[PASSED] Repeal "Rainforest Protection Act"

[The Remean Lordship]

Strongly against. We will grasp to our values of maintaining our environment. As we previously commented, unlike our colleges, we find a lack of flaws in the RPA, and will work to protect the current legislation against this repeal.

[Auralia]

You do realize that Alberta doesn't have any tropical rainforests, right Auralia?

I don't see why the land reclamation principles used for boreal forests wouldn't apply equally well to rainforests, especially when there is only partial ecosystem damage.

[The Remean Lordship]

You do realize that Alberta doesn't have any tropical rainforests, right Auralia?

I don't see why the land reclamation principles used for boreal forests wouldn't apply equally well to rainforests, especially when there is only partial ecosystem damage.

This isn't the boreal forest protection act being that this only applies to rainforests. As previously stated, don't compare apples + oranges.

[Auralia]

I don't see why the land reclamation principles used for boreal forests wouldn't apply equally well to rainforests, especially when there is only partial ecosystem damage.

This isn't the boreal forest protection act being that this only applies to rainforests. As previously stated, don't compare apples + oranges.

You're not actually addressing my argument. Can you explain to me why reforestation of tropical rainforests is supposedly impossible?

[The Remean Lordship]

It is possible, but not under the circumstances of the present. How can we reforest the whole amazon when the logging industry still has a place there? You see, the RPA keeps knowledgable and sensible restrictions to logging and other destructive industries, so containment is possible. Replanting forests after their destruction is an impossible task, especially when counting the actual forest, animals included.

I quote Al Gore's favorite African proverb:
If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
We need to go far, fast.

To conclude, yes, replanting is possible, but to try to counter the logging industry, is a large task. Rather than replanting a forest, which takes an enormous amount of time, effort, and money, one should just restrict the industry. RPA.

If you ever seen the movie Nausicaä of the Vally of the Wind (Hayao Miyazaki/Studio Ghibli) then you will understand how the complex interconnectivity of human/environment interaction makes the whole idea of land reclamation almost impossible, and totally impractical.

If you suggest that land reclamation is the solution, I recommend taking this submission down from the WA floor, and first writing one about logging restrictions to protect that idea. By then, it might be slightly less worse to repeal RPA.

[Auralia]

Replanting forests after their destruction is an impossible task, especially when counting the actual forest, animals included.

You're wrong. The logging industry does it all the time.

[The Remean Lordship]

Replanting forests after their destruction is an impossible task, especially when counting the actual forest, animals included.

You're wrong. The logging industry does it all the time.

Control F = "Rainforests" Hits = 0

Wikipedia or not, deforestation still is a big hurt to the ecosystem, that fact is not in refute here. The RPA is not just to help humans, but to help the wildlife too. Destruction of habitat is another problem that animals have to deal with in the ever more challenging world for them.

I am glad that every year in New Brunswick 1,000,000 trees are planted, but nonetheless deforestation itself is still a major issue. Plus, there may be more trees, but the ecosystem is hurt nonetheless.

Control F = "Ecosystem" Hits = 1

That hit mentions ecosystems in the context of ecosystem rebuilding. Rather than having to rebuild an ecosystem from logging, why don't just let it grow?

When you take in factors other than logging, ecosystems are already under great strain. Add logging in and no matter the replanting, the ecosystem is still hurt. (Think of it like this: you get dirt on your pants, and apologize. You still have dirt on your pants and the stain will show.)

Again I say 'rather than having to rebuild an ecosystem from logging, why don't just let it grow?'

[Hittanryan]

You do realize that Alberta doesn't have any tropical rainforests, right Auralia?

I don't see why the land reclamation principles used for boreal forests wouldn't apply equally well to rainforests, especially when there is only partial ecosystem damage.

If you don't see why, then you haven't bothered to look into it at all. Rainforests have a much greater amount of biodiversity than boreal forests, the species there tend to be highly specialized to a very specific niche in a single environment, and attempting to put one piece back at a time is essentially futile. Add to that the fact that many rainforest soils can be rapidly drained of nutrients by erosion and the very long lengths of time required to grow some of the forests, and anyone seriously looking at the issue will see that rainforest reclamation using the same principles as boreal reclamation is doomed to fail.

New methods are required, which will be much, much more involved than boreal reclamation. As I already said, rainforest reclamation only exists as a proof of concept on a small scale at present, and the rate of deforestation will always outpace the rate of reclamation with no protection in place.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

We supported the "Rainforest Protection Act". However, the Kawaiian delegation has a standing rule that we will seriously consider any repeal regardless of whether we supported the original resolution or not. So, if a good argument is made here, we will consider supporting it.

