Charcoal is free if the wood is from your land (you don't have to buy it) and you produce it for your consumption... It isn't free if you have to buy it from a producer or middleman distributor... According to the US representative in the VICE News video, charcoal is more expensive than propane.
- Thread starter MoJoInDR
- Start date
The Value & Power of a Forest...
- Status
Charcoal is free if the wood is from your land (you don't have to buy it) and you produce it for your consumption... It isn't free if you have to buy it from a producer or middleman distributor... According to the US representative in the VICE News video, charcoal is more expensive than propane.
Yea, but they are buying charcoal in the cities. I remember sacks about 3 or 3.5 feet tall full of that sheet in the markets. Nasty dirty stuff. We bought it in smaller bags when I lived there.
Right. They sell charcoal. They don't buy the wood. Think about it for a second, my friend.
I read these last few posts, now I think I will have an embolism. At least it appears JD has set the record straight on this matter
Yes, I understand that... And also understand that if it's not yours you'd be taking it illegally... Which has its own costs. My point was simply that charcoal isn't free, or even "almost free", there is a cost to the producer and the end user. And, as I said, the US rep. in the VICE video said that what the end user is paying in Haiti is more than the cost of propane.
It seems that the largest hurdle is the fact that most people in Haiti already have charcoal stoves... And old habits die hard... And some people think that food cooked with charcoal tastes better... Which might be true in some cases... But come on Haitians, I think the time for personal preferences is past.
There is a manufacturing business that is producing basic propane stoves, but the need is in the millions, which is far above the capacity of the business.
It was interesting to see that the DR had a similar problem maybe 30-40 years ago but it was solved. Maybe Haiti could learn a thing or two from how it was done. The thing is though, the DR now has a problem with people in the DR illegally producing charcoal to sell to Haitian consumer suppliers.
Every January or so there are multiple Haitians and Dominicans collecting whatever tree trunks and branches they can beg, borrow or steal to make carbon. They do it year round, but it ramps up then in preparation for Semana Santa, they sell it by the sackful for that week. Our ex-gardener (Haitian) used to dig a trench way at the back of our property to make it.
I think you'll find most Haitians use two rocks with a pot balanced on the top as their "Stove"
Back to DR forests...
Seems that the Hispaniolan moist forests and pine forests are important enough to warrant their own Wikipedia pages...
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Seems that the Hispaniolan moist forests and pine forests are important enough to warrant their own Wikipedia pages...
Hispaniolan pine forests - Wikipedia
Hispaniolan moist forests - Wikipedia
I've made nine comments in this thread... Five have links to articles or videos related to the title of this thread... So no, keepcoming... As should be most obvious from my participation in this thread... My information — which I take to mean my participation — is not just copy and paste.
In fact, giving a link to further speaking on a matter is not considered "...copy and paste...", it is considered presenting more information about a matter for consideration by those interested in finding out more.
But I kind of have a sense that there's more to your somewhat straw man comment... And if there is, perhaps you should simply just clearly state it.
Do you consider the many threads created by Delores in the Daily News Headlines section to be "...just copy and paste...", or are they more like acceptable conversation starters?
This thread is about the value and power of forests... And I was hoping to be able to speak about the views of professionals from around the world regarding forests and how their thoughts relate to the DR's forests... However, I was told to stick to things that were directly related to the DR, which would not include speaking by professionals on general matters related to forests, albeit their speaking is absolutely applicable to DR forests.
And trying to follow this instruction, I have been researching the matter of DR forests and when I have found something directly related, and interesting, I post it for consideration of folks who might see it as such. And I'm certainly not interested in duplicating what anyone else has presented.
I research and write, keepcoming... And I can research and then write at length on the matters I've researched. But after thirty plus years of online participation on forums, I've found that along with my writing, presenting links to other related resources is perfectly acceptable, and appreciated by those reading what I write.
Hope the above answers your question.
Some folks have a contorted way of defining research. Research is not posting Wikipedia and YouTube links. That is propaganda and spam. I also cant imagine what forums you participated in 30+ years ago. That's clearly an exaggeration.
Since when did the US control the production and distribution of propane much less stop sales to Haiti? A source to this claim is in order.
I have a question. MoJo have you ever been here and done your own research? You post on line stuff you researched but, for me, until i see first hand, boots on the ground, in-country research I skip most of your long winded posts. I suggest if you want input from forestry specialists world wide then you might want to add that type or forum to the many other forums to which you belong.
Mojo. Your interest in the DR forests is admirable and I understand your motivation to do so if you’re going to be a future resident. No argument from me about the value, beautify and diversity of DR ecosystems. I’ve been fortunate enough to observe them first hand.
The reality is our discussions about the DR forests are moot. The government can do what it wants but the ultimate fate of the existence and quality of DR ecosystems will be decided by climate change and population density. Two big elephants in the room that some posters see and others choose not to see.
We are on track for a 3 to 5 degree rise in temperature in the next 7 to 10 years regardless of what we do to mitigate the rise. The effects are being felt from the Canadian Arctic all the way down to the Dominican Republic and beyond. Melting permafrost, the disappearing taiga and the migration of the boreal forests further North, the loss of arable land due to extended drought, drained aquifers, are some of the most visible and tangible impacts.
The DR is listed as one of the countries in Latin America most vulnerable to climate change, particularly the North Eastern areas. Despite what the government has committed to in their long term forestry planning and GHG emissions reductions, the DR ecosystems are going to change and not necessarily for the better. Extended periods of drought, salt water intrusion in overused aquifers, uncontrolled flooding, sediment loss from arable lands are just some of the problems the government currently has on its plate and are not going away.
What is very self evident is uncontrolled population growth impacts forests and farmland. Not just in the DR but worldwide. People need places to live and infrastructure like roads, water and electricity are necessary to support them. The DR has a large population in a relatively small geographical area. The densest areas are the two major cities that continue to expand unabated.
The reasons for the population growth are social and economic and have been discussed at length on this forum. Someone posted that the DR is one of the most promiscuous countries he’s ever lived in. That’s probably true. A large percentage of population that’s poor and uneducated are having the bulk of the babies, and have no access to public funded family planning programs. Other reasons for the large population growth I won’t go into because we can’t discuss them on this forum.
The DR is no different from other countries at the mercy of climate change. The one thing they can control is population growth to lessen the climate change impacts on the overall DR population but the political will to do that doesn’t exist.
The reality is our discussions about the DR forests are moot. The government can do what it wants but the ultimate fate of the existence and quality of DR ecosystems will be decided by climate change and population density. Two big elephants in the room that some posters see and others choose not to see.
We are on track for a 3 to 5 degree rise in temperature in the next 7 to 10 years regardless of what we do to mitigate the rise. The effects are being felt from the Canadian Arctic all the way down to the Dominican Republic and beyond. Melting permafrost, the disappearing taiga and the migration of the boreal forests further North, the loss of arable land due to extended drought, drained aquifers, are some of the most visible and tangible impacts.
The DR is listed as one of the countries in Latin America most vulnerable to climate change, particularly the North Eastern areas. Despite what the government has committed to in their long term forestry planning and GHG emissions reductions, the DR ecosystems are going to change and not necessarily for the better. Extended periods of drought, salt water intrusion in overused aquifers, uncontrolled flooding, sediment loss from arable lands are just some of the problems the government currently has on its plate and are not going away.
What is very self evident is uncontrolled population growth impacts forests and farmland. Not just in the DR but worldwide. People need places to live and infrastructure like roads, water and electricity are necessary to support them. The DR has a large population in a relatively small geographical area. The densest areas are the two major cities that continue to expand unabated.
The reasons for the population growth are social and economic and have been discussed at length on this forum. Someone posted that the DR is one of the most promiscuous countries he’s ever lived in. That’s probably true. A large percentage of population that’s poor and uneducated are having the bulk of the babies, and have no access to public funded family planning programs. Other reasons for the large population growth I won’t go into because we can’t discuss them on this forum.
The DR is no different from other countries at the mercy of climate change. The one thing they can control is population growth to lessen the climate change impacts on the overall DR population but the political will to do that doesn’t exist.
Current research data from scientists in the US and Canada show definitively that we missed the window of opportunity to limit the rise to 1.5 degrees, the original intent of the Paris Accord. An accord many countries signed but failed to meet their GHG reduction commitments. The UN has confirmed this as recently as last week and more scientists are coming forward confirming the data.
The latest research also indicates the speed of the rise in temperature is faster than previously predicted. Last year produced record high temperatures. This year is not over and we had higher temperatures than last year. You can’t ignore temperature data. It’s one of the most tangible indicators of climate change and the speed of the change. There is no point in arguing about the cause. It’s a combination of natural and man made activities. It doesn’t matter what percentage is natural and what percentage is man made.
Regarding your bogus information comment, here’s an indicator of how ridiculous things are getting. There was a news item last week about a group of elite tech billionaires in the US who want to build their own gated (fortified) city in Northern California to survive the negative impacts of climate change. In other words, f—k everyone else, we will take care of our own. Shades of the Walking dead here Bob. Lol! Maybe the DR elite will do the same or head for greener pastures.
Some climate research sites now offer data on the best place to live to survive until 2050. Some of it is partially based on scientific research. The rest is questionable. I wouldn’t be in a rush to move to where they are suggesting.
Believe what you want to believe Bob. I’m not posting to change your opinion. Your and I are at an age where we can discuss the pros and cons of the climate change impacts, the validity of the research behind it, and not worry about it. The younger generations don’t have that luxury.
Well, the experts have been wrong more than 50 times on climate changes in the past century, so I will take with a large bowl of salt, any government funded experts guesses. When they move most of those sites where they are measuring to an area that doesn't have compromised data due to city environment of asphalt and cement, they will become more believable. Take a look at the summer temperatures in 1926 of the continental USA.
- Status