4 ms·
> The Guardian interviewed 66-year-old oil palm farmer, Hussein Mohammad, who decried the EU’s choice to draw down their consumption of palm oil biofuels. He sa
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y ago
> The Guardian interviewed 66-year-old oil palm farmer, Hussein Mohammad, who decried the EU’s choice to draw down their consumption of palm oil biofuels. He says, “I have spent all my money on the palm oil farm; I’ve recently planted new trees that will last for the next 25 years and my whole family relies on this. It’s how my kids afford to study.”
I see the modern environmental movement as a continuation of western imperialism. The developed Western world especially Europe intensively developed their land and eradicated much of their wildlife, in the process of developing the richest civilization in the world. As a result, now the majority of undeveloped land and species lies in the developing world. The modern environmental movement seeks to limit how these countries can develop and what they can do with the natural resources of their countries by using Western social, diplomatic, and economic pressure on these developing countries.
- monadic2 7y ago> The modern environmental movement seeks to limit how these countries can develop and what they can do with the natural resources of their countries by using Western social, diplomatic, and economic pressure on these developing countries. To what end? I think I probably agree with you. I also see using traditionally imperial methods of interstate regulation as literally the only hope to slow global warming OR to decolonialize, so I’m not sure what your point is.
- pastor_elm 7y agoexcept deforestation is no longer a requirement for development and really hasn't been for 100 years. Look at Japan and South Korea (67.00% and 63.20% forestation respectively). Indonesia is already down to 46.46%. Go look at Brazil outside of the Amazon. Mostly deforested already for farmland and it hasn't really brought the country into the 1st world. Agrarian societies are a dead end for development.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoFor Japan's case at least, it seems there was significant deforestation followed by reforestation. I think that was the case in the US as well. It seems that poor countries trash their environment to develop and become rich (see United Kingdom, United States, China). Once they are rich they start caring more about the environment and do things like reforestation and other more environmentally friendly actions. https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c03913/japan%E2%80%99s-forests-from-lumber-source-to-beloved-resource.html https://www.nippon.com/en/features/c03913/japan%E2%80%99s-fo...
- titzer 7y agoDeforestation is quick, easy cash. Juicy trees. Verdant pasture. Mouths to feed. So local incentives kick in and whoosh go the trees.
- cheese4242 7y agoExercise for the reader: Weigh this against the idea that climate change is the greatest existential threat to humanity at the moment and we must mobilize all of our efforts to counter it.
- ajot 7y agoEuropean countries should reduce their agricultural land and create forests with local species. First world countries should stop consuming as if the planet was infinite. Ta-da! Here you have a (obviously naïve) solution to both problems.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago> The modern environmental movement seeks to limit how these countries can develop and what they can do with the natural resources of their countries by using Western social, diplomatic, and economic pressure on these developing countries. But it's a two-way street. The so-called third world did not decide to deforest in order to grow oil palms and soy in a vacuum, it did it because there was huge demand for those from the so-called first world.
- mplewis 7y agoYes, this is part of how Western imperialism pressures developing countries into changing their economies for the good of first-world capitalism.
- Nasrudith 7y agoIs "western imperialism" even capable of /not/ existing under those definitions? If they shun the third world entirely they are restricting their growth. If they trade they are shaping their economy to their own ends. Even if they did the unprecedented and gave away enough of their resources to even out the nations in power it would be massive interference. Given that only way to avoid it is a horrifying and insane asshole genie answer of genocide (if one or both parties are all dead then any ongoing imperialism is impossible) it is safe to call it useless as a term and move onto actual matters of ethics and least harm.
- titzer 7y ago> I see the modern environmental movement as a continuation of western imperialism. Western imperialism is/was heavily marked by the a.) colonization, b.) displacement of natives, and c.) exploitation of local natural resources of a region, often coupled with d.) literal enslavement of native peoples. Those local resources were exploited for global trade. So whatever this new environmental movement is, it certainly isn't that, because it is exactly opposite on all points a-d). In fact, modern environmentalism has so many hallmarks of anti-globalism, anti-trade, and anti-exploitation of natural resources, that I think this characterization is almost totally backwards and misses the real lessons of what imperialism meant. Perhaps modern environmentalism is cultural hubris, and maybe even a tiny bit racist, but it is certainly not imperialism.