can try to reduce your own palm oil usage, but it's difficult, because it's in everything from cookies to shampoo and it's not always clearly listed in the ingredients list for various reasons. A second issue is that palm oil has incredibly high yields per hectare when compared with other oil crops... so from a sustainability perspective choosing a different source of plant oil is a tough call and depends on where the alternative is being produced. Whatever happens, there must be some way to reward Indonesians for sustainably producing palm oil or some other crop. Large food companies can do a whole lot, they should absolutely be working to get their supply chains certified under the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) program (you can also turn on a layer on the map to see these areas as well). This program is far from perfect, but is much better than the wild west of conventional palm oil, and rewards responsible producers. Paper and timber are a bit easier, you can make sure all of the paper you use in your office or packaging is FSC certified, and you should require that any construction done on you or your company's behalf sources FSC timber. It's not necessarily more expensive.
- fsloth 11y ago
  Cool! Unfortunately I could not get the layers working. Nasa seems to offer similar tool http://go.nasa.gov/VbYrug http://go.nasa.gov/VbYrug
  - LoSboccacc 11y ago
    if you zoom out on that map there are loads more red dots in Africa, I wonder what's the threshold for 'thermal anomalyes'
  - 72deluxe 11y ago
    Thanks! I never knew about this site, it is very good, particularly with the date sliders at the bottom.
anunderachiever 11y ago
Watch "The Act of Killing" and you'll know why this country is resistant to advice and doomed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605
- cfontes 11y ago
  That looks awesome, thanks!
thiago_fm 11y ago
"What I’m discussing is a barbecue on a different scale. Fire is raging across the 5,000km length of Indonesia."
warkid 11y ago
Still, some other countries are helping - http://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/11/indonesias-annual-peat-fires-are-a-global-disaster-that-must-be-stopped/ http://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/11/indonesias-annual-peat...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fulafel 11y ago
Dan Gilbert has a good TEDx talk on why we can't get worked up about things like this (and climate change). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fle_FkILmEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fle_FkILmEQ
anu_gupta 11y ago
It's an incredibly difficult problem, with no easy solutions - projects like this one (http://www.katinganproject.com/ http://www.katinganproject.com/) need to be supported and publicised, as they seek to find practical alternatives to burning the peat and forests.
chris_wot 11y ago
So I believe that it's covering about 2% of Indonesia's total arable landmass? Can someone cross check this for me?
caligarn 11y ago
I currently live in Singapore. Clear skies today. But for the last two months it's been constant smoggy haze that makes your throat itch and your nose stuffy. And there's virtually no protest to it here. Just sarcasm and cynicism.
- viewer5 11y ago
  Do you guys wear masks or anything when it gets bad? Would that make a difference?
  - bluerobotcat 11y ago
    Yes
eveningcoffee 11y ago
I think that the reason is that people do not understand what is going on. So articles like this should create bigger awareness. Also people do not know how they could react and discussion like this here could give them ideas. I would think that what a person could do in another country for example is to pressurise his representative to create embargo against Indonesia so that they have less economical motivation to carry on with such fires. Embargo could be conditional - if fires continue (could be observed from orbit), embargo continues. This would probably not protect forest, as now more forest is needed to cut down to be economical, but it would protect peoples health.
- hellofunk 11y ago
  >I think that the reason is that people do understand what is going on. I think you mean "do not understand". As for diplomatic solutions, Singapore has tried to get Indonesia to release the names of any Singapore-based companies who are creating this problem in the region by farming there, but Indonesia won't do that either. Try to protect their business interests. If Indonesia could do that, Singapore could punish those countries under its control.
  - eveningcoffee 11y ago
    Yes, I meant "do not understand". I fixed this. Thanks! If what you are saying is true, then it really points to the direction that international embargo would be a solution to this problem.
  - MichaelGG 11y ago
    Wow. You'd think Singapore could offer enough of a personal reward to make it possible for individuals involved to defect (immunity + $$$$$$$).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
purpled_haze 11y ago
"Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results." I don't see how taking money away from these companies and then telling them to do something more expensive by enforcing more responsible ways of making palm oil is an answer. It seems that if you take away money from these companies, you'd inspire them to cut corners to turn profits. Their shareholders dictate profitability. If you want to encourage good behavior, you should just contact them and tell them you are concerned and ask what they are doing about it to end this problem in a short timeframe. Ask them what you can do to help stop it. They will probably appreciate the help. If they don't respond, write another letter and give them a timeline, like the end of 2016, and tell them if they cannot make a change in the local behavior there by then, you will start a lifetime ban on their products in your family and tell your friends, social media, and the press about your decision. In general though, banning products hurts workers and shareholders. It doesn't enact the change you want.
- noja 11y ago
  I really am not sure if you are trying to be humorous or just naive. Perhaps you could set up a Facebook action page and we can all click "Like" so that we can all feel better about continuing to buy their products.
  - purpled_haze 11y ago
    How about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil-a-boycott-really-hurts_b_1729859.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil... Or this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boycotts-al_b_5302209.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boy... People should help, but it is unbelievable to me with such smart people here we can't come up with a more realistic way to solve the problem than a boycott.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      I think those articles just show the authors didn't want to think a bit about all the direct effects. Sure, by boycotting a business, the workers of that business (may) see their paychecks lowered. But the workers of the competing businesses where you'll be eating/staying instead will have more customers. In fact, by going to that business instead of the one you'd go if you were boycotting the first, you are in fact doing the same to the later business as the boycotters are doing to the former. So I can see how the boycott might be bad for the workers of the boycotted business, but it's neutral to workers in general.
cfontes 11y ago
Beautiful country, awesome food but Indonesia is a mess... If you have the opportunity to go there you will see why, the lack of government is apparent everywhere, they are as poor as it gets and the government is completely incapable of handling it's country. I come from a country like that and there is no way this will be solved easily, some countries are just too corrupt and incapable of handling themselves, it takes a lot of investment in education and a large number of generations to fix that and since the country is a mess there is no way for that to happen without some miracle. It's so absurd that drug use or commerce is punishable by death yet every five minutes you get stopped getting offered some kind of it, of course being a tourist in my early 30's help with that but I was with my wife and I don't exactly look like a junkie. What I mean is people (some at least) are not afraid of breaking the law... This is not even in their radar. It's worth a visit, but living is probably not fun.
- a_c_s 11y ago
  I've visited too, but I actually came away feeling optimistic about Indonesia (and not just because I loved the food!). Where were you that you were offered drugs? Places where Indonesians live or places where tourists go to party?
  - cfontes 11y ago
    I mostly Bali so you are probably right, but I spent most of my time in Seminiyak, Ubud and some other towns, I didn't went there to party more to relax/surf/eat. I was offered drugs everywhere... people would stop us in little vespas while walking, sellers inside stores, etc... it reached a point where my wife became afraid of people coming toward us. People are great, friendly, some scammers but well that is expected in tourist places, the place is beautiful, it's dirty cheap. it's just that it looked crazy poor /unorganized, I was born in Brazil so being among really poor people is common to me(unfortunately) and I was choked when I got there.
grobmeier 11y ago
It's a shame. I live in Germany, and just heard of this for the first time at HN. I can't believe it... we are discussing stupid things in politics, the refugee "situation", Ukraine and Greece. I even heard of the recent earthquake. But Indonesia burns? Not even worth a mention. Not a single word.
- cfontes 11y ago
  I sense sarcasm but I can't be sure...
  - PepeGomez 11y ago
    No, not sarcasm. Not reported at all here.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  I wonder if you trying to be sarcastic, or just follow an immensely narrow set of German media? Of course e.g. Deutsche Welle was predicting this is coming in July: http://www.dw.com/de/el-ni%C3%B1o-erh%C3%B6ht-feuergefahr-in-indonesien/a-18618221 http://www.dw.com/de/el-ni%C3%B1o-erh%C3%B6ht-feuergefahr-in... and have kept reporting, e.g. a few days ago: http://www.dw.com/de/die-verheerenden-folgen-der-brandrodung-in-indonesien/a-18809572 http://www.dw.com/de/die-verheerenden-folgen-der-brandrodung...
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    FWIW I posted this article on FB and all my American friends had not heard about this problem before either. Most Westerners are not aware of what is happening in Indonesia at all.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- bojo 11y ago
  For what it is worth I didn't read this comment as sarcastic. I live in Japan, watch the news almost daily, and HN is the first I've heard of it.
forgotpwtomain 11y ago
You would think they could do something along the lines of a complete ban on any kind of commercial activity or exploitation of land that's been burned for the next 20-30 years. Wouldn't there be no more reason to burn after this? I suspect the politicians of Indonesia and the corporations in neighboring countries have other motives in this - and it's a quite a bit more complicated then the world looking away.
douche 11y ago
This will be hugely unpopular, but maybe Indonesia would be a little better managed if it were still the Dutch East Indies? Colonialism is bad, sure, we all have to believe that. But an overwhelming percentage of the hot-spots and problem areas in the world are in places where old European colonial administrations were driven out by nationalists precipitously. In some places, it's taken these countries fifty years to develop institutions that are in the ball-park of the old colonial administrations, and some of them are still corrupt and evil enough to put Leopold II to shame.
- Synaesthesia 11y ago
  If you look at the history of Indonesia, in 1965 there was a military coup which largely exterminated the local popular based party, the PKK in an enormous massacre. At least a million people were killed. It was received mainly with applause in the west. Thereafter Indonesian was opened up to western international corporations - essentially neo-colonialisation.
- wobbleblob 11y ago
