
Indonesia is burning. So why is the world looking away? - pmcpinto
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/30/indonesia-fires-disaster-21st-century-world-media
======
biot
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
Thanks, I was wondering if I was the only one to remember...

------
hnhamdani
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.

~~~
mikeash
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.

~~~
jxf
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
Or perhaps a functional international regime, pretty much the opposite role
that the WTO and TPP fulfill.

------
hellofunk
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.

~~~
bkor
I'm just back from a business trip to Singapore. I never really understood
what people meant with "haze" until one evening. From what I heard from my
Singaporean colleagues the haze during my time there was pretty much cleared
up.

They have a number to measure how bad it is, they call it "PSI", see e.g.
[http://www.haze.gov.sg/](http://www.haze.gov.sg/). This is used in multiple
countries, though the definition on what number constitutes bad air differs.
During my entire stay, the number was 50-100 or so. Keep this in mind.

So my experience: One evening there's like a fog, you can maybe see for 50
meters max. But the fog isn't water particles in the air, it is leftover
material from the fire. Meaning: what you're seeing is utterly bad. Most of
the time I spend either in the office, restaurant, a bar and public transport
(AFAIK not only air conditioned but also filtered air). I wear contact lenses.
Though only spending maybe 30 min in open air max: I got red eyes, had to
clean my contact lenses again and had to buy eye drops to fix my red eyes.

The haze was way worse before I arrived there. Only 1.5 day it was really bad.
However, you could never see the sky. Just filthiness in the air preventing
you from seeing it.

I had it badly with 50-100 of "PSI". Before I was there it was around 300!

Singapore is pretty interesting (fooooood! :-D), but living there will really
shorten your life thanks to this.

I never really understood haze until I experienced it myself. It's good to
remember that it's not like the fog I am used to. It's like staying in the
smoke of a burning building.

~~~
geomark
Here in Thailand the impact has been pretty severe in the south. Very
unhealthy air quality, a number of deaths of elderly from respiratory failure,
many dozens of flights cancelled to Phuket and Krabi. Seems a lot worse this
year than many years past.

Next up is Thailand's burning season in a few months when the people in the
north and neighboring Myanmar do their annual burn of farmlands and forest.
That's usually pretty bad, too, but not on the same scale as the burning in
Indonesia.

------
furyg3
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...](http://fires.globalforestwatch.org/#v=map&x=121.59&y=-1.01&l=5&lyrs=Active_Fires&dirty=true)

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
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)

~~~
72deluxe
Thanks! I never knew about this site, it is very good, particularly with the
date sliders at the bottom.

------
wobbleblob
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
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
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.

------
blondie9x
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.

------
jtheory
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-
fairp...](http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/ntuc-fairprice-
removes-all-asia-pulp-paper-group-products-from-its-stores)

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.

------
danmaz74
> 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
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).

------
vinceguidry
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.

------
anunderachiever
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
That looks awesome, thanks!

------
grobmeier
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.

~~~
bojo
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.

~~~
Thriptic
Checking in from the US, same here.

~~~
ptaipale
Strange. This has been reported e.g. by CNN many times.

Sep 19: [http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/asia/gallery/southeast-
asi...](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/16/asia/gallery/southeast-asia-haze-
burning/)

Sep 25: [http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/25/asia/singapore-haze-
indone...](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/25/asia/singapore-haze-indonesia-
schools/)

Oct 01: [http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/asia/indonesia-
evacuates-b...](http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/01/asia/indonesia-evacuates-
babies-haze/)

Oct 30: [http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/10/30/indonesia-
fig...](http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/10/30/indonesia-fights-
forest-fires-haze-molko-pkg.cnn)

And this is just one (albeit major) news provider.

