The populations devastated by the tsunami are beginning to rebuild their lives. This is good news, at least for those of us who cling to the old-fashioned notion that human beings matter more than hunks of wood.

For eco-moonbats, however, things are never this simple:

Along Aceh’s battered coastline, work has begun on new housing for those left homeless by the 26 December tsunami.
Government officials estimate that 100,000 new houses will be needed over the next few years.
But environmentalists warn that this construction boom poses a major threat to Indonesia’s ravaged tropical forests.

Well, when 100,000 people need new houses, surely the worthless yappings of a few tree-huggers can be safely ignored?

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization has already sounded the alarm over the issue of logging.
Earlier this month, it advised tsunami-hit countries to protect their forests during the reconstruction period.
It said governments in South and South-East Asia should “avoid over-harvesting and illegal felling of trees”.

What?!! The U.N. are sticking their noses into this? Wonderful, eh? After they sat out the actual disaster in five star hotels while U.S. and Australian troops saved the Indonesian people from starvation, the world’s most useless bureaucracy have now decided it’s more important to whine about a few useless trees than thousands of homeless people.

So, what’s the solution, then? Do any of the assorted moonbats have a constructive suggestion concerning what the people of Aceh do for house-timber? Since they’re not allowed to cut down their own forests, we mean?

“We must make sure that the wood being used for new houses is certified as coming from sustainable forests,” said Dede Suhendra, a programme manager at WWF-Indonesia.

Well, as jaw-droppingly stupid comments go, you’d have travel far and wide to beat that one, wouldn’t you? Is Dede ‘I-have-a-nice-warm-home-to-go-to’ Suhendra really suggesting that if the homeless disaster victims of Indonesia want to rebuild their houses, they have to grow the trees in order to do so? But wouldn’t that mean they’ll be homeless for, oh, ten-to-fifteen years while they wait for that to happen? Or, if they buy the timber from abroad, even more poverty stricken than they are at present?

Really, the better idea would be to just tear up whatever pointless save-the-trees treaties they’ve signed and ravage the rain forests in order to build as many houses as they need. Because here’s the truth of it: People matter more than trees.

(Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)

Said RottyPup @ 11:39 pm | Permalink   

1. Useless trees huh? Well since it generally takes two adult trees to provide oxygen for one adult person, I believe there is some use to these trees.
   We need to be more creative than just using all the trees to make houses. There are other resources to quickly make houses. I’m not advocating NOT using trees at all, but we need to be careful that we don’t devastate a ecosystem when we can avoid it.

   Comment by moose — 3/29/2005 @ 2:30 am

---

2. I agree with Moose. I think we should make everyone in prison break rocks into morter and send it to the people of Indonesia, then we can say that hundreds of thousands of Americans helped them build stronger houses.

   Comment by Richard Nixon — 3/29/2005 @ 7:07 am

---

3. Moose wrote: ‘I’m not advocating NOT using trees at all …’

   That’s big of you, considering they’re NOT your trees, but the Indonesian people’s. Typical leftist: always quick to tell others how they can and cannot make use of their own property.

   ‘… but we need to be careful that we don’t devastate a ecosystem when we can avoid it.’

   Easy enough to say when you’ve got a home to go to. NOT so easy if you’ve just lost everything in a tsunami and some pinhead from the U.N. or the WWF is telling you why you can’t rebuild your life because of the ‘fragile ecosystem’ blah, blah, blah. Don’t you feel anything at all for those people, Moose?

   Comment by RottyPup — 3/29/2005 @ 10:23 am

---

4. Interesting, Rotty. The leftists don’t believe we have the right to own property, hence, nobody owns the trees and we should protect the trees over making sure people have a roof over their heads….in other words, who gives a flying f*** about those people? The trees need protection! (Isn’t that somewhat twisted rhetoric?)

   Thought provoking (and simultaneously revolting), this socialist/green concept of the earth versus the human condition.

   Comment by Cao — 3/29/2005 @ 5:52 pm

---

5. The analogy that comes to mind is the hungry people who eat all the corn and leave ntohing for seed to start the next years crop so die of starvation anyway. If they destroy there ecology there island will not be able to sustain life anyway. Its not about looking pretty its about survival.

   Comment by Carol — 3/29/2005 @ 7:30 pm

---

6. Carol, after careful consideration, numerous consultations, and countless examinations, I have come to the conclusion that you are a fucking idiot.

   Comment by Eric — 3/29/2005 @ 8:19 pm

---

7. And you my dear are a verbally challenged potty mouth.

   Comment by Carol — 3/29/2005 @ 11:21 pm

---

8. Pup said, “Don’t you feel anything at all for those people, Moose?”

   Cute. Yeah all of us lefties feel no compassion for anyone. We think that the world would be a great place with trees and squirrels, but without people. Typical path of the argument from the right. . . “why do you hate America?” “why do you want to kill Terri?”. . .
   All I’m saying is that we should be creative in finding solutions to the housing crisis. In some places they use cow dung to build houses. In other places they build houses from clay. These people need shelter and need it soon. They don’t need an island without oxygen or food supply.

   Comment by moose — 3/30/2005 @ 3:45 am

---

9. Nor do they need the island to lose its topsoil as the result of erosion, from water or the prevailing trade winds.

   Comment by Carol — 3/30/2005 @ 5:22 am

---

10. it’s an interesting debate.. indeed shelter is the key here, but those trees..

    Comment by S — 3/30/2005 @ 10:26 am

---

11. I love blogs where the authors cuss out people posting comments for disagreeing with them. “You fuckhead, you disagreed with me, you can’t do that, wahhh!”

    Comment by Dave — 3/30/2005 @ 5:18 pm

---

12. Typical republican, always wantin gto jump into an easy solution without every thinking that there could much more death and devestation in your end result.

    Comment by Jason Cuevas — 3/30/2005 @ 7:54 pm

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website