  I hope you're just trolling. One of the problems is that Indonesia should have been either a number of independent states or a United States of Indonesia model, but turned into a kind of copy of the Dutch East Indies, except with Jakarta taking the place of the Dutch. In many ways, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Irian Jaya are Javanese colonies and treated that way.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  If you want to be imperial, just offer them huge payments to keep the fires out. I'm sure it would be cheaper than colonization.
- deanCommie 11y ago
  Please be a troll. I know people all over the world still have thoughts like this, but I thought people on hacker news are smarter than that. #1: Things weren't "better" in colonial times anymore than they were better in Apartheid-era South Africa or Jim Crow-era America. Hell, we can even go back to Slavery-era America. Sure, things were more peaceful and ordered. At the expense of the subjugation of a significant percentage of the population. You can absolutely attain peace and prosperity at the expense of the freedom of your citizens. We call that Fascism. #2: Most of the problems that occur in post-colonial hot-spots are not there because the European colonial administrations left. They are there because THEY WERE THERE IN THE FIRST place. The Europeans: * Deliberately destablized peaceful areas so that they would be the one to introduce order * Divided and conquered previously peaceful tribes by boosting support for one in order to attain power (see: Rwanda) * Toppled democratically elected governments because of fear of communistic populistic ideas that threatened wealthy western industrialists * Created borders abstractly - merging peoples that did not want to be together and dividing those that did. Western countries would not be this far ahead of the rest of the world without decades if not centuries of exploitation. And maybe, just maybe, if progress happened at a more natural rate we would have been able to learn some more sustainable practices. Maybe we wouldn't have the internet or smart phones for another century, but maybe we wouldn't have been responsible for The Sixth Extinction.
ordbajsare 11y ago
Do they have oil?
- prodmerc 11y ago
  Palm oil, yes.
jpatokal 11y ago
One point I rarely see raised in these stories about "eco-apocalypse" is that fire is a part of nature. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that clearcutting jungle or intentionally setting fires is a good thing; but if the forest is dry enough that it'll burn for days once lit, it will also do that if there's a lightning strike. Here in Australia, fire is such a part of the cycle of life that the local ecosystem has entirely adapted to it: for example, there's a tree (the stringybark) which exudes a flammable oil and drops its bark in wonderfully flammable strips into piles on the ground. This ensures that, when the next bushfire comes roaring along, it rips through at lightning speed, leaving the core of the tree alive to regrow and eliminating the weaker competition. It's just a bit of a shame if your house happens to be in the way... and what's happening in Indonesia and Singapore right now is basically an intensified, human-supercharged version of the same phenomenon. And FWIW, I lived in Singapore for 8 years and endured some of that haze myself. It still can't hold the proverbial candle to the level of entirely man-made air pollution in China and, worst of all, northern India.
- danmaz74 11y ago
  Except, they are purposefully drying up peat land to start the fires...
  - harperlee 11y ago
    > Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that clearcutting jungle or intentionally setting fires is a good thing
- hellofunk 11y ago
  What is happening there is very unlikely to occur with such frequency if it was purely natural. It takes manmade intervention to create the kind of problem happening in Indonesia right now. Every year, for most of the year, these fires rage because of techniques created by humans. It is about a lot more than just dry forests.
ck2 11y ago
The world looks away from the horror of North Korea every day. Syria is having a mass exodus of 20 million people running from their own government and the world is pretty much looking away (except when those people land on their doorstep).
- jqm 11y ago
  Except it's not really "their own government" the people of Syria are running away.
- theworstshill 11y ago
  People in Syria are running away from terrorism, mainly supported with Saudi money, and you know where those dollars come from. Saying that they're running away from their own government is as true as US equipping and supplying the Free Syrian Army for the cost of a few mils - all five of them.
hnhamdani 11y ago
As an Indonesian, I'll give some context and nuance around the burning. 1. Who did the burning? mostly It is CORPORATIONs that owned massive chunks of lands (which some of the case these lands overlap with National Park territories). The rest is small land owners (which also cover big areas if you sum it). These companies though have a strong lobby in the government across layers, whether it is in the national level or province level. FYI, many of the companies are foreign ones including Singapore companies and Malaysian companies. 2. Why did the government not make it illegal to burn land? There are several factors. Actually the amount of land that CAN BE burnt is limited. However the government do not strictly enforce it, because you know, it's Indonesian government. So a step back, how come the government allow people to burn land in the first place? There is an old local bill (in Borneo area) that protect land owner to burn land. This date back to an old tradition that in Borneo, in order to farm you gotta burn the land first because of the nature of the peat land itself. I agree that in 2015, there should be a solution in making a farmland productive without even to burn it. This bill is not yet overruled and even so, being abused by corps to justified the act. 3. Another reason why there is almost no response from the Indonesian government is that the burning happened only in Sumatra and Borneo to the (North)West side (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand). For better or worse, Java island doesn't get the haze at all, thus many politicians can't relate how bad it is actually. What is sad is that it is the epitome of capitalism, that we can't do much about it. Palm oil is used everywhere and as long as there is a demand, supply will be there too.
- auxsend 11y ago
  Thank you for your answer, interesting to read these 3 points. But I think with your last sentence you are inconsistent with what you've described before, which is: - a complete lack of democracy, instead a small elite that is literally burning their country to the ground, in order to take it all until nothing is left. - the absence of skill or will to provide the necessary legislative law in order to actually govern this country and not just passively stand on the sidelines and watch until every thing is dissolved in smoke.
  - prodmerc 11y ago
    He's kinda right about the capitalism thing - a small elite controlling everything is the inevitable outcome for a capitalist society without government (i.e. socialist, for the greater good of the population) oversight. Now, that's not really what happened here, the government seems to have already been weak and corrupted, so those with money just take advantage of it.
jawngee 11y ago
We were getting the haze here in Saigon, Vietnam. Seems better this week though, but before that it was the worst I've seen it in five years living here. I was definitely cleaning out more black stuff from nose than normal. I do think Indonesia will have to answer to ASEAN at some point, because this year it seemed so much worse than normal and affected the entire region. I can't see the current Vietnamese government letting it slide.
zacharytelschow 11y ago
"It is hard to convey the scale of this inferno, but here’s a comparison that might help: it is currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. And in three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany." Well that clears it right up. Forget deaths, acres burned, people displaced, homes destroyed - the real metric to measure the scale of the tragedy is CO2 released because, you know, global warming. I like that the author mocks his own industry for pursuing their own agenda instead of caring about the real story in the opening paragraph then exemplifies that very trait.
- prodmerc 11y ago
  No, these are man made fires to clear up land. They're going the Easter Island route, apparently...
- jessaustin 11y ago
  ...then exemplifies that very trait. Inspired by the Principle of Charity, I choose to read incongruous lines like that as allowances for the "double audience". Of course destroying the rain forest and choking millions of people is worse than some theoretical threat that's mostly relevant to politics. However one can't simply write that in the Guardian. Even if one could, there's nothing wrong with appealing to people of varying ideologies.
- gd1 11y ago
  It's even dumber than that. This isn't fossilized carbon, that hasn't been a part of the carbon cycle for a few geological epochs. No, this is carbon that is an active part of the current carbon cycle, that has in just the last few decades/centuries been pulled out of the air and turned into plant/tree matter. It is utterly irrelevant that it is being released now. It will be reabsorbed when the forests regenerate. If those trees had died of non-fire causes, they likely would have rotted in the open air and released methane anyway. This is just natural noise in the carbon cycle, which would occur if the human race didn't exist. Global warming is the theory that by digging up FOSSILIZED carbon, that isn't part of the current cycle and releasing it we are forcing the system out of the prevailing equilibrium. Classic stuff from good old George Moonbat, who is notorious for struggling with the science bit of his job.
ommunist 11y ago
Buy that land and stop burning. If it is moneywise efficient to burn it, it will be burned. Its capitalism, believe it or not. Rainforest is not good for business, that's all. And for the UK journalist, is not Indonesia too far away to make news? There are hundreds of environmental issues in the UK to be addressed. Starting from rabbits.
- awinder 11y ago
  That's only true in a very narrow view of "moneywise efficient". If you're a company producing palm oil, burn vs. no burn is clear. If you're looking at this from a macro view and want to cost out the health implications over a widespread area, costs for direct injuries and any fire-fighting resources, costs for people displaced, and the CO2 costs to the environment, I'd love to see the math that says this is "moneywise efficient".
Intermernet 11y ago
