Environmentalists fear for Burmese birds and trees

Burma's political situation is looking up. But what do the Google news hits show? How happy and optimistic people are about the future economic development of the country? Yes, but there are also more than one or two whiny articles showcasing fears about the effect of development on the environment. 

Here's an example: an article that begins by talking about some species of bird.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/82056/burma-environment-pays-price-of-development/

It says, "environmentalists view the country’s steps toward opening its doors with some fear."

I understand that major news events, such as the re-opening of Burma to the rest of the world, will get discussed from all angles. But I really can't understand why, in the scheme of things, people are worried about birds. That country is full of people. Not just trees that are being cut down by Chinese loggers or birds living in relatively untouched forests. Let's please focus on the effect of the changes on the Burmese people.

Yes, okay, human rights violations are mentioned too. After the mention of environmental destruction.

“The ‘development invasion’ will speed up environmental destruction and is also likely to lead to more human rights abuses,” says Pianporn Deetes of the U.S.-based International Rivers Network.

I am appalled at the use of the word "avoided" in this sentence: "Burma has avoided the rapid, often rampant development seen in Thailand and other parts of Asia because of decades of isolation brought on by harsh military rule." I would say, rather, that Burma has been shut off from opportunities to experience development. Shut off by sanctions originating in other countries.

Burma didn't so much turn its back on the world to "avoid" development as make do the best it could after the rest of the world turned their backs on it. The article even says as much: "years as an international pariah have left Burma poor and in need of foreign investment."

Foreign investors will be interested in Burma's natural resources. But environmentalists seem to want to keep them out: 

Robert J. Tizard, who heads the office of the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society in Burma [said] “It could be a curse that they have so many resources.”

A curse? Really? Is it better for Burma if it has nothing of interest to offer the rest of the world?

Ignoring the probable misuse of "decimated" here, I object to the use of "unsullied".

Thai companies, particularly in the 1990s, decimated teak forests in eastern Burma and are poised to become major players at Dawei, a deep sea port and vast industrial estate being built by Thailand’s largest construction enterprise, Italian-Thai Development. It has recently drawn protests by locals fearing pollution of what is now an unsullied region.

Burma is polluted by cooking fires, animal dung, and human waste because of lack of development. Yes, machinery pollutes. But it isn't as if machinery is the only thing that does. On balance, having machinery gives people a better quality of life than not having machinery. Otherwise why would the country be so eager to have what it currently lacks? Leave it to the developed world to decide, on behalf of Burma, that a port is a bad thing. Maybe it is, but not because a port would sully an unsullied region.

Another major gripe about this article is that the headline, "Burma’s environment pays price of development", makes it sound as if only the new-and-improved government is a danger to the environment, even though, farther down, the article talks about the damage that the old government allowed to take place.

Environmentalists say Burma’s government, which remains dominated by the military, has an abysmal record of protecting its resources, which are often exploited by enterprises linked to generals and their cronies.

The article even says how the outlook for the new government is potentially very, very good.

“You are going back to Thailand in the 1950s with a conservation practices of the 21st century, so there is a lot of opportunity to do it right,” Tizard says. “If they follow some of the best practices they could do incredibly well.”

So the headline and beginning of the article is made to shock and induce fear, though the article backs off and tries to sound balanced and happy at the end. I would point out that Journalists are taught the inverted-pyramid: put the most important information in the beginning because people don't always read until the end. That means readers of this article are meant to feel shocked and fearful, not optimistic. That makes this unconscionable reporting, in my opinion.

As for the best practices for sustainable development, I'm a fan as long as those best practices put the long-term interest of the Burmese people ahead of any other considerations. My fear is not that some species of bird will disappear, but that supposedly well-intentioned environmentalists will protect it at the cost of human lives and human happiness.