[HN Gopher] Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021
___________________________________________________________________
Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021
Author : carride
Score : 230 points
Date : 2022-07-19 13:16 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.batimes.com.ar)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.batimes.com.ar)
| m1117 wrote:
| It's about the same rate w/ how many americans die from firearms
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| People blame Brazil but I've met people outside Brazil who are
| like "Oh! Bonds!" "What kinds of bonds?" "High returns!" "Can't
| be government bonds then. Company bonds?" "Milk companies in
| Brazil!" Oh, cutting down the Amazon. Two parents I knew, this
| was like 18 years ago. It's been an emergency since the 1980's, a
| continual emergency. It's still an emergency.
|
| And I think they got fucked anyway, both of them. They thought it
| was a good investment because it was such a shitty thing to do to
| something so beautiful, thought the secret to luxury was
| cowardice (and it is), but guess what the promise of shitty
| person heaven where all the shitty people are so shitty to
| everything except you because you're so special so much in common
| with them, say the same things, have the same ideas, know the
| same people, have the same passwords what a coincidence, bump
| into each other in the strangest places, twins, so that
| means...uh...nah you know what, it's a better lesson learned the
| hard way. Getting fucked is critical to learning how not to get
| fucked. Walkthroughs are uh...well police departments have
| websites, there's books on the subject. And you can't con an
| honest John. Well there's a limit to that, you also have to be
| informed, you need both. And entertain moral dilemmas, moral
| experiments, or like play-act with friends, that will help out a
| lot. And good alternatives.
|
| Course the hard part is finding an alternative to that if you are
| conned. One way is to choose your second best choice. Not your
| first choice. Second choice. So then if the second choice starts
| getting shitty, stops whispering when you come around the bend,
| hey oh shit, guess the second choice school, say we're talking
| about Harvard 1 Yale 2, so Yale, really was second rank! I
| thought the 2 meant it was just as good, just another numeral
| from 1 to 10, like different days of the month! Wow, shit,
| wouldn't want to have to transfer to Harvard, that would suck,
| that was my first choice! Say I couldn't make it at Yale, damn!
| specialp wrote:
| The United States once had one of the largest forests on Earth.
| The Eastern Forest covered almost everywhere east of the
| Mississippi. 2,560,000 km2 of forest. Now it is largely gone.
| Replaced with farmland and sprawl. So it is hard to criticize.
| Even areas that are now heavily forested like Vermont were clear
| cut almost entirely by the turn of the century.
|
| The Amazon should be preserved, but to do that the world is going
| to have to pay. You can't tell a country you can't progress like
| the USA it is hypocritical.
| alimbada wrote:
| You are looking at this issue one-dimensionally. It is very
| easy to criticise given that we now know what the impacts of
| deforestation are a lot better than we did a century or three
| ago.
| hiidrew wrote:
| Thanks for sharing, wasn't aware. The timelapse here is quite
| evident
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States#D...
| pfdietz wrote:
| The eastern US forests cover 1.55 million km^2. So, no, it is
| not "largely gone". Granted, a considerable fraction of this is
| regenerated after being clear cut.
| coding123 wrote:
| You absolutely can and we have been doing so since, probably
| the 1970s. I think this hypocriticalness should continue. The
| world is FULL of hypocrtical shit and it doesn't stop of from
| trying to do what is right.
| flaviojuvenal wrote:
| Note this is probably a false dilemma. According to Brazilian
| federal police, the recent deforestation surge is caused by
| illegal logging, not agriculture or cattle raising. Source in
| Portuguese: https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/nacional/pf-grilagem-
| e-madeira-...
|
| Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 2000s while reducing
| Amazon deforestation.
| ratww wrote:
| That's a very important post.
|
| _> Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 2000s while
| reducing Amazon deforestation._
|
| Thanks for putting it into words in a way I couldn't.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_r
| a...
|
| I'm not sure its accurate though. The marginal rate of
| forest coverage loss seems to have dropped substantially
| since 2008.
| ratww wrote:
| Fine, that's even better then: it continuous decreased
| from around 2004-2014, when the country was really really
| growing fast and fine af, to the point it was able to
| totally ignore the 2008 financial crisis. Amazeballs.