The following example has little to do with the current, reported, fire situation reported in the article, but may, by example, provide some insight into why this situation in Indonesia hasn't been widely decried, and also, to the political climate that can lead to such extreme situations without global outcry. "The Grasberg Mine is the largest gold mine and the third largest copper mine in the world. It is located in the province of Papua in Indonesia near Puncak Jaya, the highest mountain in Papua, and it has 19,500 employees."[1] I first heard of this mine when, 20 years ago, a friend of mine and I thought it would be "fun" to climb the highest mountain "on the continent of Australia" [2] We rapidly realised that this would be near impossible due to political, and at the time (and indeed now), logistical reasons. A few years later I read Tim Flannery's "Throwim way leg" [3] which discussed the development of the mine, the road that accesses the mine, the conflicts that surrounded the mine, and the secrecy that enshrouds the mine. To this day it's very difficult to access Puncak Jaya (Carstensz Pyramid), mainly due to the fact that the mine operators don't want people in the area. Historically it was the local tribes that presented the problem, these days it's Freeport-McMoRan et al who present the problem. The mine itself has been the subject of contentious investigation: "In 1995, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) revoked Freeport's insurance policy for environmental violations of a sort that would not be allowed in the US. It was the first action of this sort by OPIC, and Freeport responded with a lawsuit against them. Freeport states that this revocation was based on a misunderstanding, the result of a single 1994 visit to Grasberg; the company later underwent an independent environmental audit by Dames & Moore, and passed." Dames & Moore are a story unto themselves. Lookup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URS_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URS_Corporation for more information, but they aren't / weren't the most unbiased group to be doing environmental audits. Suffice to say, this particular mine has a very secretive and questionable history. This is but one operation, in one sector of industry. The resources sector of Indonesia has been mired by corruption, and worse, government complicity for decades. This has been pushed and sustained by Australian, US, UK, and European interests and has largely been ignored by the greater global community. To see this latest environmental disaster receive so little press isn't surprising at all considering the recent history of the area. This isn't something that can be solely pinned on the Indonesian government, this is a horribly perfect example of international capitalism gone awry. The companies involved in profiting from these areas need to feel "somewhat responsible" (a slight understatement) for what's happening here. Sorry people, rant over. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasberg_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasberg_mine [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puncak_Jaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puncak_Jaya [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwim_Way_Leg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwim_Way_Leg
finalight 11y ago
staying in singapore the haze is bad, the highest i've ever seen. first time i ever cough due to haze
auxsend 11y ago
A lot of report on smoke. But what is with the source of the fires: the wood, the forest. Is it destroyed, or does it recover? How does it recover, with trees and forest or only gras? How long does it take until the trees grow back (if they grow back at all)? What is with the animals?
lazylizard 11y ago
singapore as a nation. and its neighbours. just have no political will to solve this. its been going on for years, if not decades. surely if GIC+Temasek holdings(how big and successful they claim to be!) and/or its peers around the region started buying indonesian forest since ten years ago they'd have bought all of it by now?
the8472 11y ago
Satellite images might be useful to get a sense of the scale.
ageofwant 11y ago
I do not buy anything with palm oil in it. I try to find and buy shares of companies that are developing synthetic palm oil alternatives. I'm also offering up prayers to the Lord of the host of ganoderma boninense. I expect all of the above to have about the same effect.
throwaway_97 11y ago
indonesia is shit
annapowellsmith 11y ago
The Indonesian government's attempts to stop burning are hindered by a lack of proper land ownership data. From the Jakarta Post: "The one-map policy — a comprehensive map of land ownership to provide clarity on the exact boundaries of land owned by companies — should be fully implemented. Experience over the past decades has shown there is an acute lack of transparency when it comes to maps on land ownership. Without a centralized, public map, the task of pinpointing errant companies or landowners becomes murky. "The government also seems to have been reluctant to make its existing concession maps publicly available to public forest-monitoring platforms. If we are serious about tackling the appalling air pollution, the government must release data that will facilitate public monitoring." http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/27/editorial-protecting-peatland.html http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/27/editorial-prot...
jtheory 11y ago
My in-laws live in Kuala Lumpur, and are really struggling with the smoke; they're already not in the best of health. Next month we're going to basically evacuate my wife's parents and bring them to stay out of the smoke for a few weeks in Cambodia, and try to get some kind of air filtration in place in their house. It's an awful situation. We're also flying into this mess with two small children; I guess we'll bring masks and protect them as much as possible. We're far less affected than all of the people staying there all the time, of course. It's a hard problem to fight; it seems obviously a legal issue first... this shouldn't be allowed. But the Indonesian govt isn't handling it; so... critique them? Replace them? It seems like a choice between useless and ridiculous. Is there any really useful response here? Or focus on the companies benefiting from it, e.g., http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/ntuc-fairprice-removes-all-asia-pulp-paper-group-products-from-its-stores http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/ntuc-fairp... Boycott palm oil (but it's in everything); ask the massive corporations downstream to be more responsible about the raw materials they purchase... how big of a boycott does this need to be, how loud/public a demand, before they'll make serious changes, not just gestures? I do think we'll see some positive response, in fits & starts, but it's a depressing situation at the moment.
blondie9x 11y ago
All of us share this planet and it's resources. Particularly the atmosphere and climate. There is a finite capacity of the atmosphere to absorb greenhouse gases. As the concentration of greenhouse gases rises in the atmosphere, our planet's climate patterns destabilize with the increased energy trapped on Earth leading to rising temperatures. The number one way to avoid this is to tax carbon emissions such as burning rainforests and fossil fuels. The revenues from this tax can act as subsidies to entities that choose to protect forests and preserve resources. Reimbursements could be disbursed to countries like Indonesia whose rainforests have an important impact on carbon fixation. This type of market on pricing of greenhouse gases would help get emissions out of the atmosphere and back into sentient organisms like trees and plants, from there the animals that depend on them. Palm oil should be taxed per the burn. We can calculate the aggregate impacts of this burning. Why not quantify a cost on these industries for abusing our common good? We all share this planet. The destabilization of it due to climate change from carbon emissions in unjust to all citizens of Earth, regardless of country. We should take a stand and push for a price on carbon, a price to burn.
ciokan 11y ago
If only they had oil...
theworstshill 11y ago
The world isn't looking away but rather ganging up on Indonesia. Those farmers own that land and its their right to do anything they want to it, in accordance with Indonesian law. Those trees trapped carbon from the atmosphere in the first place, so burning them is just releasing the same carbon. If somebody has a problem with that they can pay the farmers money to sustain themselves in otherways, e.g. I believe Norway pays Brazil to preserve the Amazon forests. Thats how Capitalism with private property rights works.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Why should someone have the right to release smoke from their land and spread it over other people's land? It's generally agreed that you don't have the right to dump trash on other people's property without their permission. Why would it suddenly become acceptable to do this just because the trash consists of fine particles instead of diapers and hamburger wrappers?
- Quiark 11y ago
  Look up Tragedy of the Commons. That's how capitalism works in the real world that we need to share.
- craigjb 11y ago
  We have a choice in what system we use for managing natural resources and preventing large-scale environmental problems. Just because capitalism has been efficient so far for economic growth does not mean the current implementation is perfect for everything else. Also, there's nothing natural about free markets and capitalism. We (humans) made it up! We're free to change the rules in order to make life and the world better.
boost_ 11y ago
anytime i see shit like this, all i can think is: fuck the industry and the market, fuck commerce, mass production, mass consumption. fuck socialism, communist and capitalism. fuck "democracy" and the fact that it never existed in the first place. and most important of all, fuck class warfare and everything it represents! this week is Indonesia fires, last week was china insane pollution from gadget manufacturing. next week will be something else. we wont ever be free while all the above exists..
camenk 11y ago
I think this happens almost every year in Indonesia. Some years it's not really bad, but this year it's been really - really bad. A lot of the year, we're somewhat relying on the rain to reduce the number of the hotspots but last I heard, not much rain happening this year (a few days ago, there were rain and it kinda help it a bit). I'm somewhat agree with one of the sentiments thrown in this discussion that a lot of people who doesn't get the haze directly (mostly the high ranking government official in Jakarta) won't understand the dire situation in the fields.
racl101 11y ago
First step to solving the problem: Identifying the Problem. I doubt many people know of the plight of the Indonesian peoples. Heck I live in the US so I'm conditioned to believe that the people in most trouble are black people. Their lives are the ones that matter the most. Have I been misled?
Quiark 11y ago
This problem makes me very sad, because of all the affected people in the region, because of the poor orangutans and because of losing hundreds of years old trees in the rainforest. But could it be solved if you think about it from this direction: Singaporeans are badly affected by the smoke. On the other hand, Singaporean business apparently are quite involved as the cause of the burning (for palm oil growing). Shouldn't therefore the SG public push these companies to stop it? Could there be a petition or some sort of protest? I would even try to help such a movement as I can (though I'm in HK, not SG).
vinceguidry 11y ago
Silly question. When have humans ever really cared about the environment over capitalism? Sure, we saved the whales, but that was only after petroleum mined from the ground removed the main reason we were killing whales. Palm oil is way cheaper than the alternatives, and we have a exceedingly poor history of choosing more expensive, yet more environmentally friendly alternatives. If we actually managed to preserve the Indonesian rainforests in the face of global capitalism, that would be unprecedented in the history of the human race. The question isn't why we haven't, but how in the world could we? Hell, the Chinese government can't even stop their own people from wanting rhino horns. And it's not for lack of trying.
daveloyall 11y ago
The author is George Monbiot. The article is cross posted on theguardian.com and monbiot.com. The Guardian version says: > ... Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results. His personal webpage version says: > ... Starbucks, PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Unilever are examples. Don’t buy their products until they change. Wow.
- tomaskafka 11y ago
  Thanks! This is truly disgusting and hypocrytical act from Guardian. I asked them: https://twitter.com/keff85/status/661642069828587520 https://twitter.com/keff85/status/661642069828587520
  - daveloyall 11y ago
    For your convenience: http://hubris.the-good-guys.net/monbiot.html http://hubris.the-good-guys.net/monbiot.html
- blackRust 11y ago
  George Monbiot is a rare breed: a journalist with great integrity and transparency. As a case in point his "Registries of Interests" lists his annual fees, sources of income from one-off articles, gifts he was given, and just about anything that implicates him financially! It is astoundingly good and he makes a fine example that I wish more journalists and news organisations would follow. http://www.monbiot.com/registry-of-interests/ http://www.monbiot.com/registry-of-interests/
willow9886 11y ago
Regardless of the political implications, this is an extremely sad situation that will surely be felt for many years to come...

