It does get tiring seeing the tree huggers complaining about others doing the same thing to their forests the United States & Europe did years ago. If others want to cut their forests it’s really none of our business.
It wasn't a bright idea when we did it and it doesn't make it a bright idea when someone else does it. Nevermind that you are simplifying the issue. Why are forests generally being cut down in other countries? One reason, obviously, is for fuel. Instead of fostering energy alternatives in these countries, we're letting them burn huge amounts of their resources up in smoke. And yes, it is totally our business when smoke from massive fires in Southeast Asia, and its unhealthy particulates, crosses the Pacific and adds to our pollution woes. Nevermind that added CO2.
What is the second reason these countries are cutting down their forests at alarming rates? Usually to pay off foreign debt. Selling old growth trees to first world consumers. Destroying the remaining land by either planting monoculture megafarms to sell stuff back to us (like soybeans, or coffee, etc.), or by grazing it with cattle to sell back to us. So in the end this is not a sustainable process. These countries are selling off their natural capital to feed first world nations and money is not going back into the collective coffers. So they're going to have destroyed forests, no topsoil, no money and no fuel source. And why you think this is just fine is really beyond me.
Lets look at the Amazon shall we? Yes, we know from archaelogical evidence that there was a fairly sizable civilization living in the Amazon basin as recently as 1000 years ago (I could be a little off on the dates, but that's what I remember reading). So yes, the Amazon has had a lot of humans living there, has suffered deforestation before--nothing new. What is new is the scale and type of deforestation. We also know from archaelogists that the Amazonian society were farmers and seemed to manage portions of the forest for their own use. The probably kept stuff planted that retained the little topsoil that there is. Invariably they did something stupid that collapsed their way of life. But, they didn't chop down tens of thousands of acres a year, and they probably left the soil in tact. Current farming practices in the Amazon basin are losing topsoil at a rapid rate. Not too mention chopping down vast, vast tracts of rainforest, destroying potential biodiversity that can recolonize areas. Another hundred years of current practices is going to turn the Amazon basin into a wasteland and it will take a few thousand to make it suitable for any sort of human subsistence. Ditto this for Southeast Asia, Central Africa, etc.
We got away with doing this in America and Europe because oil came online soon after we destroyed our environment. We had the energy to overcome a marginal environment (not to mention the energy to put back into some sort of environmental rehab). Third world countries don't have the energy and are not going to get it. Once they're pillaged, international capital will not flow into them to repair them. Those people are stuck without their main source of fuel (wood), and without anyway to grow food, or anywhere to even hunt and gather.
Also, I ought to point out the stupidity of tree farms to you. Yeah, hybrid poplars sound great. Except if you've paid any attention you'll have heard about any number of diseases that have been plauging trees in the U.S. for the last half century (at least). Monocultural stands of trees are ripe for diseases and you'll start losing entire crops from them. This is what makes old growth forests so resiliant--diversity of species. Diseases are going to be local, not wiping out whole forests.
Irresponsible forestry has probably been the number one reason for the collapse of civilizations. It has happened time and time again. So at a time when forest products will start becoming central again for fuel and building materials we really need to learn the lessons of the past. With the butcher job we've done to the planet we can't afford to get away with killing any more forests--that will pretty much spell extinction for us.
Anyway, I'm quite keen for you to explain to me how alternative energy will replace topsoil and biodiversity, or why exactly we don't need either of them.