|
| By the way the president from the first of those years is
| running in the next election. There's still hope.
| vitorbaptistaa wrote:
| Ilegal logging is the first step. Take down the valuable
| trees, burn the remaining, and finally start raising cattle.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| I'm pretty sure most of the damage was done before people
| realized the significance of deforestation.
|
| We certainly now know the impact of deforestation, and that it
| affects the entire planet.
| squarefoot wrote:
| It all depends on when it happened. We evolved as a species and
| what was perceived as normal way less than 100 years ago would
| be considered outrageous by today's standards. As an example,
| if you take 10 highly successful Hollywood movies from the
| 1950s, chances are that in 7 of them a woman is forced into
| kissing the male lead; do it today and your career is over. And
| we're talking about people, not trees. Back then we didn't know
| what damage we were bringing to the environment, now we do, so
| I think it's perfectly logical to call Bolsonaro a corrupt
| criminal while closing an eye on similar events from over a
| century ago.
| EGreg wrote:
| Why do governments not start an international reforestation /
| ecological fund and pay some of their GDP into it so that it
| would make economic sense for Brazil, Australia and others to
| preserve their forests, kelp, reefs etc. These carbon credit
| half measures are pitiful.
|
| Western governments pay part of their GDP for NATO, but
| defending against ecological collapse might be higher priority.
|
| Governments tax citizens by force all the time. If it's going
| to be used for anything, it should FIRST AND FOREMOST be used
| to coordinate large scale activity to mitigate negative
| externalities. And there's no bigger one than the ecosystem
| collapse we are starting to see around us.
|
| (Printing more money btw will only accerate consumption. There
| is very little thought to sustainability in most human economic
| systems.)
| coffeeblack wrote:
| With my idealists hat on: that would be great. Plus, it would
| suddenly make economic sense to build desalination plants and
| pump water into deserts and plant trees there.
|
| With my realist hat on: that money will disappear as quickly
| as dodgy ngo can write empty "project proposals". Trees will
| be planted, press fotos made, and trees will die. 70 years of
| "development aid".
| andrekandre wrote:
| > Why do governments not start an international reforestation
| / ecological fund and pay some of their GDP into it
|
| they are busy pouring their gdp into competing with one
| another...unfortunately,our current economic system is based
| on endless growth and competition instead of equity and
| cooperation; i doubt anything will happen until its too
| late...
| EGreg wrote:
| Exactly. Competition instead of collaboration means that
| organizations can't meaningfully get together and solve
| large externalities before it's too late. Same with wars.
|
| We need to get our governments to work together and get
| things done, as they did with the Toronto Protocol but over
| and over. The United Nations can work to implement
| software-like release cycles of more and more mechanisms
| that facilitate cooperation between countries, even as they
| bicker.
|
| Sadly, I do not think such solutions will be implemented
| top-down, and the bottom-up ones may take too long. But we
| can try !!!
| frozencell wrote:
| Optimizing profit since 1800. Didn't Napoleon sold Louisiana
| because of the consequences of Anglo-German bankers speculation
| on European economy?
| dataflow wrote:
| The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910, says
| Wikipedia. We didn't know nearly as much back then about the
| problems it would cause. So I'm not sure it's hard to criticize
| this when seeing it in 2022.
| specialp wrote:
| The USA could easily decide they would like to restore 50% of
| the forest by reclaiming farmland and exurbs and planting
| back trees. In 50 years it could be a large wild forest.
| Perhaps not old growth like before. So what is stopping this?
| It would cost a huge amount of money and drive food costs up
| dramatically. So even though it was not really as appreciated
| then to keep forests, it still is empty talk because nobody
| will pay to reverse those decisions as benefits are being
| reaped from it. So yes the USA is still not in a position to
| criticize without doing anything themselves or paying to
| preserve the Brazilian forests.
| juve1996 wrote:
| Brazil will face the same consequences as everyone else.
|
| They can be mad that other countries got rich in the past,
| or they can put their big boy pants on and preserve
| something that is just as critical to them (probably more
| so critical to them) as everyone else in the world.