586 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

If the "world" as defined as other countries, the comments suggest it's because the "world" can't tell them what to do. If the world is referring to people, we can see that the article has 386,059 shares and 1569 comments. The world is definitely not looking away. If the question was, "can we change how some people are apathetic to Indonesia burning?" I think that would be an interesting question. Nice hook btw, the title got me to comment. Then, I looked at your website. Of course OP has experience in click baiting and copywriting ;)

hellofunk 11y ago

I really wish there was a reasonable answer to this question. I lived in Singapore for many years, and its proximity to Sumatra, where most of the burning is happening, is a huge burden on everyone in Singapore for most times of the year, and it is getting worse. I was there during the 2013 haze crisis and had to leave Singapore for several days just to get a breath of healthy air. Birds were dying in-flight and roads had flocks of them dead all over the pavement, and on park grounds. Yet nothing changes. This year, the haze crisis has been its worst in 20 years, and Indonesia fails to address it. It is illegal to start these fires, but the law is not enforced. If this happened in proximity to a nation like the U.S., after numerous warnings, the country would just cross borders without permission and put out the fires. But no one will do that in SE Asia. Singapore and Malaysia have every right to protect their citizens, but they also respect the sovereignty of Indonesia, so aside from public comments by leaders, they do nothing, and nothing changes. Even if you don't live in SE Asia, it is a devastating reality for the whole planet. Massive rainforest are getting destroyed. After decades of no action by Indonesia, it is clear the only way to fix this is for neighboring nations to be more forceful and go in there and do something about it. But fear of conflict in SE Asia is high, so I'm worried that this problem is only going to get worse without worldwide pressure by major nations.

nabla9 11y ago
In the North America analogy Indonesia would be U.S. burning and Mexico and Canada suffering. Indonesia is 4th most populous country in the world (250 million people). Singapore and Malaysia are outmatched in population, GDP and military.
- michaelflux 11y ago
  About being outmatched in GDP and military - you're joking right? Have a look at the figures over the last few decades for Singapore and Indonesia. Singapore is a tiny spec when it comes to size and population, but economically it's in a league of it's own.
  - xyzzyz 11y ago
    Sure, per capita GDP of Singapore is vastly higher, but here it's total GDP that's relevant, not per capita. Last I seen, GDP of Indonesia was 3 times that of Singapore.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >GDP of Indonesia was 3 times that of Singapore. So, like 40-50 times less per capita. Total GDP doesn't matter much when there are size discrepancies that large.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Why not? The amount of weapons a country can buy is related to its total GDP, not per capita. The number of soldiers a country can field is related to its total GDP and actually goes up when per-capita GDP is lower, because you don't have to pay them as much.
  - AlphaSite 11y ago
    Per capita it's much larger than Indonesians, yes, but Indonesians total gdp is significantly higher, 300 billion vs 2.8 trilllion.

biot 11y ago

As discussed yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010 (22 comments) and about a week ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10433288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10433288 (163 comments)

thoastbrot 11y ago
Thanks, I was wondering if I was the only one to remember...

