There are many reasons why I chose “no” for this question. While I believe deforestation should be minimized, a global ban is unrealistic. Such a ban would be extremely difficult to regulate, and …Read MoreThere are many reasons why I chose “no” for this question. While I believe deforestation should be minimized, a global ban is unrealistic. Such a ban would be extremely difficult to regulate, and agreeing on a universally accepted definition of deforestation would be challenging. More importantly, wood is a vital resource that the world depends on for construction, heating, and many other essential needs. Banning all harvesting of wood would be devastating. Underdeveloped countries rely on wood just as much, if not more, than developed nations. There are other ways to regulate unnecessary deforestation without imposing a complete ban.Read Less
While I see where this is coming from, I don’t believe a total ban on deforestation is the right approach. Some deforestation is needed to provide for increasing population and housing needs. I think …Read MoreWhile I see where this is coming from, I don’t believe a total ban on deforestation is the right approach. Some deforestation is needed to provide for increasing population and housing needs. I think a fair balance would be to limit deforestation to the point where human needs are met.Read Less
There should not be a global ban on deforestation in order to protect the environment due to the many developing countries who utilize logging, agriculture, and mining forested areas as a form of …Read MoreThere should not be a global ban on deforestation in order to protect the environment due to the many developing countries who utilize logging, agriculture, and mining forested areas as a form of employment and revenue. A global ban could hurt these countries economies and increase poverty. In addition, monitoring and enforcing a global ban would be extremely difficult. Illegal lodging already exists and a ban could push this even further.Read Less
I don’t believe that there should be a global ban on deforestation. To start, a global ban with international cooperation would be incredibly difficult to achieve and enforce. In addition, a ban like …Read MoreI don’t believe that there should be a global ban on deforestation. To start, a global ban with international cooperation would be incredibly difficult to achieve and enforce. In addition, a ban like this could negatively impact certain industries that rely on timber and agriculture. Many jobs could be lost for this reason. I feel like reforestation efforts or other sustainable practices could be a better alternative to this.Read Less
The terms “global” and “ban” both indicate an action that would be too severe for the problem of deforestation. Instead of banning, regulating would be preferable. Instead of applying even regulations …Read MoreThe terms “global” and “ban” both indicate an action that would be too severe for the problem of deforestation. Instead of banning, regulating would be preferable. Instead of applying even regulations rather than a ban across the globe, the regulation would provide the most benefit if it were tailored to the needs of the environment in the region. A nuanced, research-based approach to environmental protection is almost always going to be more future-conscious than sweeping movements with unknown consequences, especially since a decrease in severity may produce less backlash from populations that experience a loss due to environmentally conscious lawmaking. In general, the problem of deforestation is less an issue of deforestation and more an issue of lacking sustainability, lacking renewal, not taking measures to offset ‘taking’ with ‘giving,’ and these issues require nuanced responses.Read Less
A global ban on anything is unrealistic…there’s no universal authority. Nations rarely fully abide by rules, and politicians often maintain balance by bending them rather than strictly enforcing …Read MoreA global ban on anything is unrealistic…there’s no universal authority. Nations rarely fully abide by rules, and politicians often maintain balance by bending them rather than strictly enforcing them.Read Less
I don’t think a global ban on deforestation is the most effective way to approach environmental protection. A complete ban would be hard to enforce. Like others, I think that regulations are the way …Read MoreI don’t think a global ban on deforestation is the most effective way to approach environmental protection. A complete ban would be hard to enforce. Like others, I think that regulations are the way to go.Read Less
A global ban is way too far, but I definitely agree that there should be some smaller-scale regulation. As long as the rate of trees being cut down is equal to the rate of trees being regrown and …Read MoreA global ban is way too far, but I definitely agree that there should be some smaller-scale regulation. As long as the rate of trees being cut down is equal to the rate of trees being regrown and replenished, then the environment should be ok.Read Less
While I believe there should be stricter regulations on deforestation, it would be unreasonable to ban deforestation completely, especially on a global scale. An international ban would not only …Read MoreWhile I believe there should be stricter regulations on deforestation, it would be unreasonable to ban deforestation completely, especially on a global scale. An international ban would not only dramatically raise construction prices but would also become unenforceable in many countries. Instead, let’s do a better job of tracking deforestation so that we can protect natural habitats and relocate them when necessary.Read Less