| ajot wrote:
| Sure, but you can face the consequences with a higher
| development, or face them while also suffering from
| widespread poverty or malnourishment.
| ratww wrote:
| Nah. It's gonna be either both together or none at all.
|
| Like another poster mentioned, when Brazil was growing,
| deforestation was shrinking.
|
| The meme that the Amazon has to be destroyed for the
| country to grow is quite new. Please stop spreading it. I
| got people there.
| melling wrote:
| So, now that we know should we replace some portion of the
| trees?
| coryrc wrote:
| We are, up 2.6% from 1990 to 2010: https://rainforests.mong
| abay.com/deforestation/2000/United_S...
| dataflow wrote:
| Sure, I don't have a horse in this race.
| ratww wrote:
| > So it is hard to criticize. Even areas that are now heavily
| forested like Vermont were clear cut almost entirely by the
| turn of the century.
|
| As someone born in Brazil, I don't see why it's hard. Please
| criticise away. My country should be learning from the mistakes
| of others, not repeating them in order to favour some higher
| political caste.
|
| To quote flaviojuvenal below, _" Brazil had no trouble to grow
| in 90s and 2000s while reducing Amazon deforestation."_.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32152630
| lvass wrote:
| >mistakes
|
| Yeah, that's a very hard sell, when your country is in such a
| shameful state, your economy is hanging by a thread that's
| agriculture, and without it your currency would be so messed
| up you'd be unlikely to be able to pay for the device you're
| typing that on. When you pledge for your own country that's
| suffering from hunger to reduce agriculture, you're part of
| the problem.
| ratww wrote:
| What does it have to do with anything?
|
| Import oriented agriculture/livestock is not really serving
| the local economy or making the country grow. Like other
| poster said, _" Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and
| 2000s while reducing Amazon deforestation"_.
|
| People used to eat meat in Brazil every day, now even some
| middle class people had to reduce due to prices. The same
| goes for gas. That's because the economy changed heavily to
| favour primary sector exports at the detriment of every
| other activity.
|
| Agriculture and Livestock were benefited at the detriment
| of every other sector.
|
| EDIT: I wouldn't be able to even _dream_ about buying the
| device I 'm currently using if I were still working as a
| software engineer in Brazil, dude! I had to immigrate, as
| have about >60% of the co-workers I had in the last 10-ish
| years. The economical bullshit you're currently defending
| was shit even for people in well paying positions. However
| I was lucky, as my parents were immigrants themselves and I
| have foreign citizenship due to that. Some people weren't
| as lucky!
| lvass wrote:
| If you don't understand how the vast majority of goods
| made in your country helps your economy, you terribly
| need to read some economic theory. I suggest Adam Smith's
| The Wealth of Nations. Brazil didn't suddenly deinvest
| other sectors out of a whim, they became less relevant
| thanks to economic pressure. To assume otherwise is
| accusing the entire country of incredible stupidity,
| which is laughable when you demonstrate so much lack of
| knowledge.
| ratww wrote:
| Oh nice, more condescension. I'll let it pass. Here's a
| real reply:
|
| This might work in aggregate, but doesn't really help the
| average Brazilian, nor makes the country become
| developed. If the economic measures are only favouring
| the primary sector, the "vast majority of goods made in
| [my] country" is only making money for an extremely small
| part of the population. Plus, these measures are causing
| shrinkage of other sectors that actually would help the
| population richness grow.
|
| What is happening only favours people in the primary
| sector (which isn't really employing that much people
| despite continuous growth) and richer countries buying
| cheaply for us.
|
| Hypocrites who want Brazil to keep being a giant
| farm/ranch of the world selling cheap stuff are a problem
| as big as the country's government. Go away with your
| colonialism.
| lvass wrote:
| ratww wrote:
| Alright, so now it seems I want Zimbabwe-style Socialism
| in Brazil, whatever that means. It seems you're too busy
| putting words in my mouth to care about what I wrote, so
| goodbye I guess.
|
| EDIT: Rightfully flagged/dead and I didn't even had to
| flag it myself. Nice. There should be no room for this
| type of discourse on HN.