jsnell 11y ago

Discussion from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010

wobbleblob 11y ago

Why is the world looking away? Indonesia is a sovereign nation, we can't tell them how to manage their natural resources. Well we can tell them but they won't listen. If we did, they could point that finger right back at us and ask us what happened to our forests and peat? Uhm, we chopped it down and burned it all before Indonesia was founded. But you shouldn't do that.

bkor 11y ago
That's an amazingly simplistic answer. Burning is one way to ensure you have really cheap palm oil.. Most of the palm oil demand is foreign, it is NOT Indonesia making it purely for themselves. For one, Indonesia should have rules banning the burning practice. AFAIK, they have been offered money to combat the need for burning (as compensation) and they ignored these offers (probably reputation thing). Secondly, other countries should enforce that companies ensure that the palm oil is produced in a ecological friendly manner. Ecological way is NOT expensive btw; cost wise it makes almost no difference. Lastly, countries should pressure Indonesia to enforce this. Economic pressure is used all the time. Indonesia is NOT sovereign, especially in this case. They're quite good in responding to the palm oil demand from other countries!
- wobbleblob 11y ago
  I meant it as a descriptive answer: why is the world looking away? This is why. Indonesia does have laws against these practices, but it seems they cannot or will not enforce them. Indonesia is also a major regional power so it seems its neighbors can't do anything about it either.
JimmyAustin 11y ago
I'm not sure you understand exactly how bad this is. It becomes incredibly hard to breathe. I was in KL in mid-2014 when they started the burns and I couldn't walk 200m without being out of breath. No one is saying that you can't pollute your own country, but you shouldn't be allowed to pollute others to the point where it is inhospitable.
- 11y ago

danmaz74 11y ago

> why is the world looking away? Maybe it's some kind of "Apocalypse fatigue"? At some point, you become desensitized when so many bad news follow each other, and I have the impression the Western public is at that point. Which, of course, is a bad thing.

speeder 11y ago
Also maybe sometimes is that you are worried about your own problems. Example: I am from Brazil, since about a year ago I stopped paying much attention to international news, because we have enough trouble here (severe drought, countrywide power supply problems, 10% inflation, -2% GDP growth, unemployment, Olympics preparation is sucking, World Cup, the one that already happened, is still with buildings under construction and creating problems, massive corruption found, parts of the military seemly preparing a right-wing coup, while other parts are seemly preparing a left-wing coup, and the list of problems goes on for a looong time. Also our president has 7% approval rating, probably is one of the most hated politicians in the world right now).

furyg3 11y ago

Here is a live map of the (known) fires in the past week. It's really disturbing. http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/#v=map&x=121.59&y=-1.01&l=5&lyrs=Active_Fires&dirty=true http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/#v=map&x=121.59&y=-1.01&l... You can turn on layers in the Forest Use tab to see the correlation between where fires are/have been burning and where palm oil concessions are. It's pretty clear what's going on. You can try to reduce your own palm oil usage, but it's difficult, because it's in everything from cookies to shampoo and it's not always clearly listed in the ingredients list for various reasons. A second issue is that palm oil has incredibly high yields per hectare when compared with other oil crops... so from a sustainability perspective choosing a different source of plant oil is a tough call and depends on where the alternative is being produced. Whatever happens, there must be some way to reward Indonesians for sustainably producing palm oil or some other crop. Large food companies can do a whole lot, they should absolutely be working to get their supply chains certified under the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) program (you can also turn on a layer on the map to see these areas as well). This program is far from perfect, but is much better than the wild west of conventional palm oil, and rewards responsible producers. Paper and timber are a bit easier, you can make sure all of the paper you use in your office or packaging is FSC certified, and you should require that any construction done on you or your company's behalf sources FSC timber. It's not necessarily more expensive.

fsloth 11y ago
Cool! Unfortunately I could not get the layers working. Nasa seems to offer similar tool http://go.nasa.gov/VbYrug http://go.nasa.gov/VbYrug
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  if you zoom out on that map there are loads more red dots in Africa, I wonder what's the threshold for 'thermal anomalyes'
- 72deluxe 11y ago
  Thanks! I never knew about this site, it is very good, particularly with the date sliders at the bottom.

anunderachiever 11y ago

Watch "The Act of Killing" and you'll know why this country is resistant to advice and doomed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2375605

cfontes 11y ago
That looks awesome, thanks!

thiago_fm 11y ago

"What I’m discussing is a barbecue on a different scale. Fire is raging across the 5,000km length of Indonesia."

warkid 11y ago

Still, some other countries are helping - http://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/11/indonesias-annual-peat-fires-are-a-global-disaster-that-must-be-stopped/ http://asiancorrespondent.com/2015/11/indonesias-annual-peat...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

fulafel 11y ago

Dan Gilbert has a good TEDx talk on why we can't get worked up about things like this (and climate change). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fle_FkILmEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fle_FkILmEQ

anu_gupta 11y ago

It's an incredibly difficult problem, with no easy solutions - projects like this one (http://www.katinganproject.com/ http://www.katinganproject.com/) need to be supported and publicised, as they seek to find practical alternatives to burning the peat and forests.

chris_wot 11y ago

So I believe that it's covering about 2% of Indonesia's total arable landmass? Can someone cross check this for me?

caligarn 11y ago

I currently live in Singapore. Clear skies today. But for the last two months it's been constant smoggy haze that makes your throat itch and your nose stuffy. And there's virtually no protest to it here. Just sarcasm and cynicism.

viewer5 11y ago
Do you guys wear masks or anything when it gets bad? Would that make a difference?
- bluerobotcat 11y ago
  Yes

eveningcoffee 11y ago

I think that the reason is that people do not understand what is going on. So articles like this should create bigger awareness. Also people do not know how they could react and discussion like this here could give them ideas. I would think that what a person could do in another country for example is to pressurise his representative to create embargo against Indonesia so that they have less economical motivation to carry on with such fires. Embargo could be conditional - if fires continue (could be observed from orbit), embargo continues. This would probably not protect forest, as now more forest is needed to cut down to be economical, but it would protect peoples health.

hellofunk 11y ago
>I think that the reason is that people do understand what is going on. I think you mean "do not understand". As for diplomatic solutions, Singapore has tried to get Indonesia to release the names of any Singapore-based companies who are creating this problem in the region by farming there, but Indonesia won't do that either. Try to protect their business interests. If Indonesia could do that, Singapore could punish those countries under its control.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  Yes, I meant "do not understand". I fixed this. Thanks! If what you are saying is true, then it really points to the direction that international embargo would be a solution to this problem.
- MichaelGG 11y ago
  Wow. You'd think Singapore could offer enough of a personal reward to make it possible for individuals involved to defect (immunity + $$$$$$$).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

purpled_haze 11y ago

"Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results." I don't see how taking money away from these companies and then telling them to do something more expensive by enforcing more responsible ways of making palm oil is an answer. It seems that if you take away money from these companies, you'd inspire them to cut corners to turn profits. Their shareholders dictate profitability. If you want to encourage good behavior, you should just contact them and tell them you are concerned and ask what they are doing about it to end this problem in a short timeframe. Ask them what you can do to help stop it. They will probably appreciate the help. If they don't respond, write another letter and give them a timeline, like the end of 2016, and tell them if they cannot make a change in the local behavior there by then, you will start a lifetime ban on their products in your family and tell your friends, social media, and the press about your decision. In general though, banning products hurts workers and shareholders. It doesn't enact the change you want.

noja 11y ago
I really am not sure if you are trying to be humorous or just naive. Perhaps you could set up a Facebook action page and we can all click "Like" so that we can all feel better about continuing to buy their products.
- purpled_haze 11y ago
  How about this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil-a-boycott-really-hurts_b_1729859.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-griffith/who-the-chick-fil... Or this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boycotts-al_b_5302209.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynda-bekore/why-calls-for-boy... People should help, but it is unbelievable to me with such smart people here we can't come up with a more realistic way to solve the problem than a boycott.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I think those articles just show the authors didn't want to think a bit about all the direct effects. Sure, by boycotting a business, the workers of that business (may) see their paychecks lowered. But the workers of the competing businesses where you'll be eating/staying instead will have more customers. In fact, by going to that business instead of the one you'd go if you were boycotting the first, you are in fact doing the same to the later business as the boycotters are doing to the former. So I can see how the boycott might be bad for the workers of the boycotted business, but it's neutral to workers in general.

cfontes 11y ago

Beautiful country, awesome food but Indonesia is a mess... If you have the opportunity to go there you will see why, the lack of government is apparent everywhere, they are as poor as it gets and the government is completely incapable of handling it's country. I come from a country like that and there is no way this will be solved easily, some countries are just too corrupt and incapable of handling themselves, it takes a lot of investment in education and a large number of generations to fix that and since the country is a mess there is no way for that to happen without some miracle. It's so absurd that drug use or commerce is punishable by death yet every five minutes you get stopped getting offered some kind of it, of course being a tourist in my early 30's help with that but I was with my wife and I don't exactly look like a junkie. What I mean is people (some at least) are not afraid of breaking the law... This is not even in their radar. It's worth a visit, but living is probably not fun.

a_c_s 11y ago
I've visited too, but I actually came away feeling optimistic about Indonesia (and not just because I loved the food!). Where were you that you were offered drugs? Places where Indonesians live or places where tourists go to party?
- cfontes 11y ago
  I mostly Bali so you are probably right, but I spent most of my time in Seminiyak, Ubud and some other towns, I didn't went there to party more to relax/surf/eat. I was offered drugs everywhere... people would stop us in little vespas while walking, sellers inside stores, etc... it reached a point where my wife became afraid of people coming toward us. People are great, friendly, some scammers but well that is expected in tourist places, the place is beautiful, it's dirty cheap. it's just that it looked crazy poor /unorganized, I was born in Brazil so being among really poor people is common to me(unfortunately) and I was choked when I got there.

grobmeier 11y ago

It's a shame. I live in Germany, and just heard of this for the first time at HN. I can't believe it... we are discussing stupid things in politics, the refugee "situation", Ukraine and Greece. I even heard of the recent earthquake. But Indonesia burns? Not even worth a mention. Not a single word.

cfontes 11y ago
I sense sarcasm but I can't be sure...
- PepeGomez 11y ago
  No, not sarcasm. Not reported at all here.
ptaipale 11y ago
I wonder if you trying to be sarcastic, or just follow an immensely narrow set of German media? Of course e.g. Deutsche Welle was predicting this is coming in July: http://www.dw.com/de/el-ni%C3%B1o-erh%C3%B6ht-feuergefahr-in-indonesien/a-18618221 http://www.dw.com/de/el-ni%C3%B1o-erh%C3%B6ht-feuergefahr-in... and have kept reporting, e.g. a few days ago: http://www.dw.com/de/die-verheerenden-folgen-der-brandrodung-in-indonesien/a-18809572 http://www.dw.com/de/die-verheerenden-folgen-der-brandrodung...
- hellofunk 11y ago
  FWIW I posted this article on FB and all my American friends had not heard about this problem before either. Most Westerners are not aware of what is happening in Indonesia at all.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bojo 11y ago
For what it is worth I didn't read this comment as sarcastic. I live in Japan, watch the news almost daily, and HN is the first I've heard of it.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

You would think they could do something along the lines of a complete ban on any kind of commercial activity or exploitation of land that's been burned for the next 20-30 years. Wouldn't there be no more reason to burn after this? I suspect the politicians of Indonesia and the corporations in neighboring countries have other motives in this - and it's a quite a bit more complicated then the world looking away.

douche 11y ago

This will be hugely unpopular, but maybe Indonesia would be a little better managed if it were still the Dutch East Indies? Colonialism is bad, sure, we all have to believe that. But an overwhelming percentage of the hot-spots and problem areas in the world are in places where old European colonial administrations were driven out by nationalists precipitously. In some places, it's taken these countries fifty years to develop institutions that are in the ball-park of the old colonial administrations, and some of them are still corrupt and evil enough to put Leopold II to shame.

Synaesthesia 11y ago
If you look at the history of Indonesia, in 1965 there was a military coup which largely exterminated the local popular based party, the PKK in an enormous massacre. At least a million people were killed. It was received mainly with applause in the west. Thereafter Indonesian was opened up to western international corporations - essentially neo-colonialisation.
wobbleblob 11y ago
I hope you're just trolling. One of the problems is that Indonesia should have been either a number of independent states or a United States of Indonesia model, but turned into a kind of copy of the Dutch East Indies, except with Jakarta taking the place of the Dutch. In many ways, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Irian Jaya are Javanese colonies and treated that way.
maxerickson 11y ago
If you want to be imperial, just offer them huge payments to keep the fires out. I'm sure it would be cheaper than colonization.
deanCommie 11y ago
Please be a troll. I know people all over the world still have thoughts like this, but I thought people on hacker news are smarter than that. #1: Things weren't "better" in colonial times anymore than they were better in Apartheid-era South Africa or Jim Crow-era America. Hell, we can even go back to Slavery-era America. Sure, things were more peaceful and ordered. At the expense of the subjugation of a significant percentage of the population. You can absolutely attain peace and prosperity at the expense of the freedom of your citizens. We call that Fascism. #2: Most of the problems that occur in post-colonial hot-spots are not there because the European colonial administrations left. They are there because THEY WERE THERE IN THE FIRST place. The Europeans: * Deliberately destablized peaceful areas so that they would be the one to introduce order * Divided and conquered previously peaceful tribes by boosting support for one in order to attain power (see: Rwanda) * Toppled democratically elected governments because of fear of communistic populistic ideas that threatened wealthy western industrialists * Created borders abstractly - merging peoples that did not want to be together and dividing those that did. Western countries would not be this far ahead of the rest of the world without decades if not centuries of exploitation. And maybe, just maybe, if progress happened at a more natural rate we would have been able to learn some more sustainable practices. Maybe we wouldn't have the internet or smart phones for another century, but maybe we wouldn't have been responsible for The Sixth Extinction.

ordbajsare 11y ago

Do they have oil?

prodmerc 11y ago
Palm oil, yes.

jpatokal 11y ago

One point I rarely see raised in these stories about "eco-apocalypse" is that fire is a part of nature. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that clearcutting jungle or intentionally setting fires is a good thing; but if the forest is dry enough that it'll burn for days once lit, it will also do that if there's a lightning strike. Here in Australia, fire is such a part of the cycle of life that the local ecosystem has entirely adapted to it: for example, there's a tree (the stringybark) which exudes a flammable oil and drops its bark in wonderfully flammable strips into piles on the ground. This ensures that, when the next bushfire comes roaring along, it rips through at lightning speed, leaving the core of the tree alive to regrow and eliminating the weaker competition. It's just a bit of a shame if your house happens to be in the way... and what's happening in Indonesia and Singapore right now is basically an intensified, human-supercharged version of the same phenomenon. And FWIW, I lived in Singapore for 8 years and endured some of that haze myself. It still can't hold the proverbial candle to the level of entirely man-made air pollution in China and, worst of all, northern India.

danmaz74 11y ago
Except, they are purposefully drying up peat land to start the fires...
- harperlee 11y ago
  > Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that clearcutting jungle or intentionally setting fires is a good thing
hellofunk 11y ago
What is happening there is very unlikely to occur with such frequency if it was purely natural. It takes manmade intervention to create the kind of problem happening in Indonesia right now. Every year, for most of the year, these fires rage because of techniques created by humans. It is about a lot more than just dry forests.

ck2 11y ago

The world looks away from the horror of North Korea every day. Syria is having a mass exodus of 20 million people running from their own government and the world is pretty much looking away (except when those people land on their doorstep).

