Is Deforestation Destructive

Nic Brownlow

            People have been responsible for deforestation for a long time. Some even believe that it’s not that harmful to our environment. Rather, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations found that “between 1990 and 2005 [t]he country lost 163,436 square miles of forest.” At this rate, “it is a very likely possibility that we will no longer have rain forests on our planet in as little as 100 years”(Pros). In hindsight, deforestation is harmful enough to eliminate all of our rainforests in just a century. The destruction of our forests results in negative and positive side effects. The negative effects of deforestation outweigh the positive effects because there will nobody left to enjoy the benefits. Some of the most detrimental effects of deforestation are wildlife destruction, flooding, and its ties to global warming.

            One of the worst effects of deforestation would be its destruction of wildlife. The removal of trees deprives the inhabitants of their food and their shelter. Forests are homes to many organisms, and these organisms provide essential nutrients for humans. For example, a lot of plant life would be lost in deforestation, resulting in a decrease in oxygen in the environment and an increase carbon dioxide. It will be a substantial amount of nutrients too considering that Christina Nunez, a write for National Geographic, stated that “[e]ighty percent of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests.” Imagine eighty percent of those species dying off, so that humans can pave some roads. This would be classified as a mass extinction. Our research on plants and animals will also be limited by eighty percent. A businessman might argue that with all of the room that these rainforests provide, businesses that invigorate the economy will be built and increase our overall wealth. It also will provide more roads for faster transportation. However, I maintain that the economic invigoration and convenient roadways will not matter if eighty percent of our animals and plants are wiped out. With the loss of the rainforest tethered with the loss of wildlife, humans are next to go extinct after the plants and animals.

            Another extremely negative effect of deforestation is its correlation with water. “[Plants and trees] suck the extra moisture up their root and disperse it back into the atmosphere”(Pros). Rainforests absorb a significant amount of water. There will be no more plants and trees in the rainforests once humans are finished stripping them in about 100 years, which will lead to major flooding. Not only will it lead to the flooding of the rainforest area, but the surrounding areas as well. With this major flooding taken place, it will prevent the forest from growing back. Not only will a surplus of water occur, but also a shortage when it comes to the water cycle. For example, the earth observatory department of NASA stated, “[w]ater evaporates from the soil and vegetation, condenses into clouds, and falls again as rain in a perpetual self-watering cycle. In other words, losing eighty percent of our plants and trees will result in a loss in rainfall everywhere. This disturbance can reach out as far as China and northern Mexico. Not to mention that this “self-watering cycle” also lowers the temperature of the Earth’s outer layer. Thus, leading to an increase in the Earth’s overall temperature.

            Speaking of the Earth’s temperature, deforestation also ties together with global warming. NASA found that “[in] the Amazon alone, scientists estimate that the trees contain more carbon than ten years worth of human-produced greenhouse gases.” Ten years of human-produced gasses is a stupendous amount of gas. Plants and trees primary goal is to filter out carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Without the substantial amount of plants and trees in the rainforest, that carbon dioxide is let loose into the atmosphere to raise the Earth’s temperature even more. According to the World Resources Institute, “[if tropical deforestation were a country] it would rank third in carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions, behind China and the U.S”(qtd. in Nunez). This just puts in perspective exactly how much carbon dioxide is being filtered out by these plants. It ranks behind some of the most industrialized countries in the world. Deforestation is leading to the irreversible downfall of the Earth.

In conclusion, almost all of the actions that harm the environment, lead to other harmful agents, and that stimulates the negative effects exponentially. Not to mention that the damage being done is almost irreversible. The only way to ‘rebuild’ the rainforests would be to plant the trees back, which you would need to fix the flooding first. All of the plants would be destroyed, and the global temperature would be rising at a rate never seen before. The positive effects of plants, trees, and wildlife obviously outweigh the benefits of expanding our roads and building new homes. It seems the solution would be to stop destroying the forests and keep the benefits we are already gaining from these rainforests.

