
Big Banks Are Putting Rain Forests in Peril - azuajef
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/business/energy-environment/how-big-banks-are-putting-rain-forests-in-peril.html?_r=0
======
josscrowcroft
The most shocking stats from this article that jumped out at me and made my
heart sink:

"The world has lost 60 percent of its population of Bornean orangutans since
1950, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature. In
July, the Bornean orangutan was listed as critically endangered."

"About 15 percent of the world’s historical forest cover remains intact,
according to the World Resources Institute. The rest [85%] has been cleared or
degraded or is in fragments."

"Climate concerns have been brought into sharp relief by the impending
presidency of Donald J. Trump, who has called climate change a hoax. Mr. Trump
has said he will pull the United States out of the Paris accord, a commitment
by 95 countries to take concrete measures to reduce planet-warming carbon
emissions."

~~~
sn9
The most shocking for me, from the section titled "The Deadly Haze":

>"Daily emissions from Indonesia’s forest fires last year at times exceeded
emissions produced by all economic activity in the United States. A recent
Harvard and Columbia study estimated that the fires caused at least 100,000
premature deaths across Southeast Asia. The World Bank estimates that the
fires cost Indonesia’s economy $16 billion."

------
sambe
Otherwise known as "banks lend money to people". Pantomime villains sell
newspapers, 2008 and all that.

Much like technology that can be used for good and bad, I prefer to live in a
world where services are available to all without discrimination – knowing
that some people will do things I disagree with using those services – than a
world where some random person's morals are used to restrict those services to
certain groups.

I find it pretty weird to see people gleeful that a far right party cannot get
campaign funding, but those same people baulk at any criticism of democracy.
The bank probably doesn't care about the party politics, but it does care
about it's reputation. Trying to call the banks out for who they lend money to
is probably effective but – IMO – chilling.

~~~
tacostakohashi
The banks are an attractive target because they are large household names with
high profile offices in the cities. So much more convenient for protesting
than actually going to Borneo to hit the real perpetrators.

The logical conclusion to this kind of targeting of banks that have a huge
number of uncontroversial clients, and a handful of controversial (but legal)
clients is that they will start turning away the business to protect their
reputation, and someone else will set up a bank that specializes in shady
clients, has an obscure and often changing name, anonymous offices, and
generally doesn't care about its reputation.

Would that be better? Obviously not, but it's effectively what activists are
ask for.

~~~
anigbrowl
It's far from 'obvious' that it's not better, since shady banks are more
easily targeted by national governments and raise the cost of capital for
unscrupulous entrepreneurs, making such enterprises riskier and less
profitable. At least, that's how capitalism is supposed to work.

Nice it's not practical for everyone to travel to a region to protest
environmental degradation that indirectly affects many more people, perhaps
you could could turn your abilities to coming up with a more effective scheme
of action.

------
marricks
What this annoyingly ignores is one of the biggest contributors to
deforestation, animal agriculture.

80% of the deforestation in the Amazon has been for cattle and their food[1].

It makes sense, people eat a lot of animals, animals need a lot of food.
Blaming banks is an easier group to blame then ourselves and our own choices,
though.

[1] [http://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-
ran...](http://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/cattle-ranching)

~~~
peller
Animal agriculture is also a huge contributor to the global climate change
problem. Again, basically swept under the rug.

My suspicion is that many powerful people feel (rightly or wrongly) that the
subject of enforcing diet is simply too untenable for them to take up without
all hell breaking loose. (What do you mean I can't eat my meat!?) ...And
that's not to mention all the "standard issues" clouding their judgment and
priorities.

~~~
belorn
In an other article, I just did some hasty estimates of diet vs commuting.

If you drive for more than 5 minutes, you will cause a higher climate effect
than any diet choice. Eat just the nicest climate friendly food, and drive for
more than 5 minutes in one direction and you end up doing more harm than an
meat eating cyclist.

Which also mean that working from home would be the biggest cultural change to
fix the environment, and much more effective than any cultural change in diet.

~~~
guelo
Maybe in terms of climate change but not in terms of forest habitat loss. If
you get your meat from South America. Or palm oil from Indonesia.

~~~
belorn
Agree, which is why buying from whoever is cheapest are rarely the best
choice.

Take Sweden. The loss of farming is causing a significant decrease in open
fields, endangering several species who need that kind of habitat. Beef
produce in Sweden is also about twice as expensive than the cheapest imported
beef, so it becomes a price issue. This where certification can do a good job
in guiding consumers to choose producers that in a local context has a net
positive on the environment.

