9 ms·

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 (w

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.
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    Sorry, someone in government has control over this. They have a military and I am quite sure its not multinational's run amok. When people blame capitalism in many cases it simply is government run amok. These companies cannot operate where a military is without someone allowing it. Governments have been selling out people forever, whether to other individuals or whatever business group they formed. that is not capitalism, its exploitation
    - jegutman 11y ago
      Their incentives are to burn the dead crops to maximize profit. There is not a system of property rights and a government willing to enforce them to prevent them from burning. I kind of doubt it's even a Coasean outcome given that it's causing quite a lot of damage to the air quality in Singapore and neighboring countries where they might be willing to pay them not to burn, but somehow that solution doesn't work (neutral enforcers of the agreement is obviously one difficult issue, and nobody is willing to go to war over it).
    - ZenoArrow 11y ago
      > "that is not capitalism, its exploitation" Let's put it like this. Imagine the Indonesian government didn't exist. What would the people be able to do to stop the environmental destruction? Would you advocate vigilante justice?
      - talmand 11y ago
        Without a structured government, then the people are the "government", so to speak, and vigilante justice would not be so vigilante.
jbob2000 11y ago
At the end of the day, it takes a person holding a match to the tinder to get these fires going. You can blame the government, laws, and corporations all you want, but someone still lit the fires. Surely these farmers (whether self-employed or not) must realize how shitty they are making their lives? And if not, could a grassroots effort to educate them help?
- Joeboy 11y ago
  At a guess not really, because they are presumably making their lives better, not worse. Most people know about global warming but still turn on their heating in Winter.
- auxsend 11y ago
  This kind of accountability only makes sense in a functional and free society. But I agree with you on the grassroots. This is the poeples problem to solve. They have to fight for influence and for political power. And if they don't care, so be it. They are free to burn their whole country to the ground. I think it wrong to intervene from outside. The only thing we shouldn't do, is doing business with them. This doesn't seem to be a democracy, and we betray our ideals by doing so.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
mikeash 11y ago
Regarding that last, I don't buy it. Products can be produced differently, or can be substituted. There are many success stories of destructive products either being banned or having their production regulated and people either switch to something else or figure out how to produce it less destructively. Not long ago, you might have said "freon is used everywhere" or "leaded gasoline is used everywhere" or "asbestos is used everywhere" and as long as there is demand, supply will be there too. But people didn't just give up, they fought, and won. Edit: all three replies (as of right now) seem to be saying the same thing: that what I'm proposing doesn't work with market forces, and requires government regulation. Which is exactly what I'm saying: just because capitalism dictates that this continues doesn't mean we have to put up with it, we can ban palm oil or at least ban palm oil farmed in a harmful manner, and fix the problem.
- themartorana 11y ago
  That only happens when the new solution is better and cheaper, or the old solution becomes illegal. And more importantly, almost exclusively in the First World, where taking advantage of an entire country is a little harder.
- jxf 11y ago
  But it took years for leaded gasoline, asbestos, and freon to be replaced. And that only happened because they were made illegal or regulated out of certain uses, not because a better alternative existed that the market preferred. This is a job for a functional government, not for capitalism. But it doesn't sound like help is on the way anytime soon.
  - thwest 11y ago
    Or perhaps a functional international regime, pretty much the opposite role that the WTO and TPP fulfill.
- eggy 11y ago
  The trick with palm oil is that it is in so many products you might not even know it. Food, beauty products, industrial usage and the majority of names used in the ingredients doesn't even contain 'palm' in it for most cases. The other historic cases you made were easily identified and segregated by product or end-use. Indonesia and Malaysia, normally at odds with each other on certain subjects, are forming a palm oil cartel to even further push for global usage of the product that has brought them money without regards to the environment.
creamyhorror 11y ago
I'm a Singaporean. > FYI, many of the companies are foreign ones including Singapore companies and Malaysian companies. Most of those companies seem to be of Indonesian origin. The Singapore-related ones I know of: * Sinar Mas and Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources are both owned by Indonesian tycoon Eka Tjipta Widjaja. * APRIL is headquartered in Singapore but owned by RGE, an Indonesian group run by another tycoon. * Even Wilmar International was cofounded by an Indonesian. Honestly, if Singaporean landowning companies were really directly causing the haze, I think (hope) they'd be more sensitive to the damage they'd be causing to their homeland.[1] The impact is incredibly obvious to anyone in Singapore, which no doubt includes some of the top management of companies based here. The chain of responsibility goes all the way back to the people starting the fires and the conditions motivating them to do it. The Indonesian government has to trace that chain and carry out the investigations and arrests. Singapore can only punish downstream companies in order to exert an indirect effect. > 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. No, we can do something about it - simply enforce the laws that are already in place against starting fires. Palm oil isn't the problem - the lack of ability or will to enforce the laws is. If the Indonesian government manages to do that (and even find a alternative way for the farmers to earn a livelihood), palm oil will be fine to use. [1] The Singapore government and newspapers have been digging into the relationships of these firms: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesias-biggest-paper-firm-back-in-the-spotlight http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesias-biggest-...
rustynails 11y ago
>I agree that in 2015, there should be a solution in making a farmland productive without even to burn it We may be discussing slightly different points here. In Australia, we control bush land (including farm land) by controlled burning. It releases nutrients back to the soil. It stops build up of plant matter which can become dangerous and cause extreme bushfires. I am not aware of a better solution than controlled burning that is cost effective. I was told that it's like several smaller natural bush fires than 1 big uncontrollable fire, so the environmental impact (eg. Smoke) is not increased. However seed pods of wildlife are preserved in smaller fires but destroyed in bigger fires.
- klipt 11y ago
  Burning is a natural part of many ecologies in dry areas, but I doubt it happens naturally in rain forests and peat bogs - unless they've been drained as the article describes.