Works Cited

“Pros and Cons of Deforestation.” HRF, 22 Apr. 2015, healthresearchfunding.org/pros-cons-deforestation/.

Nunez, Christina. “Deforestation and Its Effect on the Planet.” Deforestation Facts and Information, 25 Feb. 2019, www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation/.

“Tropical Deforestation.” NASA, NASA, earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Deforestation/deforestation_update3.php.

            Most people believe that humans are not the main reason behind global warming. This is not entirely true, NASA states that “[the] earth’s climate has changed when the planet received more or less sunlight due to subtle shifts in its orbit, as the atmosphere or surface changed, or when the Sun’s energy varied.” The Earth’s temperature will change naturally over time, but the temperature has rapidly increased over the past century. NASA, an independent agency for the U.S state government, found that “the rate of temperature increase has nearly doubled in the last 50 years [from 1.1 to 1.6° Fahrenheit].” In other words, as time goes on, humans are gradually increasing the amount of damage they put on the atmosphere, and it results in increasing temperatures. Global warming is becoming a real threat because the temperature is constantly rising. Some of the reasons that trace directly to humans are the rapid rise in CO2, and the unnatural change in the Arctic ice caps and sea levels.

            The rise in carbon dioxide over time can be directly related to humans. The NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory stated that “over the past 650,000 years, atmospheric CO2 levels did not rise above 300 ppm, [and now] atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen from about 317 ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm in 2013.” This kind of change cannot be explained by anything else other than humans. People burn fossil fuels all of the time, and we are the main cause of deforestation. Both of these release mass amounts of carbon dioxide considering the magnitude at which we perform these activities. In fact, Gerrit Hansen at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found that “almost two-thirds of the impacts related to atmospheric and ocean temperature can be confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing.” This means human caused drivers are directly responsible. Some ecologists might argue that the rise in temperature precedes the rise on carbon dioxide use, which means CO2 is not responsible for the increase in temperature. Although temperature has risen before carbon dioxide levels in the past, I maintain that there are still many more correlations that trace back to humans. For example, the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, explains, “20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that rising CO2 levels are the result of human activity.” The increase in these isotope ratios are directly correlated to the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. It is proven that humans burn fossil fuels for energy, and obviously energy is needed. The burning of fossil fuels leads to the rise in isotope ratios, which means humans are directly correlated to the rise in carbon dioxide levels. The IPCC also stated that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature” from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity.

            Another cause of humans is the unnatural change in the Arctic ice caps and change in sea levels. For instance, “from 1953–2006, Arctic sea ice declined 7.8% per decade, [and] between 1979 and 2006, the decline was 9.1% each decade. The depreciation in the ice caps in the time span of 37 years is higher than the time span of 53 years. This is impossible without the interference of an outside source. In this instance, the outside source is people. The increase in temperature is the obvious cause of the melting ice caps. This increase in temperature is not only caused by carbon dioxide, but other greenhouse gasses such as methane and nitrous oxide. Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) used to be a threat to the atmosphere years ago, and the use has declined a ton. On the other hand, the long lasting effects of them still persist. The only way these CFC’s can be released is by people. With all of these factors hurting the ice caps, Kristina Pistone explains that “arctic ice cover continues to decrease, [and] the amount of the sun’s heat reflected by the ice back into space decreases.” This cycle is speeding up the effects of global warming even faster than before. Just like the increase in greenhouse gasses, this cycle is only going to get worse.

            In conclusion, almost all of the effects of global warming are compounding effects. In other words, they only get worse as time goes on, and they constantly stack on top of each other. This calls for a solution to be made, so that the Earth can be preserved for as long as possible. At the moment, humans are being directly correlated with global warming. While there are some people who make an effort to take care of this planet, there are many more that do not. If this continues to be that way, the Earth will progressively be destroyed faster than it should be.

