Robins makes a clear distinction between political and apolitical ecology in his writing. He also outlines definitions of each from the past which help to lay the groundwork for the reader's understanding- that our understanding of these elements adapt as our view of the world grows.

Robins explains that the actors and agents of environmental decision making weigh the cost and benefits and that those decisions are made politically. Conversely, apolitical ecologists believe that the smaller systems cause environmental degradation rather than larger political forces. Moreover, the political climate makes no decisions that impact the environment.  

How I digest his explanation is this: illegal deforestation affects many rainforests worldwide, and some governments crack down on small operations who expolit small corners of the forest. However, those law enforcements don't target the illegal deforestation happening at a federal level. Those smaller illegal deforestation operations may be generating the only source of income they have, in a system where the government doesn't support their people. Apolitical ecologists may say it's the local loggers who are creating our global canopy cover loss, and the political ecologists would criticize the systems created to keep the small players as the culprits.

The video by VOX, The Destruction of the Amazon, outlines how the varied political parties who held office in Brazil implemented different plans for the forest. When party groups were more interested in beef and soy production, more land was cleared for agriculture. When reforestation became important to the government in the early 2000’s, that was where expenditure and efforts went. Moreover, when it suited them, the Brazilian President cut the ministry of environment's budget by 24% for 2021 (Rodrigues, 2021). This defunding ensures that illegal forestry practices will continue in the forests of Brazil despite the nation being a part of the UN and making attempts to meet the Sustainable Development Goals. 

The VOX video showcases parallel messaging to the WWF video in which the cause of deforestation in the Amazon is deforestation but by whom, it remains to be seen. I think that distinction is important because organizations like the WWF probably don't want to showcase particular countries and their environmental degradation, but rather show the problems as apolitical.

I believe It's important to recognize that the destruction of our forests is a political endeavor because most political agendas don't make contingency plans for the next generations. Most focused on a 4-8 year plan and to appeal to their voters and stakeholders. Our forests pay that price when political agendas lay the foundation for our environmental efforts. 

References

Rodrigues, M. (2021, December 20). To end illegal deforestation, Brazil may legalize it entirely, experts warn. Mongabay. Retrieved August 20, 2023, from https://news.mongabay.com/2021/12/to-end-illegal-deforestation-brazil-may-legalize-it-entirely-experts-warn/