[Chimericana]

Less than two weeks ago, this Assembly passed the Rainforest Protection Act by a 3-to-1 margin. Now in a few short days, we will be voting on its repeal.

I believe the WA's attention may have been more usefully dispatched on the yet-unwritten proposal, Let's Smell Our Own Farts For Four Days Act. At least that gas has a chance of passing—if only to be repealed later by the steamed member from Auralia.

[Horusland]

I agree with the Remean Lordship. You replant trees. So what? That will only change something in a bunch of years.
It's like some other country destroying the entire city you are in, and leaving you homeless and without food for several years. Then, they rebuild the city. They're like: 'It's fine, you'll be in good living conditions in just 20 years! Yay!'
Please don't make comments about how my metaphorical example will never happen. a.k.a. please don't miss the point.

[Auralia]

If you don't see why, then you haven't bothered to look into it at all. Rainforests have a much greater amount of biodiversity than boreal forests, the species there tend to be highly specialized to a very specific niche in a single environment, and attempting to put one piece back at a time is essentially futile. Add to that the fact that many rainforest soils can be rapidly drained of nutrients by erosion and the very long lengths of time required to grow some of the forests, and anyone seriously looking at the issue will see that rainforest reclamation using the same principles as boreal reclamation is doomed to fail.

New methods are required, which will be much, much more involved than boreal reclamation. As I already said, rainforest reclamation only exists as a proof of concept on a small scale at present, and the rate of deforestation will always outpace the rate of reclamation with no protection in place.

I concede that rainforests are different from boreal forests, and that these differences make land reclamation more difficult. That does not mean that land reclamation is impossible or even economically unfeasible. Indeed, a cursory Google search reveals numerous cases where rainforest restoration has been successful, at least to some extent: here, here, here, here, here and here.

One article was particularly fascinating:

Two of the largest aluminium mines in the Amazon are MRN Trombetas and Alcoa Juruti. They have massive bauxite deposits and both take great pride in their reputations for corporate responsibility.

[...]

Both operations strip-mine the expansive bauxite deposits just a few metres below the roots of the rainforest. First, the forest is cleared and the commercial timber stockpiled. Then the topsoil (about 50cm thick) and overburden (8-12m thick) are separately scraped off and stockpiled for later use in reclamation. This reveals the red bauxite below, which is excavated and taken for processing and export. The topsoil is replaced and planted with rainforest tree seedlings.

But the process of rainforest restoration begins before mineral extraction starts. Wildlife monitoring is set up two years earlier and continues during forest clearance. Rescue teams made up of trained local contractors scour the forest before clearance to remove slow-moving animals such as sloths and tortoises and move them to previously restored forest areas. They also save important plant specimens such as orchids, tree seedlings and the nests of stingless bees, which are vital for the pollination of many forest plants.

The restoration team’s ultimate goal is to regrow the jungle to become as close to the original as possible. Working in collaboration with Brazilian scientific institutions, Trombetas has been researching the best way to do this for more than 30 years, using a systematic nursery and field research strategy. Since 1997 about 50 MA theses and 25 PhD theses have investigated the developing ecology of these forests. On the other hand Juruti only began mining in the past couple of years, adapting and building on a generation of Trombetas forest restoration knowledge.

Of the 180 tree species found in the local forest at Trombetas, about 100 are chosen for replanting. Selection is based on their speed of growth for soil protection, their ability to attract animals through fruit and flower production to import seeds from outside the area and their use to people in terms of fruit and nut production, medicinal properties and timber. Around Juruti the jungle contains about 460 tree species, of which only 30 species – mainly pioneer ones – are planted in the restoration schemes.

[...]

Although the restoration team constantly pushes to improve its 70% success rate, the oldest planted areas at Trombetas are becoming indistinguishable to the casual observer from the rest of the forest. In the very first areas planted in the early 1980s, the translocated stingless beehives are full of life, epiphytes have been reintroduced from more recently cleared areas and a Brazil nut tree has already grown into a 40-metre giant.

Even at Juruti, trees planted less than three years ago in a small pilot area already stand at twice a person’s height. The shade-inducing canopy is closing. Light-loving weeds are shaded out. Forest understorey plants are gaining a toe-hold. New trees are coming in, spread from the faeces of animals attracted to the newly planted forest areas. Slowly the rainforest is recreating its own self-supporting web of life.

The tree species mix is subtly adapted during restoration to enhance social and economic opportunities for local people, while rebuilding the forest’s ecological integrity. Seeing such world-class work in action should start to offset the public perception of large-scale destruction and devastation. Concerned and talented people are making genuinely inspiring efforts to regrow the forests and provide new environmental, social and economic opportunities in a rapidly changing world.

So yes, a blanket ban on mineral extraction in the rainforest makes no sense.

