I came across this video in a interesting post that conveys the rate in which deforestation is occurring.

I occasionally run into people who brush off this topic as of small importance.  I just can’t help but disagree.  :cool:

This should be a world concern.

ps. I’ve notice this doesn’t work in my Chrome browser, but i checked Mozilla and the video works fine! Must figure out why! err, fixed it :?

edit:  this link,, sums up really nicely the three main concerns of destroying our forests.

err edit some more:  I want to quote something from the wiki article in case you were too lazy to read through it all, (i tease, i tease ^^).

I’m going to highlight parts that jump out at me as insane that this exists in the world and some people consider it normal.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, the overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture. Subsistence farming is responsible for 48% of deforestation; commercial agriculture is responsible for 32% of deforestation; logging is responsible for 14% of deforestation and fuel wood removals make up 5% of deforestation.

They don’t go into too much detail of what those terms really encompass,  but I want to add that commercial agriculture is largely associate with raising livestock to be butchered.  Nearly 80 per cent of deforested areas in Brazil are now used for pasture. But almost all this meat is exported.  I’ve never been a vegetarian though my mother is one.  And the more i learn about how most animals are treated lends weight to the knowledge that we could live in harmony with them w/o harming them and live off everything the land and the animal could provide in a more symbiotic relationship.

The degradation of forest ecosystems has also been traced to economic incentives that make forest conversion appear more profitable than forest conservation. Many important forest functions have no markets, and hence, no economic value that is readily apparent to the forests’ owners or the communities that rely on forests for their well-being. From the perspective of the developing world, the benefits of forest as carbon sinks or biodiversity reserves go primarily to richer developed nations and there is insufficient compensation for these services. Developing countries feel that some countries in the developed world, such as the United States of America, cut down their forests centuries ago and benefited greatly from this deforestation, and that it is hypocritical to deny developing countries the same opportunities: that the poor shouldn’t have to bear the cost of preservation when the rich created the problem.

That last bit is intense.  Benefited  greatly from destroying their forests and developing everything in sight? But at what cost? We’ve dug ourselves a hole so deep that we can’t see past our noses to get out of.  The once great city of Detroit springs to mind.  An urban wasteland now.. another sign that we need to re-think economical values and think less, wayyyyy less of profit and more of using our resources to benefit the world.

I think about it a lot.  I think about this kinda of stuff a lot.  And one of my New years resolutions is to be more conscious on what is happening in our world, and make my contribution to the universe and the ideals of peace and harmony, by making people question what “normal” is, and thinking in terms on a higher scale.

Where is our (being humanity) place in the universe?

For the last year or so I’ve been mostly ranting to my twin or my mother about what I think could be done to heal this earth and keep us alive at the same time.  But i want to write more, speak out my thoughts.   However, Joules says I can get awfully ranty ~_~  So i made a little sub blog to be my outlet;

And I think I’m going to enjoy ranting a bit more.

(i might even do an audio log!!)

You may also like


  1. Hi! Thanks for welcoming me back! It’s good to be back, and I’ve missed you too! :D

    I get what you’re saying, and deforestation is a big concern. But no matter how you look at it, money is the only thing that matters (not my personal opinion, but making an extreme statement here ;)). If we are going to solve the environmental problem we have to do it economically. I remember I read an article about a Danish environmentalist, Brjørn Lomborg (ørn_Lomborg), and he says the same thing. Businesses won’t get on board to save the planet if they can’t do it economically. And the government should also find a more economically friendly way to deal with the issue than the way they are doing it now. He had tons of examples of how much money the governments spend on things that really don’t make a difference, and things they could do that cost less but is more effective. So, getting back to your post (:P), developing countries need to find another way of using their forests that benefit them greater economically. Their greatest concern and first priority is poverty. I don’t know if this makes any sense, after three years of studying economics it all makes perfect sense to me, but I get how I could sound a bit cynical. Don’t get me wrong I’m all for saving the environment, and I do what I can with recycling, saving power and all that too :)
    .-= Lisa´s last blog ..New Year, New Beginnings =-.

  2. What you’re saying makes sense in a sense . ;-) One way to deal would those problems, in the frame work we have established, is of course to make the act of saving the environment profitable.

    But what I feel, is that instead of limiting our selves to ideas that fit with the current economical structures we have in place, we would be better off with an entirely new framework. Let’s remove profit entirely. Let’s unify the world/earth in a way where our resources are shared. Let’s remove debt.