The decision to join a group with a common interest may provide an individual with fascinating ideas. Some of the ideas are out of this world but yet, sound incredibly effective in reaching a common cause. I am currently with one of the local environmental groups and have been attending their meetings for a couple of weeks now. While there, one of the ideas presented with the goal of preventing excessive logging is the purchase of an acre of land somewhere in the jungle along with its logging rights. When I first heard the idea at the meeting, I was simply astounded by the effectiveness of the strategy.
Imagine there is patch of 3 by 3 acres of land somewhere in the Brazilian Amazon, Indonesian Borneo (or Malaysian Borneo for that matter) or the Russian Far East, with an acre square is considered as one unit with an acre square is the smallest available unit for sale. By simple arithmetic, there should be 9 unit of land plots. If you disagree, convince yourself for goodness’ sake!
Logging activities, especially with the devastating clearcutting method, usually cover a lot of ground. With the 3 by 3 plots under consideration, with say A to C and 1 to 3 marked on each axis to make up a Cartesian coordinate system, moving in some line continuously (e.g. say A1 to A3 or A1 to C1) or continuously harvesting neighboring plot (e.g. A1 to A2 to B2 to C2, etc) would probably provide the least operation cost for the logger rather than cutting one plot and then travel from one plot to some other plot that is unconnected (say A1 and to then C3) to first plot. As a caveat, I am making an assumption on this though I believe it is rather reasonable. I am convinced moving jumping from one plot to some other unconnected plot has some cost to it – fuel for the machines to be transported is an instance.
As a result, a logger would probably try to obtain logging rights to the plots that border each other. Therefore, say if the logger needs four plots, he would buy 1 by 4 or 2 by 2.
Now, say there is a green group that wants to stop the logging, or at least makes logging harder. There are a few ways to do that. The most common technique is ecotage (a form of sabotage or monkey-wrenching) through tree spiking or a direct sabotage on the logging machines. Another way is through tree sitting. But such approach is dangerous and worse, it is against the law in most cases. Therefore, buying the logging rights might be the best way to counter legal logging. Illegal logging unfortunately can’t be stop through this method. The only way to stop illegal logging is the strong enforcement of a strong environmental law framework (of which, I’ll certainly have a wet dream if Malaysia is ever going to have this in the near future, really. It is more frustrating when corrupt officials are up there).
Nevertheless, assuming there is no such thing as illegal logging (however silly that might be), with 9 by 9 plot, along with all the relevant assumptions, the green group needs only to purchase 3 plots, in particular with a diagonal manner – A1, B2 and C3 – to effectively increase the cost of the logger.
Let’s loosen up the assumption and say the logger needs merely 2 plots for his operation. In this case, the green group could buy four plots, A2, B1, B3 and C2 (notice the order) in order to greatly, if I may, screw the logger. With this, the logger will be forced to move to a plot away from the first harvested plot and thus, increase the cost of logging.
Indeed, the latter tactic, in general, buying odd or even horizontal or vertical coordinate in all vertical or horizontal plot or vice versa depending on the total size of the patch of land probably dominates all the other tactics, disregarding the cost of buying such rights.
With all these, there are probably a few scenarios worth mentioning if cost of purchasing such rights is considered in but I really lack the time to explore it given that I should be working with my international economics courses now rather than writing this entry. Another reason is definitely my inability to further explain such scenarios in a clear and concise manner.
However, there might be one or two problems with this. Financing such project in most possibilities will be costly since the only return to this effort is the satisfaction of knowing the existence of a guarantee of a few no-logging plots. Of course, unless we could have some influence on some legislators, assuming there is no corruption, another problem is illegal logging. With illegal logging, any private property in the middle of nowhere won’t be respected. I myself, if I found a binocular somewhere high up in the Sierra Nevada, I won’t sweat myself in returning it (this is a true story if you are wondering. Check this out if you are interested with my lame misadventure).
I wonder how much does it cost to buy a plot of land in the Amazon – it should be clearer in the future meeting I presume. I myself will probably be willing to help the group with its funding effort. Probably that is an understatement. I will be excited to assist the good work.
p/s – Today, the United Nations, probably the greatest symbol of our cooperation, created in the aftermath of our greatest conflict, celebrates its 59th anniversary. To eternity of peace, friends!
And due to my high regard of the United Nations (fetishism rather), I think I want to meet some people related to the local International Affairs Society because Model United Nations is going to be held in February next year! I’ve already contacted the society and we’ll see what’s going to happen from there.This might be hot air but its worth the try. Wish me luck!