(I have seen this many times reported by my local national broadcaster in
Finland. But then maybe I just notice and care because I know people who live
in the affected area. E.g. in June this year, Asia Pacific Resources
International Limited APRIL announced it will stop forestry work in order to
reduce forest fires and conserve nature.
[http://yle.fi/uutiset/aasian_sellujatti_lopettaa_hakkuut_ind...](http://yle.fi/uutiset/aasian_sellujatti_lopettaa_hakkuut_indonesiassa/8040856)
)

------
eveningcoffee
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
>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.

~~~
MichaelGG
Wow. You'd think Singapore could offer enough of a personal reward to make it
possible for individuals involved to defect (immunity + $$$$$$$).

------
zacharytelschow
"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.

~~~
gd1
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.

~~~
maxerickson
It's not just the forests burning, peat is also burning. It can take thousands
of years for the peat to accumulate.

------
daveloyall
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
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
For your convenience: [http://hubris.the-good-
guys.net/monbiot.html](http://hubris.the-good-guys.net/monbiot.html)

------
caligarn
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
Do you guys wear masks or anything when it gets bad? Would that make a
difference?

~~~
bluerobotcat
Yes

------
annapowellsmith
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-
prot...](http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/10/27/editorial-protecting-
peatland.html)

------
cfontes
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
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
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.

------
kevindeasis
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 ;)

------
jpatokal
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
Except, they are purposefully drying up peat land to start the fires...

~~~
harperlee
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that clearcutting jungle or intentionally
> setting fires is a good thing

------
ageofwant
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.

------
Quiark
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).

------
camenk
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.

------
theworstshill
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
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?

------
jawngee
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.

------
forgotpwtomain
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.

------
ommunist
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
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".

------
lazylizard
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?

------
anu_gupta
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.

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

------
auxsend
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?

------
fulafel
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)

------
ck2
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).

~~~
theworstshill
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.

------
boost_
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..

------
jsnell
Discussion from yesterday:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10490010)

------
willow9886
Regardless of the political implications, this is an extremely sad situation
that will surely be felt for many years to come...

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

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

------
the8472
Satellite images might be useful to get a sense of the scale.

------
ciokan
If only they had oil...

------
ordbajsare
Do they have oil?

~~~
prodmerc
Palm oil, yes.

------
Intermernet
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)

------
douche
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.

~~~
deanCommie
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.

~~~
LoSboccacc
I agree with everything but the blanket use of fascism: I wouldn't say pre-
civil war america was fascist because of slavery (nor I'm saying slavery is
good for modern democratic countries of course)

~~~
deanCommie
That is true, and I should clarify: The only way to achieve the same peace and
stability that existed in past societies with socially accepted discrimination
TODAY is through fascism.

------
finalight
staying in singapore

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

------
purpled_haze
"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.

~~~
littletimmy
I want to hurt the shareholders of companies that cause environmental
destructions.

~~~
ptaipale
Everything causes environmental destruction. The problem with the will to hurt
shareholders is that the alternatives - companies that get more business after
international corporations have been hurt by a boycott - are worse.

Don't be fooled into thinking that Starbucks, Pepsi, Nestle and Monsanto are
the ethically worst companies in world. Personally, I buy Nestle and Monsanto
whenever in doubt, just because so much of the activism is misguided.

Huge-scale environmental damage was caused by state-controlled companies
extracting natural resources in the USSR, for instance, but it could be that
things like small-scale organic farming or little coal-burning cooking stoves
in Africa are even worse (in terms of comparing environmental damage to
utility for mankind.)

~~~
littletimmy
You've got a source for that?

We also have to get out of the idea that utility for mankind overall is
something to optimize for. It surely doesn't matter that Indonesian have
miserable lives - there are 7B+ people in the world and a few less Indonesians
are no big deal. However, the Sumatran forest, with all its endangered
animals, is a very big deal.

~~~
theworstshill
Well if X people are no big deal, why not start with you and your family? I
mean... its good for the Earth and all, I'd wager Indonesians have a smaller
carbon footprint than you do.

~~~
littletimmy
Yeah, but if you get people like me out first who is going to advocate for
exterminating the others? ;)