Most political individuals believe that the separation would deter immigrants from attempting to illegally cross the border, and while it did have that affect, it was also immoral and illegal in many ways. It has been stopped for these exact reasons. The psychological damage it had on children being the main reason. Family separation at the border has always been looked down upon because people believe the negatives outweigh the positives. Family separation at the border provided many positive aspects, negative aspects, and legal aspects as well.

Family separation at the border put psychological stress on many children. For example, Dylan Gee, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Yale University, stated that “Forcible separation places these children at elevated risk for mental health.” This leads to economic issues and moral issues as well. For instance, an illegal immigrant child in the US with a mental disorder will have to be monitored for his entire life, which will limit his abilities, and the government immorally caused this issue with the child. Due to the separation of the child from his parent, he will never perform as well as he could have mentally or physically in life. He will struggle, and will not have the opportunities that everyone else has been given. When you separate children from their parents like this, it causes irreversible damage. Ginger Thompson, a senior spokesperson at ProPublica stumbled upon a case of a 4-year-old son, Brayan, had literally been yanked from his grasp by a Customs and Border Protection agent after they crossed the border and asked for asylum. Without even knowing if he is a refugee or an illegal immigrant, they take his child at first sight and detain him. In this particular incident, they definitely acted to early, and as for all of the others, there is definitely a better approach rather than separating families.

Not only does separating the child from its parent have psychological affects, it also violates the international human rights law. Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the practice of separating migrant children from their parents “amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life, and is a serious violation of the rights of the child.” The laws were to put in place because they are of upmost importance, and to show this, people are punished who do not abide by the laws. It does not seem like there was much thought as far as law goes into the separation of the children from their parents. This is due to border patrol being on the scene and having to react then and there, but once they are brought to prison they should be reunited. The fact that border patrol have the power to separate children from their parents is ridiculous, and as a result it leads to psychological damage, unlawful choices, and it is immoral. For example, President of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Daniel DiNardo stated, “Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together.” It is just wrong to separate families. They have been together for their entire life. Mothers and fathers teacher their children how to do everything, and they are taking that away in a situation where they are already terrified. The children then are forced to stay in horrible conditions away from their parents until they are dealt with. These negative psychological aspects of child separation are the exact reasons of why it was terminated.

The separation of children has many negative aspects, but on the other hand, it is meant to help the issue of immigration. One of the strategies of family separation is to deter other immigrants from attempting to cross the border. Former DHS Secretary John Kelly (now White House Chief of Staff) stated his desire to deter illegal crossings over a year before the policy went into effect: “I am considering [family separations at the border] in order to deter more movement.” This is definitely a viable strategy because parents do not want to risk their children by illegally crossing the border, but it is not 100 percent. Some immigrants are still willing to risk everything to get into the US, and they obviously want their children to experience that too. Many immigrants make fake claims and this is another reason why the government chose to separate families. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen stated that “From October 2017 to this February, we have seen a staggering 315% increase in illegal aliens fraudulently using children to pose as family units.” A 315 percent increase is extraordinarily big, and the United States deciding to separate families is a logical fix to this statistic. It plays against their fears, which is a very powerful tool when attempting to deter immigrants from illegally crossing the border. It makes sense why they began doing it, but that still does not make it legal.

Overall, the tactic ended up being unsuccessful due to the fact that it violated laws and went against people’s morals. There were too many negative effects on the children and parents that overturned the positive ones. Deterring illegal immigrants is a great accomplishment especially when you have a large percentage of immigrants using children to lie, but the psychological effects were too great. Furthermore, nobody wants to see on the news that children are being stripped from their families because they were attempting to enter the U.S. This is why the moral issues play a big role as well. People have a tendency to speak their minds, especially when they are dissatisfied. In conclusion, this should have never been done because children’s brains are still developing, and then you introduce a great amount of stress to them.