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.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  Sorry, someone in government has control over this. They have a military and I am quite sure its not multinational's run amok. When people blame capitalism in many cases it simply is government run amok. These companies cannot operate where a military is without someone allowing it. Governments have been selling out people forever, whether to other individuals or whatever business group they formed. that is not capitalism, its exploitation
  - jegutman 11y ago
    Their incentives are to burn the dead crops to maximize profit. There is not a system of property rights and a government willing to enforce them to prevent them from burning. I kind of doubt it's even a Coasean outcome given that it's causing quite a lot of damage to the air quality in Singapore and neighboring countries where they might be willing to pay them not to burn, but somehow that solution doesn't work (neutral enforcers of the agreement is obviously one difficult issue, and nobody is willing to go to war over it).
  - ZenoArrow 11y ago
    > "that is not capitalism, its exploitation" Let's put it like this. Imagine the Indonesian government didn't exist. What would the people be able to do to stop the environmental destruction? Would you advocate vigilante justice?
    - talmand 11y ago
      Without a structured government, then the people are the "government", so to speak, and vigilante justice would not be so vigilante.

jbob2000 11y ago

At the end of the day, it takes a person holding a match to the tinder to get these fires going. You can blame the government, laws, and corporations all you want, but someone still lit the fires. Surely these farmers (whether self-employed or not) must realize how shitty they are making their lives? And if not, could a grassroots effort to educate them help?