jqm 11y ago
Except it's not really "their own government" the people of Syria are running away.
theworstshill 11y ago
People in Syria are running away from terrorism, mainly supported with Saudi money, and you know where those dollars come from. Saying that they're running away from their own government is as true as US equipping and supplying the Free Syrian Army for the cost of a few mils - all five of them.

hnhamdani 11y ago

As an Indonesian, I'll give some context and nuance around the burning. 1. Who did the burning? mostly It is CORPORATIONs that owned massive chunks of lands (which some of the case these lands overlap with National Park territories). The rest is small land owners (which also cover big areas if you sum it). These companies though have a strong lobby in the government across layers, whether it is in the national level or province level. FYI, many of the companies are foreign ones including Singapore companies and Malaysian companies. 2. Why did the government not make it illegal to burn land? There are several factors. Actually the amount of land that CAN BE burnt is limited. However the government do not strictly enforce it, because you know, it's Indonesian government. So a step back, how come the government allow people to burn land in the first place? There is an old local bill (in Borneo area) that protect land owner to burn land. This date back to an old tradition that in Borneo, in order to farm you gotta burn the land first because of the nature of the peat land itself. I agree that in 2015, there should be a solution in making a farmland productive without even to burn it. This bill is not yet overruled and even so, being abused by corps to justified the act. 3. Another reason why there is almost no response from the Indonesian government is that the burning happened only in Sumatra and Borneo to the (North)West side (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand). For better or worse, Java island doesn't get the haze at all, thus many politicians can't relate how bad it is actually. What is sad is that it is the epitome of capitalism, that we can't do much about it. Palm oil is used everywhere and as long as there is a demand, supply will be there too.

auxsend 11y ago
Thank you for your answer, interesting to read these 3 points. But I think with your last sentence you are inconsistent with what you've described before, which is: - a complete lack of democracy, instead a small elite that is literally burning their country to the ground, in order to take it all until nothing is left. - the absence of skill or will to provide the necessary legislative law in order to actually govern this country and not just passively stand on the sidelines and watch until every thing is dissolved in smoke.
- prodmerc 11y ago
  He's kinda right about the capitalism thing - a small elite controlling everything is the inevitable outcome for a capitalist society without government (i.e. socialist, for the greater good of the population) oversight. Now, that's not really what happened here, the government seems to have already been weak and corrupted, so those with money just take advantage of it.

jawngee 11y ago

We were getting the haze here in Saigon, Vietnam. Seems better this week though, but before that it was the worst I've seen it in five years living here. I was definitely cleaning out more black stuff from nose than normal. I do think Indonesia will have to answer to ASEAN at some point, because this year it seemed so much worse than normal and affected the entire region. I can't see the current Vietnamese government letting it slide.

zacharytelschow 11y ago

"It is hard to convey the scale of this inferno, but here’s a comparison that might help: it is currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. And in three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany." Well that clears it right up. Forget deaths, acres burned, people displaced, homes destroyed - the real metric to measure the scale of the tragedy is CO2 released because, you know, global warming. I like that the author mocks his own industry for pursuing their own agenda instead of caring about the real story in the opening paragraph then exemplifies that very trait.

prodmerc 11y ago
No, these are man made fires to clear up land. They're going the Easter Island route, apparently...
jessaustin 11y ago
...then exemplifies that very trait. Inspired by the Principle of Charity, I choose to read incongruous lines like that as allowances for the "double audience". Of course destroying the rain forest and choking millions of people is worse than some theoretical threat that's mostly relevant to politics. However one can't simply write that in the Guardian. Even if one could, there's nothing wrong with appealing to people of varying ideologies.
gd1 11y ago
It's even dumber than that. This isn't fossilized carbon, that hasn't been a part of the carbon cycle for a few geological epochs. No, this is carbon that is an active part of the current carbon cycle, that has in just the last few decades/centuries been pulled out of the air and turned into plant/tree matter. It is utterly irrelevant that it is being released now. It will be reabsorbed when the forests regenerate. If those trees had died of non-fire causes, they likely would have rotted in the open air and released methane anyway. This is just natural noise in the carbon cycle, which would occur if the human race didn't exist. Global warming is the theory that by digging up FOSSILIZED carbon, that isn't part of the current cycle and releasing it we are forcing the system out of the prevailing equilibrium. Classic stuff from good old George Moonbat, who is notorious for struggling with the science bit of his job.

ommunist 11y ago

Buy that land and stop burning. If it is moneywise efficient to burn it, it will be burned. Its capitalism, believe it or not. Rainforest is not good for business, that's all. And for the UK journalist, is not Indonesia too far away to make news? There are hundreds of environmental issues in the UK to be addressed. Starting from rabbits.

awinder 11y ago
That's only true in a very narrow view of "moneywise efficient". If you're a company producing palm oil, burn vs. no burn is clear. If you're looking at this from a macro view and want to cost out the health implications over a widespread area, costs for direct injuries and any fire-fighting resources, costs for people displaced, and the CO2 costs to the environment, I'd love to see the math that says this is "moneywise efficient".

Intermernet 11y ago

The following example has little to do with the current, reported, fire situation reported in the article, but may, by example, provide some insight into why this situation in Indonesia hasn't been widely decried, and also, to the political climate that can lead to such extreme situations without global outcry. "The Grasberg Mine is the largest gold mine and the third largest copper mine in the world. It is located in the province of Papua in Indonesia near Puncak Jaya, the highest mountain in Papua, and it has 19,500 employees."[1] I first heard of this mine when, 20 years ago, a friend of mine and I thought it would be "fun" to climb the highest mountain "on the continent of Australia" [2] We rapidly realised that this would be near impossible due to political, and at the time (and indeed now), logistical reasons. A few years later I read Tim Flannery's "Throwim way leg" [3] which discussed the development of the mine, the road that accesses the mine, the conflicts that surrounded the mine, and the secrecy that enshrouds the mine. To this day it's very difficult to access Puncak Jaya (Carstensz Pyramid), mainly due to the fact that the mine operators don't want people in the area. Historically it was the local tribes that presented the problem, these days it's Freeport-McMoRan et al who present the problem. The mine itself has been the subject of contentious investigation: "In 1995, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) revoked Freeport's insurance policy for environmental violations of a sort that would not be allowed in the US. It was the first action of this sort by OPIC, and Freeport responded with a lawsuit against them. Freeport states that this revocation was based on a misunderstanding, the result of a single 1994 visit to Grasberg; the company later underwent an independent environmental audit by Dames & Moore, and passed." Dames & Moore are a story unto themselves. Lookup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URS_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URS_Corporation for more information, but they aren't / weren't the most unbiased group to be doing environmental audits. Suffice to say, this particular mine has a very secretive and questionable history. This is but one operation, in one sector of industry. The resources sector of Indonesia has been mired by corruption, and worse, government complicity for decades. This has been pushed and sustained by Australian, US, UK, and European interests and has largely been ignored by the greater global community. To see this latest environmental disaster receive so little press isn't surprising at all considering the recent history of the area. This isn't something that can be solely pinned on the Indonesian government, this is a horribly perfect example of international capitalism gone awry. The companies involved in profiting from these areas need to feel "somewhat responsible" (a slight understatement) for what's happening here. Sorry people, rant over. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasberg_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasberg_mine [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puncak_Jaya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puncak_Jaya [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwim_Way_Leg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwim_Way_Leg

finalight 11y ago

staying in singapore the haze is bad, the highest i've ever seen. first time i ever cough due to haze

auxsend 11y ago

A lot of report on smoke. But what is with the source of the fires: the wood, the forest. Is it destroyed, or does it recover? How does it recover, with trees and forest or only gras? How long does it take until the trees grow back (if they grow back at all)? What is with the animals?