Rather than having to rebuild an ecosystem from logging, why don't just let it grow?

I agree with the Remean Lordship. You replant trees. So what? That will only change something in a bunch of years.
It's like some other country destroying the entire city you are in, and leaving you homeless and without food for several years. Then, they rebuild the city. They're like: 'It's fine, you'll be in good living conditions in just 20 years! Yay!'

Rainforests are not cities, and trees are not humans. The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests. Partial environmental damage is a reasonable tradeoff to economic development, so long as the damage is properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development.

[Horusland]

The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.

Wow. Failed argument.

[Auralia]

The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.

Wow. Failed argument.

How so? That is, after all, the rationale for sustainable development: to ensure that future generations can make use of the natural environment.

[Horusland]

Wow. Failed argument.

How so? That is, after all, the rationale for sustainable development: to ensure that future generations can make use of the natural environment.

Obviously. Let's profit off of others. That's what the WA is for. Instead of helping countries, it has to help the ones that have certain views, not the rest.
Or does it, now?

[Auralia]

How so? That is, after all, the rationale for sustainable development: to ensure that future generations can make use of the natural environment.

Obviously. Let's profit off of others. That's what the WA is for. Instead of helping countries, it has to help the ones that have certain views, not the rest.
Or does it, now?

I don't understand your point.

[Horusland]

Obviously. Let's profit off of others. That's what the WA is for. Instead of helping countries, it has to help the ones that have certain views, not the rest.
Or does it, now?

I don't understand your point.

If I tell you, you'll just tell me how you'll replant the forests, which would lead us to my previous post.

[Hittanryan]

I concede that rainforests are different from boreal forests, and that these differences make land reclamation more difficult. That does not mean that land reclamation is impossible or even economically unfeasible. Indeed, a cursory Google search reveals numerous cases where rainforest restoration has been successful, at least to some extent: here, here, here, here, here and here.

One article was particularly fascinating:

So yes, a blanket ban on mineral extraction in the rainforest makes no sense.

Except the principal cause of deforestation generally comes from cheap slash-and-burn agriculture practiced by lower-income farmers, not mineral extraction. Agriculture requires leaving the topsoil intact, unlike the method you described. That same topsoil is then depleted of nutrients by constant rain and overgrazing, forcing farmers to move on in a short time frame. You've essentially duplicated what I have already said, that the only rainforest reclamation projects so far have been small in scale and are still works in progress.

Furthermore, just because it is possible for a company to behave in an environmentally-conscious manner, doesn't mean that it will, necessarily.

Rainforests are not cities, and trees are not humans. The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests. Partial environmental damage is a reasonable tradeoff to economic development, so long as the damage is properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development.

I'm sorry, what? On whose authority? And even if that claim was true, how do you expect the natural environment to serve human interests after it has already been destroyed?

It's easy to say "partial damage" without defining it. What does that mean? Does partial damage mean sustainable development, or does it mean devoid of life but humans can walk around without a biohazard suit? So far, you have demonstrated you have little to no knowledge on how sensitive, fragile even, tropical rainforest ecosystems are to any outside influences. There's a reason they need to be protected.

[Dellin]

Thanks for requoting that, because I just noticed this:

Partial environmental damage is a reasonable tradeoff to economic development, so long as the damage is properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development.

Which is immensely ironic, seeing as the target resolution's whole purpose is to make sure that there is only "partial damage" by creating regulations that make sure some rainforest areas have protected status.

The only way to discredit the idea that you actually just directly endorsed the intention of the target resolution is to fall in with the conspiracy theory that this resolution makes ALL rainforest areas off limits.

[Auralia]

Except the principal cause of deforestation generally comes from cheap slash-and-burn agriculture practiced by lower-income farmers, not mineral extraction. Agriculture requires leaving the topsoil intact, unlike the method you described. That same topsoil is then depleted of nutrients by constant rain and overgrazing, forcing farmers to move on in a short time frame.

Slash-and-burn agriculture can be practiced in a sustainable manner. Yes, much of the time it's not, but that doesn't justify an absolute ban on the practice. See here, here, here, here and here.

You've essentially duplicated what I have already said, that the only rainforest reclamation projects so far have been small in scale and are still works in progress.

No. The article I highlighted demonstrated that rainforest restoration appears to be the norm following mining operations in Brazil: "A legal requirement to restore the forest has been under way since 1984, with nine million trees planted up to 2011 over 4,500 hectares to recreate high biodiversity rainforest."

Furthermore, just because it is possible for a company to behave in an environmentally-conscious manner, doesn't mean that it will, necessarily.

Fair enough. Then mandate sustainable forest management, not absolute bans on development.

The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.

