Of Burma, elephants and teak
Filed in: Ed's blog spot
Burmanet news paints a rather bleak picture of Burma's squandered teak resources The big bad military government over there is bad news, locals are being screwed and the environment is being raped daily. Of course the west is getting in to the fray, to effect change. A pisstaker would suggest that they are posturing because Burma is China's friend, not because they want to see peace and harmony prevail unfettered in a land full of precious resources - a long way from European and American markets.
You cannot import teak from Burma any more. This was a quick diplomatic tactic to ensure that lumber yards in America can cream their clients for an extra 30% overnight. Most helpful all round, unless you are a US carpenter or a Burmese person.
President Pisstaker says that the US should drop the current teak embargo. It won't stop deforestation, but at least unemployed Burmese elephants, their drivers, and American wooden boat builders could get back to normal production and start to put food back on their family's tables (made from sustainable teak). Economic hardship on both sides of the globe would be alleviated. Result!
The only downside to this idea of economic empowerment is that it cuts out the need for Western government intervention and posturing. I guess it wont happen!
People say that buying products harvested by exploited elephants is a bad thing, but when money is tight, elephants would say that any job is better than working the streets.
Teak for construction has a nice ring to it, unless you are a green terror monger. Teak will last 30 or 40 years if cared for - and that is in a marine environment, so teak is ideal for quality house building!! Therefore I think the US should go green and ban cheap softwood.
As with all problems, it takes a couple of policies working in tandem to make real change. So how about introducing a teak house-building quota too? With the way the housing market is dying, no one should notice an environmentally sound limit of 200 new homes a year under the new teak directive.
Where do you stand on teak decking etc
Did you hear the one about a teak embargo?
You cannot import teak from Burma any more. This was a quick diplomatic tactic to ensure that lumber yards in America can cream their clients for an extra 30% overnight. Most helpful all round, unless you are a US carpenter or a Burmese person.
President Pisstaker says that the US should drop the current teak embargo. It won't stop deforestation, but at least unemployed Burmese elephants, their drivers, and American wooden boat builders could get back to normal production and start to put food back on their family's tables (made from sustainable teak). Economic hardship on both sides of the globe would be alleviated. Result!
The only downside to this idea of economic empowerment is that it cuts out the need for Western government intervention and posturing. I guess it wont happen!
"Better to be a logger than a prostitute"
People say that buying products harvested by exploited elephants is a bad thing, but when money is tight, elephants would say that any job is better than working the streets.
A teak house is environmentally friendly.
Teak for construction has a nice ring to it, unless you are a green terror monger. Teak will last 30 or 40 years if cared for - and that is in a marine environment, so teak is ideal for quality house building!! Therefore I think the US should go green and ban cheap softwood.
As with all problems, it takes a couple of policies working in tandem to make real change. So how about introducing a teak house-building quota too? With the way the housing market is dying, no one should notice an environmentally sound limit of 200 new homes a year under the new teak directive.
Where do you stand on teak decking etc
|