Joeboy 11y ago
At a guess not really, because they are presumably making their lives better, not worse. Most people know about global warming but still turn on their heating in Winter.
auxsend 11y ago
This kind of accountability only makes sense in a functional and free society. But I agree with you on the grassroots. This is the poeples problem to solve. They have to fight for influence and for political power. And if they don't care, so be it. They are free to burn their whole country to the ground. I think it wrong to intervene from outside. The only thing we shouldn't do, is doing business with them. This doesn't seem to be a democracy, and we betray our ideals by doing so.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

mikeash 11y ago

Regarding that last, I don't buy it. Products can be produced differently, or can be substituted. There are many success stories of destructive products either being banned or having their production regulated and people either switch to something else or figure out how to produce it less destructively. Not long ago, you might have said "freon is used everywhere" or "leaded gasoline is used everywhere" or "asbestos is used everywhere" and as long as there is demand, supply will be there too. But people didn't just give up, they fought, and won. Edit: all three replies (as of right now) seem to be saying the same thing: that what I'm proposing doesn't work with market forces, and requires government regulation. Which is exactly what I'm saying: just because capitalism dictates that this continues doesn't mean we have to put up with it, we can ban palm oil or at least ban palm oil farmed in a harmful manner, and fix the problem.

themartorana 11y ago
That only happens when the new solution is better and cheaper, or the old solution becomes illegal. And more importantly, almost exclusively in the First World, where taking advantage of an entire country is a little harder.
jxf 11y ago
But it took years for leaded gasoline, asbestos, and freon to be replaced. And that only happened because they were made illegal or regulated out of certain uses, not because a better alternative existed that the market preferred. This is a job for a functional government, not for capitalism. But it doesn't sound like help is on the way anytime soon.
- thwest 11y ago
  Or perhaps a functional international regime, pretty much the opposite role that the WTO and TPP fulfill.
eggy 11y ago
The trick with palm oil is that it is in so many products you might not even know it. Food, beauty products, industrial usage and the majority of names used in the ingredients doesn't even contain 'palm' in it for most cases. The other historic cases you made were easily identified and segregated by product or end-use. Indonesia and Malaysia, normally at odds with each other on certain subjects, are forming a palm oil cartel to even further push for global usage of the product that has brought them money without regards to the environment.

creamyhorror 11y ago

I'm a Singaporean. > FYI, many of the companies are foreign ones including Singapore companies and Malaysian companies. Most of those companies seem to be of Indonesian origin. The Singapore-related ones I know of: * Sinar Mas and Singapore-listed Golden Agri-Resources are both owned by Indonesian tycoon Eka Tjipta Widjaja. * APRIL is headquartered in Singapore but owned by RGE, an Indonesian group run by another tycoon. * Even Wilmar International was cofounded by an Indonesian. Honestly, if Singaporean landowning companies were really directly causing the haze, I think (hope) they'd be more sensitive to the damage they'd be causing to their homeland.[1] The impact is incredibly obvious to anyone in Singapore, which no doubt includes some of the top management of companies based here. The chain of responsibility goes all the way back to the people starting the fires and the conditions motivating them to do it. The Indonesian government has to trace that chain and carry out the investigations and arrests. Singapore can only punish downstream companies in order to exert an indirect effect. > 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. No, we can do something about it - simply enforce the laws that are already in place against starting fires. Palm oil isn't the problem - the lack of ability or will to enforce the laws is. If the Indonesian government manages to do that (and even find a alternative way for the farmers to earn a livelihood), palm oil will be fine to use. [1] The Singapore government and newspapers have been digging into the relationships of these firms: http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesias-biggest-paper-firm-back-in-the-spotlight http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesias-biggest-...

rustynails 11y ago

>I agree that in 2015, there should be a solution in making a farmland productive without even to burn it We may be discussing slightly different points here. In Australia, we control bush land (including farm land) by controlled burning. It releases nutrients back to the soil. It stops build up of plant matter which can become dangerous and cause extreme bushfires. I am not aware of a better solution than controlled burning that is cost effective. I was told that it's like several smaller natural bush fires than 1 big uncontrollable fire, so the environmental impact (eg. Smoke) is not increased. However seed pods of wildlife are preserved in smaller fires but destroyed in bigger fires.

klipt 11y ago
Burning is a natural part of many ecologies in dry areas, but I doubt it happens naturally in rain forests and peat bogs - unless they've been drained as the article describes.