
Indonesia is burning. So why is the world looking away? - ghosh
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia-fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media?CMP=share_btn_tw
======
dang
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10433288](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10433288)

------
jussij
I'm not sure what the author expects the rest of the world to do. Indonesia is
a sovereign state that also claims to have a full fledged democracy and the
rule of law. Surely they have all the tools to fix this problem.

The outside world has complained to Indonesia about these illegal fires for
decades and each time Indonesia has said it would take care of it, giving
assurance they will never happen again.

But as history has shown us, those assurances are worthless as those fires
keep happening. And they keep happening, not not because the world does not
care, but rather, the sovereign state of Indonesia is corrupt to the core.

Now, hopefully this time will be the last, only because this time around has
been the worst ever and the Indonesia population is now being directly
effected with multiple deaths and widespread suffering. The have a vote, they
should use it.

But I doubt much will change, as those corrupt politicians will still be there
this time next year.

~~~
hisyam
I think the author wants the developed nations to send in their fire fighting
aid.

~~~
jussij
The first problem is these fires cover vast swaths of remote land, with no
easy access for fire fighting.

Secondly, these are not your normal fire, but instead they are peat fires,
meaning the fire is burning meters underground.

And because they are peat fires, they can only be extinguished using massive
amounts of water, sufficient water to saturate the area at least a meter down.

And that raises the final problem. Such large volumes of water are just not
available.

So these fires will keep burning until the arrival of the monsoon, when nature
will finally deliver enough water put out the burning land.

------
briantakita
Because states, corporate powers, & hoarders of capital sweep systemic issues
under the rug of their rhetoric...

Our cultural consciousness sees this as an isolated event, where the only
party involved is Indonesia; meanwhile, we continue to invest in & buy their
palm oil, made in the monoculture petro-chemical tradition.

------
ageofwant
Do not buy anything with palm oil in it. Find and buy shares of companies that
are developing synthetic palm oil alternatives.

That's all I've got, apart from impotent fury.

~~~
kaftoy
Not sure that's a real solution. They will use that land to do something else,
to fill another need, as long as they can get their hand on it, cheaply.

------
adampowel
The forests will burn until they're all gone. Future generations will only
know about them from pictures and stories. But hey, for one beautiful moment
in time, a lot of shareholder value was created.

~~~
yeukhon
Did you really think that the forest was always there? Trees will burn and
they will return.

~~~
notacoward
Trees will return, but the forest won't. The new trees will be very different
than the old trees, they won't be sitting on peat domes as they are now, there
will be a different mix of animal and smaller plant species, etc. We've
already been through this, on both coasts of the US, where old-growth forest
was cut down and replaced by a totally different kind of forest. Most people
don't even realize that what we have now is far from a natural state, with
much lower species and ecosystem diversity or the robustness that comes with
those things. "New trees will grow" isn't enough.

~~~
yeukhon
Of course the disappeared forest will not return, and of course the world
doesn't look like what the world was 10 millions years ago. That's just a
strawman argument. Also, obviously the government should still do something.
Shit is going to happen, and we have learn to deal with shit. Whether
forestation is achieved naturally or with human effort, that's okay.
Deforestation is a huge problem I agree.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/as-fires-grow-a-
ne...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/as-fires-grow-a-new-
landscape-appears-in-the-west.html)

~~~
notacoward
Do you know what a "strawman" is? It's attributing an argument to another,
which I didn't do. You _actually said_ that the trees will grow back, as
though that's sufficient. I disagreed that it's sufficient. Now you're
changing your tune, and trying to retcon my response to be a strawman. No,
it's not. It was a direct and topical response to what you were saying at the
time. Why don't you just admit your earlier statement was in error?

