Whether or not consumers should boycott products derived from tropical deforestation is both an ethical debate, which is individualistic and geographical in nature, and , an economic debate. In other words, a country's ethical concerns and economic situation must be taken into consideration. On the one hand, boycotting tropical deforestation products may be an ethical solution to what is considered to many an unethical practice. It would help to conserve tropical rain forests and defer their exploitation. On the other hand, a country's economic situation must be taken into consideration. A given country may agree that boycotting is the ethical thing to do, however, boycotting is expensive and not an economically viable option for a struggling economy. Boycotts require significant funds, public support, organization and action. This can put significant pressure on struggling economies causing a snowball effect which would actually lead to more exploitation. One of the most useful things consumers in American can do about the problem of tropical deforestation around the world is to raise awareness. Educating people on the problem can help in tremendous ways. Often people don't help with certain initiatives because they don't fully understand them. However, a solution to the problem should also be given. Don't just throw another problem out there.
Content will be erased after question is completed.