Many believe that border security is at a high with the production of the wall, but that is not the case. Blas Nunez-Neto, a senior policy researcher at RAND, states, “there are more Border Patrol agents deployed along the southwest border than ever. This is due to the fact that the wall has grown so large that they require a lot of men to defend it, but there is still not enough men to defend the border 24 hours. Neto explains that “they need to run three to four shifts a day.” For this reason it is hard for border patrol to say how effective the borders are, which basically means illegal immigrants are making it past the border. Neto states, “the U.S border with Mexico is almost 2000 miles long.” At this point it is still growing and the United States does not have enough men for it. In other words, the U.S will need more manpower to continue building the wall and to defend it as well. The Department of Homeland Security is currently researching ways to use surveillance, so that immigrants crossing the border can be seen. This is seen as an increase in effectiveness of the U.S border, but it is almost impossible to measure the security of the border. For example, Neto says, “despite the billions that have been spent on securing the border since 9/11, the U.S. still struggles to define what a secure border looks like.” There are also a lot more refugees and immigrants trying to reach the United States right now. I believe it will continue to be this way as the United States continues to grow. As we continue to grow, the security must be raised to a higher standard if immigrants are not wanted to illegally come into the U.S.

On the other hand, without the continuation of some sort of security along the border, more illegal immigrants would be crossing into the U.S right now. The increase of security is obviously effecting the U.S in a positive way, but it is also a negative in the fact that the people guarding it lack certain traits. For instance, there have been several news reports lately where the border security have killed immigrants. Most of the killings are definitely unnecessary considering that most immigrants do not have weapons. Of course, some of them did have weapons and had to be dealt with. To increase the effectiveness of border security, you would need to get qualified soldiers to guard the border. Not the soldiers who have been blindly murdering unarmed immigrants. They are there to ‘secure’ the border, not to shoot perpetrators. I think the effectiveness can be measured by the quality of soldier you put on security. This also leads back to the number of soldiers that they have. They are working three to four shifts a day, so most of them are not going to be working at their best. The fencing itself should be enough to deter most people thinking about entering illegally. Leigh Ann Caldwell, a spokesperson for NBC news claims, “fencing extends six feet underground and fifteen feet into the air.” The border is in great condition, but it does gave holes in it considering it’s a fence. This should have been prevented when the government was building this ‘wall.’ It allows the illegals to attack through the fence without coming over it which is a lack of security. Caldwell states that “Funding for the border jumped from $1.1 billion in 2001 to $1.5 billion in 2003.” The government is putting in the effort to secure our borders so that we are safe. There have been great improvements and some alterations that definitely need work. Overall, I think the effort they put in has protected the US sufficiently. 

Another strongly debated topic on border security is if they should use military equipment, and the answer is usually going to be yes. Martha McSally, a US Representative of The House explains, “When deployed, VADER [Vehicle and Dismount Exploitation Radar] will allow operators to track ground movement with great detail and make this information available to ground commanders in real time.” Surveillance is a great use for military equipment at the border. Not only is it non-violent, but it provides us with vision of illegal immigrants. They could be trafficking drugs or weapons across our border, and the VADER will give the US vision of them a long time before they will even know. McSally also states that “[S]ince 2012 VADER has detected over 33,000 people moving across the southwest border.” Statistically, this has saved the US from 33,000 illegal immigrants from entering and endangering our community. On the other hand, it is believed that the use of militarization can run migrants off to other border countries where they are more likely to be in danger. For example, a ministry of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Tucson states, “This militarized enforcement strategy, dubbed ‘prevention-through-deterrence’ by Border Patrol, was conceived to intentionally force undocumented migrants away from urban areas to attempt crossings in more remote and dangerous terrain.” I agree that some legal migrants and refugees will be hurt by securing the border with militarization, but it is hard to know who is legal and who is trying to smuggle drugs. The only way to properly protect the border with US safety in mind, is to secure against everyone who is trying to cross it. There are a lot more illegal immigrants than there are refugees trying to enter the US. Using militarization to properly secure US borders is the safest, and most effective way to do so. ��

Borders and immigration seem to be a reoccurring issue for the United States recently, so I chose to write about how borders affect Exit West and compare it to the United States of America. There are borders everywhere in Exit West, and some of them are being guarded. For example, the magical portals that teleport you are being guarded, and it makes sense that they are. That is a ton of power to have if you could access them whenever you wanted. Imagine being in the middle of a Civil War, and being able to teleport away for free. It is better that government officials have control over that because if they did not, someone else would, and that could be a disaster. I also noticed how some borders or teleporters are more valuable. For instance, some teleporters are guarded and harder to get to than others. This relates with the United States and other countries. Most immigrants and refugees want to come to the United States, so it is guarded more heavily just like in Exit West. Another form of border is doors and windows in Exit West. For example, when a refugee is breaking into the Australian women’s home he has to enter through the door. This makes for a great struggle. He falls onto the ground and starts crawling on the floor choking himself, but when he goes to leave through the window, another border, it is easy. I believe this means it is a struggle to get into some borders, and you may have to risk death to get in. Once you are in, it’s very easy to get out and about, which is referenced by the window.

The heavy protection of the borders is usually looked down upon, and in the case of Exit West, the militants are seen as antagonists. However, this is not entirely true: the militants are simply protecting the country they have built. from war-ridden refugees. The militants rightfully own the power to protect their borders from teleporting refugees. This is the only viable option for the novel, since the author does not want to make the book so long, he is not going to add in an investigation period for every refugee who walks through that portal, so the simpler solution is guarding them with weapons. The militants should not be viewed as villains because this is the only option for the novel. They have to protect their country, and if they don’t, it could become infested by war-ridden refugees, and not many countries perceive that as a positive thing. Today, discrimination also plays a role in why the borders are so heavily protected, and this is just simply not true. The fact that refugees are being forced to stay within their country is not discrimination. The rejection of refugees is due simply to the war going on and not the color of their skin. It also has to do with safety: the surrounding countries they are entering know that a war is going on, but do not know if the refugees are carrying weapons. It makes perfect since in this case to guard your country from possible illegal gun carriers who just fled from war.

Instead of fleeing to safety, another option for the refugees is to fight out the war to help the country. A huge supportive example of this would be the American Civil War. People did not flee away from the combat to start a new life. They were given guns and help fight for the side they represented. This is what the refugees should do if they want a chance. An example in Exit West where borders play a role is when refugees start heading over to England. The English government reacts by banishing the refugees from their prospering country, which is not a terrible idea. A prospering country does not want refugees flooding in from a war. They are trying to grow their economy even further. It would also be unsafe to let refugees seek asylum in empty homes. You must keep in mind that there are also large numbers of refugees entering in through this portal, and that the English government is unaware of what weapons they might own. Another thing to keep in mind is that they are entering via teleportation. The refugees are using portals to enter into England. This alone would be enough for a country to increase its security against anyone entering.

The borders applied in Exit West are applied for the same reasons as the borders of the United States. To protect its people from any possible threat. That is not to say that you may not enter the country at all. Of course, there is a legal way to enter any country if you are an immigrant or refugee. The United States is not as extreme as Exit West due to the fact that refugees cannot teleport into the United States. On the other hand, the subject of quantity still affects both the United States and Exit West, since there has been a large amount of refugees and immigrants seeking asylum in the United States right now. It is unfortunate that the legal process takes as long as it does, but that does not call for illegally crossing the border. Obviously, the government must act upon this because these immigrants are threatening everyone in the United States if nothing is done.

Overall, borders portrayed in Exit West are a bit extreme if being compared to the United States, but the ideas of safety are there. The government must protect its country if an influx of immigrants and refugees arrive, especially if it is illegally. There could definitely be a better system of letting immigrants migrate into the United States, and our government should definitely take a look at that considering all of the action that has taken place recently.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton