I'm not sure what the author expects the rest of the world to do. Indonesia is a sovereign state that also claims to have a full fledged democracy and the rule of law. Surely they have all the tools to fix this problem.

The outside world has complained to Indonesia about these illegal fires for decades and each time Indonesia has said it would take care of it, giving assurance they will never happen again.

But as history has shown us, those assurances are worthless as those fires keep happening. And they keep happening, not not because the world does not care, but rather, the sovereign state of Indonesia is corrupt to the core.

Now, hopefully this time will be the last, only because this time around has been the worst ever and the Indonesia population is now being directly effected with multiple deaths and widespread suffering. The have a vote, they should use it.

But I doubt much will change, as those corrupt politicians will still be there this time next year.

Why don't the people of democratic Indonesia choose a president, a government that cares about pollution, cares about the lives?

The author may expect with more intense coverage from the renowned international media community, the government of Indonesia will pay more attention to the problem, and perhaps the government will take effective measures to tackle this problem.

Due to the coverage on air pollution of China from domestic and foreign media, especially on PM 2.5, the majority of Chinese people slowly become aware with the health risks posed by the air pollution. This put pressure on the Chinese government, and since then the government has promised to clean the air, and they really are taking steps to reduce pollution.

Indonesia is extremely corrupt, and as he points out the president has very little power.

It's well worth watching the film "the act of killing", though also incredibly depressing.

The best we could hope for is international pressure from other countries, especially it's neighbours.

Most important is that consumers try and avoid products that use palm oil unless ethically sourced (sorry, but no Nutella, Ferrero Rosche etc).

> The best we could hope for is international pressure from other countries, especially it's neighbours.

Southern-Asia isn't known for incorruptible democratic government either. They don't really pose any interest involving Indonesia's affairs.

As you correctly point out, incorruptible Southern-Asia governments seem to be the exception and not the norm.

Unfortunately, it also seems to be a government contagion that seems to be spreading.

I completely agree. Are they advocating that some western liberal democracy take over and run the place? That didn't work to well in the 18th century, and it doesn't work to well now. We don't have a "world government" and some unified thinking about "what is best", and as a result there are always places in the world where the people who are in a position to do something, are doing something despicable.

The author makes some suggestions.

> Our leverage is weak, but there are some things we can do. Some companies using palm oil have made visible efforts to reform their supply chains; but others seem to move more slowly and opaquely. Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results.

So you could contact those companies and let them know you will be boycotting them until they publicly announce steps to remove environmentally irresponsible suppliers from their supply chain.

Are small countries that allow lots of pillaging of natural resources political entities? Or are they more of a political face to the underlying corporate interests that need those resources? It might be more productive in that case to treat them as corporations and hit them in their wallets by hitting companies up the supply chain from them to get them to change behavior.

I'm just not sure how taking money away from companies and then telling them to do something more expensive is a solution.

Japan has a lesser but similar problem with hay fever.

It is costing a lot in healthcare, but those Cryptomeria japonica(杉) remains standing.

I cannot quite figure out why.

I think the author wants the developed nations to send in their fire fighting aid.

The first problem is these fires cover vast swaths of remote land, with no easy access for fire fighting.

Secondly, these are not your normal fire, but instead they are peat fires, meaning the fire is burning meters underground.

And because they are peat fires, they can only be extinguished using massive amounts of water, sufficient water to saturate the area at least a meter down.

And that raises the final problem. Such large volumes of water are just not available.

So these fires will keep burning until the arrival of the monsoon, when nature will finally deliver enough water put out the burning land.

They are.

"Singapore and Malaysia have sent aircraft to Palembang in South Sumatra to help Indonesia fight forest fires. (snip) Australia announced on Saturday that it was sending a Hercules air tanker and a rural firefighting team."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-11/singapore-...

Tragic. All of what you wrote is true for Europe too, just replace fire by flood (various kinds).

Because states, corporate powers, & hoarders of capital sweep systemic issues under the rug of their rhetoric...

Our cultural consciousness sees this as an isolated event, where the only party involved is Indonesia; meanwhile, we continue to invest in & buy their palm oil, made in the monoculture petro-chemical tradition.

Do not buy anything with palm oil in it. Find and buy shares of companies that are developing synthetic palm oil alternatives.

That's all I've got, apart from impotent fury.

Not sure that's a real solution. They will use that land to do something else, to fill another need, as long as they can get their hand on it, cheaply.

The forests will burn until they're all gone. Future generations will only know about them from pictures and stories. But hey, for one beautiful moment in time, a lot of shareholder value was created.

> The forests will burn until they're all gone.

I understand these are not really forest fires but peat fires.

You can say the same, of course, the peat will burn until it is gone. Difference is that the forest will regenerate very soon.

Did you really think that the forest was always there? Trees will burn and they will return.

Trees will return, but the forest won't. The new trees will be very different than the old trees, they won't be sitting on peat domes as they are now, there will be a different mix of animal and smaller plant species, etc. We've already been through this, on both coasts of the US, where old-growth forest was cut down and replaced by a totally different kind of forest. Most people don't even realize that what we have now is far from a natural state, with much lower species and ecosystem diversity or the robustness that comes with those things. "New trees will grow" isn't enough.

Of course the disappeared forest will not return, and of course the world doesn't look like what the world was 10 millions years ago. That's just a strawman argument. Also, obviously the government should still do something. Shit is going to happen, and we have learn to deal with shit. Whether forestation is achieved naturally or with human effort, that's okay. Deforestation is a huge problem I agree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/as-fires-grow-a-ne...

Do you know what a "strawman" is? It's attributing an argument to another, which I didn't do. You actually said that the trees will grow back, as though that's sufficient. I disagreed that it's sufficient. Now you're changing your tune, and trying to retcon my response to be a strawman. No, it's not. It was a direct and topical response to what you were saying at the time. Why don't you just admit your earlier statement was in error?

The forests are much much older than humanity. But we're on course to wipe them out. I agree with you, I also think they will return, once we've gone extinct.