I'm sorry, what? On whose authority?

God (per Genesis) or natural law (per humanity's relationship with the environment since the dawn of civilization), take your pick. But even if you accept neither, I can think of no other reason for preserving the environment, aside from ensuring that it will continue to benefit future generations of humans. Can you?

And even if that claim was true, how do you expect the natural environment to serve human interests after it has already been destroyed?

That's a straw man. Sustainable development =/= environmental destruction.

It's easy to say "partial damage" without defining it. What does that mean? Does partial damage mean sustainable development, or does it mean devoid of life but humans can walk around without a biohazard suit?

Sustainable development, obviously. When you cut down a tree, you partially damage the natural environment. The trick is to mitigate the damage by replanting the tree or allowing enough time for natural regeneration.

So far, you have demonstrated you have little to no knowledge on how sensitive, fragile even, tropical rainforest ecosystems are to any outside influences. There's a reason they need to be protected.

And you don't seem to understand that nature changes all the time and is far more resilient than you give it credit for.

Further, there is a difference between environmental protection and absolute bans on development.

Which is immensely ironic, seeing as the target resolution's whole purpose is to make sure that there is only "partial damage" by creating regulations that make sure some rainforest areas have protected status.

The resolution also effectively bans slash-and-burn agriculture and mineral extraction in rainforests, regardless of whether or not it is practiced in a sustainable manner.

The only way to discredit the idea that you actually just directly endorsed the intention of the target resolution is to fall in with the conspiracy theory that this resolution makes ALL rainforest areas off limits.

You don't appear to understand what the resolution actually does.

[The Remean Lordship]

The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.

Thank you for explaining your corrupt and anti-environmental reason for writing this resolution.

I really find this insulting to the world itself. This resolution does not have the reason or the dignity to reach a single vote. I am ashamed for those who supported it and their actions, and pity the world under the fascist dominion of this resolution.

[Auralia]

The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.

Thank you for explaining your corrupt and anti-environmental reason for writing this resolution.

How is that anti-environmental? Part of believing that the purpose of the environment is to serve human interests is supporting sustainable development, which ensures that future generations can make use of the environment as well.

Also, would you please tell me, in your opinion, what is the purpose of the environment, if not to benefit humanity?

[The Remean Lordship]

The environment is not an entity, but a collection of beings. Their objectives are up for debate but if you know anything about Charles Darwin, you might get the basic idea.

What are we getting on about? Logging? Is logging worth destroying the environment and disrupting everything????

I think not.

Animals may not be human but humans are animals, and what is the difference between animals and plants than some chemical processes? Naturally, to survive one must terminate some of the lives of these entities (another Darwin idea, [survival of the fittest]) but the immense slaughter of plants and animals that industrial logging in rainforests commits is absolutely meaningless.

You may reference the economy, but sometimes one has to forget about the economy in order to accomplish the greater good.

[Dellin]

Thank you for explaining your corrupt and anti-environmental reason for writing this resolution.

How is that anti-environmental? Part of believing that the purpose of the environment is to serve human interests is supporting sustainable development, which ensures that future generations can make use of the environment as well.

Also, would you please tell me, in your opinion, what is the purpose of the environment, if not to benefit humanity?

Is the sun's only purpose to keep us warm?

Welcome to the 15th century.

[Auralia]

The environment is not an entity, but a collection of beings. Their objectives are up for debate but if you know anything about Charles Darwin, you might get the basic idea.

[...]

Naturally, to survive one must terminate some of the lives of these entities (another Darwin idea, [survival of the fittest])...

I'm not really sure how to take that. Are you a social Darwinist, then? Do you believe our moral system should be rooted in the principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest?

What are we getting on about? Logging? Is logging worth destroying the environment and disrupting everything????

[...]

...but the immense slaughter of plants and animals that industrial logging in rainforests commits is absolutely meaningless.

Straw man. Responsible logging doesn't "destroy[] the environment and disrupt[] everything", it cannot be considered an "immense slaughter" and it is certainly not "meaningless".

Animals may not be human but humans are animals, and what is the difference between animals and plants than some chemical processes?

Humans possess an intellect and free will. Other animals (and plants) do not.

You may reference the economy, but sometimes one has to forget about the economy in order to accomplish the greater good.

See, what does that even mean? What do you believe is the "greater good" in this case?

Is the sun's only purpose to keep us warm?

The sun's purpose is to benefit humanity¹. Keeping the Earth warm is certainly a key element of that, yes.

1. Since we're taking things to outer space now, I suppose "humanity" would include any other species whose members possess an intellect and free will, if such a species exists.

***

This discussion is getting rather silly at this point. I'm reminded of the "dance science" debate in the Access to Science in Schools thread.