There are many reasons why I chose “no” for this question. While I believe deforestation should be minimized, a global ban is unrealistic. Such a ban would be extremely difficult to regulate, and …Read MoreThere are many reasons why I chose “no” for this question. While I believe deforestation should be minimized, a global ban is unrealistic. Such a ban would be extremely difficult to regulate, and agreeing on a universally accepted definition of deforestation would be challenging. More importantly, wood is a vital resource that the world depends on for construction, heating, and many other essential needs. Banning all harvesting of wood would be devastating. Underdeveloped countries rely on wood just as much, if not more, than developed nations. There are other ways to regulate unnecessary deforestation without imposing a complete ban. Read Less
While I see where this is coming from, I don’t believe a total ban on deforestation is the right approach. Some deforestation is needed to provide for increasing population and housing needs. I think …Read MoreWhile I see where this is coming from, I don’t believe a total ban on deforestation is the right approach. Some deforestation is needed to provide for increasing population and housing needs. I think a fair balance would be to limit deforestation to the point where human needs are met. Read Less
There should not be a global ban on deforestation in order to protect the environment due to the many developing countries who utilize logging, agriculture, and mining forested areas as a form of …Read MoreThere should not be a global ban on deforestation in order to protect the environment due to the many developing countries who utilize logging, agriculture, and mining forested areas as a form of employment and revenue. A global ban could hurt these countries economies and increase poverty. In addition, monitoring and enforcing a global ban would be extremely difficult. Illegal lodging already exists and a ban could push this even further. Read Less
I don’t believe that there should be a global ban on deforestation. To start, a global ban with international cooperation would be incredibly difficult to achieve and enforce. In addition, a ban like …Read MoreI don’t believe that there should be a global ban on deforestation. To start, a global ban with international cooperation would be incredibly difficult to achieve and enforce. In addition, a ban like this could negatively impact certain industries that rely on timber and agriculture. Many jobs could be lost for this reason. I feel like reforestation efforts or other sustainable practices could be a better alternative to this. Read Less
The terms “global” and “ban” both indicate an action that would be too severe for the problem of deforestation. Instead of banning, regulating would be preferable. Instead of applying even regulations …Read MoreThe terms “global” and “ban” both indicate an action that would be too severe for the problem of deforestation. Instead of banning, regulating would be preferable. Instead of applying even regulations rather than a ban across the globe, the regulation would provide the most benefit if it were tailored to the needs of the environment in the region. A nuanced, research-based approach to environmental protection is almost always going to be more future-conscious than sweeping movements with unknown consequences, especially since a decrease in severity may produce less backlash from populations that experience a loss due to environmentally conscious lawmaking. In general, the problem of deforestation is less an issue of deforestation and more an issue of lacking sustainability, lacking renewal, not taking measures to offset ‘taking’ with ‘giving,’ and these issues require nuanced responses. Read Less
A global ban on anything is unrealistic…there’s no universal authority. Nations rarely fully abide by rules, and politicians often maintain balance by bending them rather than strictly enforcing …Read MoreA global ban on anything is unrealistic…there’s no universal authority. Nations rarely fully abide by rules, and politicians often maintain balance by bending them rather than strictly enforcing them. Read Less
I don’t think a global ban on deforestation is the most effective way to approach environmental protection. A complete ban would be hard to enforce. Like others, I think that regulations are the way …Read MoreI don’t think a global ban on deforestation is the most effective way to approach environmental protection. A complete ban would be hard to enforce. Like others, I think that regulations are the way to go. Read Less
A global ban is way too far, but I definitely agree that there should be some smaller-scale regulation. As long as the rate of trees being cut down is equal to the rate of trees being regrown and …Read MoreA global ban is way too far, but I definitely agree that there should be some smaller-scale regulation. As long as the rate of trees being cut down is equal to the rate of trees being regrown and replenished, then the environment should be ok. Read Less
There should be strict regular, but global bans are way too far.
While I believe there should be stricter regulations on deforestation, it would be unreasonable to ban deforestation completely, especially on a global scale. An international ban would not only …Read MoreWhile I believe there should be stricter regulations on deforestation, it would be unreasonable to ban deforestation completely, especially on a global scale. An international ban would not only dramatically raise construction prices but would also become unenforceable in many countries. Instead, let’s do a better job of tracking deforestation so that we can protect natural habitats and relocate them when necessary. Read Less