Therefore when a major global company with an interest in developing the land for their own purposes waves a check at a government with little spending power, it is difficult for them to resist. If a country has a lot of money, it is easier to turn away the companies offering financial inducements to remove a beneficial resource. Although it is more financially beneficial long term to develop and harvest the resources for a continuing income, short term thinking dominates when you are already in debt to the world’s banks.

It is not just a story of governments with small budgets needing the money and reluctantly trading in resources for money, of course. In some cases, governments are just greedy. Whatever the case, though, the fact remains that until more companies are persuaded to spend their money more responsibly there will be many governments who are prepared to sacrifice the long term good of their country for financial expediency. It is to be hoped that there will be more green-friendly companies with the muscle and the initiative to ensure that rainforest resources are used correctly.

When you consider that there is so much we don’t yet know about the plants that grow in the rainforest, the fact that companies are cutting it down becomes all the more insane. Although it seems like an apocalyptic suggestion, the truth is that there could be cures for a wide range of potentially fatal illnesses simply being thrown away by short-term thinking. 121 different prescription drugs sold in the world come from plant sources. How many more might we already have let go?

For the fight against cancer, more than 3000 plants have been proven to act against this often fatal illness. Of those plants, 70% are present in the rainforest, and twenty-five percent come from organisms that can only be found in the rainforest. When you look at that fact, it is not only irresponsible to cut down the rainforests, it is desperately destructive in a way which can never be excused.

The environment, not least the rainforest, is in many ways our golden goose. It contains many valuable resources that, harvested correctly, can be financially beneficial to the countries and the companies with access to the rainforest. By cutting it down for a quick profit, you may make more in the short term – although even this is open to debate – but you will certainly affect your profits in the future. People need to take a longer view of situations.

We have one environment, one planet. And while selling off parts of that environment can make for a short-term gain, that is all it will be. Once you have traded away something that has an ongoing use, you will all of a sudden find that the price you got for it will not sustain you for long, whereas if you had kept it going and harvested what it gave you, you would have been sustained for life. This is the important message of environmentalism.

Recent statistics have shown that if rainforest land is converted to allow the raising of cattle, the land and operations will yield $60 an acre. If timber is harvested from the same land, it will be worth $400 an acre. However, if the same land is used for harvesting, taking its renewable resources in a sustainable way, it will yield more than $2400 per acre. So now who’s not living in the real world? Now who is standing in the way of progress?

The fact is that it is by pointing to the financial viability of saving the rainforests that the debate can be won conclusively. It takes a little bit more preparation to harvest natural resources than it does to cut them down and sell them off, that much is true. But once the preparation work has been done, there is only one side of the argument that is ignoring financial reality and it is not the environmental movement.

Among the more popular rainforest products are toiletries. Shower gels and bubble baths made from plants that grow in the rainforests often have a light, pleasant smell and are usually kinder to the consumer’s skin and hair. For these products to continue being made, it is necessary to preserve the environment from which they are taken – so a thriving business selling rainforest products can wield both business and environmental muscle, and contribute to the retention of natural resources.

Herbal medicines, too, are often made with ingredients harvested from the rainforest – ingredients which can only be found in this setting. As these medicines are often very beneficial and have fewer side-effects, they are an important part of the health industry. A thriving health industry with a strong herbal sector can only be a good thing for the environment, so it is worth voting with your wallet if you want to keep the environment from being plundered by less conscientious businesses. A few dollars more every once in a while can be all it takes.

Nonetheless, the environment is still an issue on which majority parties will campaign – a government with a poor record on the environment will struggle to win an election, as people fear that these parties are likely to care less about their safety and health. It is important for governments to strike a balance between enabling business to thrive and protecting the environment – and this is something that often goes wrong when there is money on offer to allow the rainforests to be plundered – a government which thinks short-term will be glad to take the money and let the businesses do what they want.

It is worth noting that you have a vote that can be used to remind the politicians that the environment is a serious issue – if pressure is placed on the people who make the rules, they are likely to think twice before making a short-term, expedient decision.

There is no doubt that a lot of people in the public eye do things for charity, or for the environment, because they feel it will give them a better profile and aid their publicity drives for their next film, their new album, or a book they are looking to sell. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the good work still gets done, and there are many people who actually do it because they think it is important. The publicity concern is only a problem when it begins to blur the boundaries between doing good work and saying that you are doing good work.

If a celebrity pays lip service to the work they are doing without actually doing anything, it makes people a lot more cynical about their motives and about the cause that they claim to be supporting. In that light, it is worth holding people to account over their claims to be working to save the rainforest. Watch what they do and what they say, and if they are genuine it is only fair to applaud them for what they are doing.

It is hard to get a multinational company to think this way. The short-termist way of looking at things is one that appeals to these companies because it allows them to meet their targets, pay their bills and take the biggest share of the market. When they have exhausted this natural resource, they will all be looking for another way of doing things – but they assume that something will turn up, and don’t particularly worry about what it will be.

This kind of short-termist thinking is damaging for the planet and for those companies, because assuming that something will turn up is no way to run a business for the future. Once the natural resources are gone, this planet will be struggling for a way to keep on an even keel, and the consequences for all of us could be dire. Many companies are now looking further forward, but the battle is far from won so we must keep a focus on the survival of the planet.

It has also been calculated that almost half of the different species of plants and animals in the world will come under threat from deforestation in the next twenty-five years. Although many of these species are relatively unknown to man, their contribution to the delicate balance of life on this planet cannot be overestimated. Throwing them away so that we can have cheaper fast food and certain other conveniences is a terribly short-sighted thing to do.

A fact often ignored is that there are tribes living in many of the world’s rainforests, and that over the last century we have already lost close to a hundred different tribes. By destroying a tribe’s habitat, pressure is placed on the people in that tribe, and this pressure passes on to other people and areas. Once the rainforests are gone, what will be next to disappear? It is incumbent upon us to let our industries know that short-term thinking will cripple us all in the end.

The most telling way to protest against an organization that contributes to deforestation is to hit them where it hurts – in their pocket. When an organization thinks it can do what it likes, when it likes, it will go ahead and do the thing that costs them less money and makes them more. So the sensible way to take them on is to boycott them and let them know why. Faced with consumer pressure, a company will often back down and look to do the thing that will preserve their good reputation.

It is true to say that it often costs more to do things the green way – this is an unavoidable fact of life. But as time goes on and the environmentally friendly way of doing things becomes the norm, it will become easier and cheaper for companies to be green, and to pass savings on to their customers. When faced with the realization that plundering natural resources is unsustainable, it is important to look at sustainable ways of doing things, even if that means a short-term financial cost.