Ubiquitous. Paper is everywhere: from the hundreds of pages in each phonebook that is lobbed onto your porch every few months, to the coaster you set your drink on at a bar. While paper seems to rule much of our world, the forests we get all of this paper from are, naturally, finite. That is why I am excited to read that one of the world's largest paper companies, Asia Pulp & Paper, has decided to go green. They will be using seedlings in managed plantations for future paper product.
In the article "Stunning reversal? Why 'big paper' just went green in Indonesia," they discuss APP's affect on the rainforests of Indonesia. "In the past 20 years, Sumatra has lost natural forest equivalent in size to the state of South Carolina...Borneo, forest loss in the same period has been greater: more like the size of Oregon." This is simply astounding. These forests are home to countless unique species such as orangutans and the Sumatran tiger. Throughout the years, APP has persevered in their foresting practice, even with the disappearance of some of these animals.
Why this drastic shift in policy? Pressure from large corporations such as Disney, Mattel, and all of the top ten publishers is probably a good place to start. Mattel launched a campaign in which Barbie's boyfriend, Ken, broke up with her after finding out she is involved in rain forest destruction. Without pressure from these large economic powers, it seems there would be no reason for multinational companies like APP to cease their destructive practices. It seems that everyone is in good spirits about this, and they expect APP to keep their promises, as they have a good track record with recent environmental pledges.
APP has figured out a way to make this economically viable, and that is important. "We made a calculation about what's good for us as a business … we don't view this as a competitive disadvantage." That is very important, as we can't expect companies to bankrupt themselves, they never will, even if it means the destruction of their own lands. All in all, this is a very exciting prospect, and I look forward to seeing other companies follow suit (we can only hope)!
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Monsanto back in the news
New! From the people that brought you such things as Agent Orange and DDT... CORN!
In the article "Who owns seeds? Not you, Monsanto says" we come back to the annual issue of "do corporations own our agriculture?" For a bit of background information, Monsanto has been around for over a century, producing many different things: from plastics, LEDs, and GMOs, to agent orange and DDT. For decades, Monsanto has been a leader in biotechnology, and has had a large influence on policy in Washington. From current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (ex-lawyer of Monsano) to US Secretary of Agriculture from 2001-2005 Ann Veneman (Board of Directors Monsanto) to ex Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Board of Directors Monsanto). When considering these ties to the power structure in Washington, it is not difficult to understand how Monsanto has come to be one of the most influential (if not powerful) corporations in the United States, nay, the world.
As indicated in the article, Monsanto has pursued a litany of court cases against farmers for breaking its soybean patents. What is happening to farmers all across the world is that they purchase seeds from this company that are safe to use with pesticides. Now since the beginning of time, farmers have been saving seeds to use for the next planting season. Well not anymore. Monsanto spent a lot of money developing these seeds, and they want their recompense. Thus the way they make their money back is by forcing farmers to sign a contract saying they won't use their seeds for more than one year (presumably purchasing the seeds year after year). But what if these farmers don't purchase monsanto seeds, and they merely become contaminated with them, whether via wind scattering or some other method? Many argue that this is a monopoly, and that is where the larger conflict comes into play. This article brings up the issue of intellectual property -- the main underlying factor that will be decided perhaps in months to come. "How long should a company be compensated for something that is difficult to create, but is easy to copy?" This seems to be the major question at hand. The effects of this case will impact many industries, from software companies to biotech firms.
The way I see it, these companies have a monopoly on the way food is produced in our country, and even have a strong foothold in our nation's capitol to keep it that way. This blatant conflict of interest is glaringly dubious, and yet they seem to pervade our government year after year. I am hopeful that we come to a conclusion in this case that will be both fair to our nation's farmers, and to the industries producing these costly technologies.
In the article "Who owns seeds? Not you, Monsanto says" we come back to the annual issue of "do corporations own our agriculture?" For a bit of background information, Monsanto has been around for over a century, producing many different things: from plastics, LEDs, and GMOs, to agent orange and DDT. For decades, Monsanto has been a leader in biotechnology, and has had a large influence on policy in Washington. From current Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (ex-lawyer of Monsano) to US Secretary of Agriculture from 2001-2005 Ann Veneman (Board of Directors Monsanto) to ex Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (Board of Directors Monsanto). When considering these ties to the power structure in Washington, it is not difficult to understand how Monsanto has come to be one of the most influential (if not powerful) corporations in the United States, nay, the world.
As indicated in the article, Monsanto has pursued a litany of court cases against farmers for breaking its soybean patents. What is happening to farmers all across the world is that they purchase seeds from this company that are safe to use with pesticides. Now since the beginning of time, farmers have been saving seeds to use for the next planting season. Well not anymore. Monsanto spent a lot of money developing these seeds, and they want their recompense. Thus the way they make their money back is by forcing farmers to sign a contract saying they won't use their seeds for more than one year (presumably purchasing the seeds year after year). But what if these farmers don't purchase monsanto seeds, and they merely become contaminated with them, whether via wind scattering or some other method? Many argue that this is a monopoly, and that is where the larger conflict comes into play. This article brings up the issue of intellectual property -- the main underlying factor that will be decided perhaps in months to come. "How long should a company be compensated for something that is difficult to create, but is easy to copy?" This seems to be the major question at hand. The effects of this case will impact many industries, from software companies to biotech firms.
The way I see it, these companies have a monopoly on the way food is produced in our country, and even have a strong foothold in our nation's capitol to keep it that way. This blatant conflict of interest is glaringly dubious, and yet they seem to pervade our government year after year. I am hopeful that we come to a conclusion in this case that will be both fair to our nation's farmers, and to the industries producing these costly technologies.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Welcome!
Welcome to my blog! This blog will be dedicated to reviewing articles that pertain to environmental concerns. I hope you enjoy the content as much as I do!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)