lazylizard 11y ago

singapore as a nation. and its neighbours. just have no political will to solve this. its been going on for years, if not decades. surely if GIC+Temasek holdings(how big and successful they claim to be!) and/or its peers around the region started buying indonesian forest since ten years ago they'd have bought all of it by now?

the8472 11y ago

Satellite images might be useful to get a sense of the scale.

ageofwant 11y ago

I do not buy anything with palm oil in it. I try to find and buy shares of companies that are developing synthetic palm oil alternatives. I'm also offering up prayers to the Lord of the host of ganoderma boninense. I expect all of the above to have about the same effect.

throwaway_97 11y ago

indonesia is shit

annapowellsmith 11y ago

The Indonesian government's attempts to stop burning are hindered by a lack of proper land ownership data. From the Jakarta Post: "The one-map policy — a comprehensive map of land ownership to provide clarity on the exact boundaries of land owned by companies — should be fully implemented. Experience over the past decades has shown there is an acute lack of transparency when it comes to maps on land ownership. Without a centralized, public map, the task of pinpointing errant companies or landowners becomes murky. "The government also seems to have been reluctant to make its existing concession maps publicly available to public forest-monitoring platforms. If we are serious about tackling the appalling air pollution, the government must release data that will facilitate public monitoring." http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/27/editorial-protecting-peatland.html http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/27/editorial-prot...

jtheory 11y ago

My in-laws live in Kuala Lumpur, and are really struggling with the smoke; they're already not in the best of health. Next month we're going to basically evacuate my wife's parents and bring them to stay out of the smoke for a few weeks in Cambodia, and try to get some kind of air filtration in place in their house. It's an awful situation. We're also flying into this mess with two small children; I guess we'll bring masks and protect them as much as possible. We're far less affected than all of the people staying there all the time, of course. It's a hard problem to fight; it seems obviously a legal issue first... this shouldn't be allowed. But the Indonesian govt isn't handling it; so... critique them? Replace them? It seems like a choice between useless and ridiculous. Is there any really useful response here? Or focus on the companies benefiting from it, e.g., http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/ntuc-fairprice-removes-all-asia-pulp-paper-group-products-from-its-stores http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/ntuc-fairp... Boycott palm oil (but it's in everything); ask the massive corporations downstream to be more responsible about the raw materials they purchase... how big of a boycott does this need to be, how loud/public a demand, before they'll make serious changes, not just gestures? I do think we'll see some positive response, in fits & starts, but it's a depressing situation at the moment.

blondie9x 11y ago

All of us share this planet and it's resources. Particularly the atmosphere and climate. There is a finite capacity of the atmosphere to absorb greenhouse gases. As the concentration of greenhouse gases rises in the atmosphere, our planet's climate patterns destabilize with the increased energy trapped on Earth leading to rising temperatures. The number one way to avoid this is to tax carbon emissions such as burning rainforests and fossil fuels. The revenues from this tax can act as subsidies to entities that choose to protect forests and preserve resources. Reimbursements could be disbursed to countries like Indonesia whose rainforests have an important impact on carbon fixation. This type of market on pricing of greenhouse gases would help get emissions out of the atmosphere and back into sentient organisms like trees and plants, from there the animals that depend on them. Palm oil should be taxed per the burn. We can calculate the aggregate impacts of this burning. Why not quantify a cost on these industries for abusing our common good? We all share this planet. The destabilization of it due to climate change from carbon emissions in unjust to all citizens of Earth, regardless of country. We should take a stand and push for a price on carbon, a price to burn.

ciokan 11y ago

If only they had oil...

theworstshill 11y ago

The world isn't looking away but rather ganging up on Indonesia. Those farmers own that land and its their right to do anything they want to it, in accordance with Indonesian law. Those trees trapped carbon from the atmosphere in the first place, so burning them is just releasing the same carbon. If somebody has a problem with that they can pay the farmers money to sustain themselves in otherways, e.g. I believe Norway pays Brazil to preserve the Amazon forests. Thats how Capitalism with private property rights works.

mikeash 11y ago
Why should someone have the right to release smoke from their land and spread it over other people's land? It's generally agreed that you don't have the right to dump trash on other people's property without their permission. Why would it suddenly become acceptable to do this just because the trash consists of fine particles instead of diapers and hamburger wrappers?
Quiark 11y ago
Look up Tragedy of the Commons. That's how capitalism works in the real world that we need to share.
craigjb 11y ago
We have a choice in what system we use for managing natural resources and preventing large-scale environmental problems. Just because capitalism has been efficient so far for economic growth does not mean the current implementation is perfect for everything else. Also, there's nothing natural about free markets and capitalism. We (humans) made it up! We're free to change the rules in order to make life and the world better.

boost_ 11y ago

anytime i see shit like this, all i can think is: fuck the industry and the market, fuck commerce, mass production, mass consumption. fuck socialism, communist and capitalism. fuck "democracy" and the fact that it never existed in the first place. and most important of all, fuck class warfare and everything it represents! this week is Indonesia fires, last week was china insane pollution from gadget manufacturing. next week will be something else. we wont ever be free while all the above exists..

camenk 11y ago

I think this happens almost every year in Indonesia. Some years it's not really bad, but this year it's been really - really bad. A lot of the year, we're somewhat relying on the rain to reduce the number of the hotspots but last I heard, not much rain happening this year (a few days ago, there were rain and it kinda help it a bit). I'm somewhat agree with one of the sentiments thrown in this discussion that a lot of people who doesn't get the haze directly (mostly the high ranking government official in Jakarta) won't understand the dire situation in the fields.

racl101 11y ago

First step to solving the problem: Identifying the Problem. I doubt many people know of the plight of the Indonesian peoples. Heck I live in the US so I'm conditioned to believe that the people in most trouble are black people. Their lives are the ones that matter the most. Have I been misled?

Quiark 11y ago

This problem makes me very sad, because of all the affected people in the region, because of the poor orangutans and because of losing hundreds of years old trees in the rainforest. But could it be solved if you think about it from this direction: Singaporeans are badly affected by the smoke. On the other hand, Singaporean business apparently are quite involved as the cause of the burning (for palm oil growing). Shouldn't therefore the SG public push these companies to stop it? Could there be a petition or some sort of protest? I would even try to help such a movement as I can (though I'm in HK, not SG).

vinceguidry 11y ago

Silly question. When have humans ever really cared about the environment over capitalism? Sure, we saved the whales, but that was only after petroleum mined from the ground removed the main reason we were killing whales. Palm oil is way cheaper than the alternatives, and we have a exceedingly poor history of choosing more expensive, yet more environmentally friendly alternatives. If we actually managed to preserve the Indonesian rainforests in the face of global capitalism, that would be unprecedented in the history of the human race. The question isn't why we haven't, but how in the world could we? Hell, the Chinese government can't even stop their own people from wanting rhino horns. And it's not for lack of trying.

daveloyall 11y ago

The author is George Monbiot. The article is cross posted on theguardian.com and monbiot.com. The Guardian version says: > ... Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results. His personal webpage version says: > ... Starbucks, PepsiCo, Kraft Heinz and Unilever are examples. Don’t buy their products until they change. Wow.

tomaskafka 11y ago
Thanks! This is truly disgusting and hypocrytical act from Guardian. I asked them: https://twitter.com/keff85/status/661642069828587520 https://twitter.com/keff85/status/661642069828587520
- daveloyall 11y ago
  For your convenience: http://hubris.the-good-guys.net/monbiot.html http://hubris.the-good-guys.net/monbiot.html
blackRust 11y ago
George Monbiot is a rare breed: a journalist with great integrity and transparency. As a case in point his "Registries of Interests" lists his annual fees, sources of income from one-off articles, gifts he was given, and just about anything that implicates him financially! It is astoundingly good and he makes a fine example that I wish more journalists and news organisations would follow. http://www.monbiot.com/registry-of-interests/ http://www.monbiot.com/registry-of-interests/

willow9886 11y ago

Regardless of the political implications, this is an extremely sad situation that will surely be felt for many years to come...