| is_true wrote:
| Think of it this way:
|
| The countries pointing fingers at Brazil all did the same to
| become more developed and to make their population richer,
| they just want to stop Brazil from doing the same so they can
| keep the prices of commodities they sell higher.
|
| They cheated but now don't want you to do the same in order
| to keep other countries in check, I mean, Europe is burning
| more and more coal, they are just a bunch of hypocrites.
|
| Fun fact: That "newspaper*" that published the article is
| from Argentina, which is destroying the "Chaco" region as we
| speak and burning large areas of wetlands to increase the
| area for growing cattle, a market in which it's competing
| with Brazil.
|
| Even thought the article is from another source, the BA Times
| belong to a company aligned with the Argentinian government
| which supports Lula in Brazil.
| 411111111111111 wrote:
| > _They cheated but now don 't want you to do the same in
| order to keep other countries in check, I mean, Europe is
| burning more and more coal, they are just a bunch of
| hypocrites._
|
| It's even worse in my opinion, because people here actually
| do seem to think that "the west" has it under control
| nowadays, which is one of the dumbest things I learned
| recently.
|
| There are so many factors which were omitted in order to
| create that misinformation, but there is only one thing you
| can trust the industry to do: suppress any information
| which could negatively impact them, even if it could very
| well become an existential threat ...
| jdasdf wrote:
| [deleted]
| ratww wrote:
| _> The countries pointing fingers at Brazil all did the
| same to become more developed and to make their population
| richer, they just want to stop Brazil from doing the same
| so they can keep the prices of commodities they sell
| higher._
|
| My point is that what made US/EU rich isn't what Brazil is
| doing. And even if it were, what makes a country rich
| pre-1900 won't exactly work in 2022. Brazilians could buy
| machinery from other countries. They don't have to go
| trough some mini industrial revolution again.
| rglullis wrote:
| The point is that every rich country _first_ became rich,
| _then_ started worrying about the environment.
|
| It _is_ hypocritical from rich countries to ask Brazil to
| stop deforestation if that means halting its economic
| development. If the rich countries really believe that
| preserving the environment is more important than the
| economy, then they need to either (a) pay underdeveloped
| countries to preserve their forests or (b) sacrifice their
| own economy and spend their own resources to re-grow their
| forest land. _Ideally both_.
| gassiss wrote:
| Brazil is a rich country though. It's considered 2nd world
| due to violence, income/wealth inequality and sanitation
| problems, which are mainly political and not due to lack of
| money
| rglullis wrote:
| Brazil is a top 10 economy _only_ because of its
| population size. Per capita, it sits smack in the middle
| of the table and is behind "poor" countries from Eastern
| Europe and the Caribean.
|
| Due to its inequality, I'd venture that a chart compared
| median income levels would put us below most African
| countries. Brazil _can_ be an amazing place to live if
| you are already wealthy (and if you are willing to live
| surrounded by private security and completely removed
| from the reality of the population at large), but no one
| in their right mind would risk trading their lives with
| that of the median Brazilian.
| ratww wrote:
| It's considered "3rd world" actually, as much as the term
| is a bit useless. The term "2nd world" is reserved to
| former Soviet-aligned countries.
| ratww wrote:
| And my point is that Brazil won't get rich by doing what it
| is currently doing. The primary sector won't enrich the
| general population or make the country more developed. Only
| some people favoured by the current government. That's
| what's currently happening, not some cuckoo theory.
| pibechorro wrote:
| You just described what basically goes on in every
| country.. some more blatantly than others.
| ratww wrote:
| Not exactly. What is happening now wasn't the reality in
| Brazil for some time before. Things _were_ getting
| better.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| Brazil _is_ rich though, and largely because of those
| things. The fact that such richness is so unjustly
| distributed across the population is an orthogonal
| problem.
| ratww wrote:
| Yep. But one way of distributing this across the
| population is by favouring other sectors rather than
| strangling them to favour the primary.
|
| The number of people working in the agricultural sector
| has only shrunk and will keep shrinking due to
| mechanisation/automation. The general population won't
| see the benefits of the primary sector growing, unless we
| have a Soviet-style wealth redistribution.
| is_true wrote:
| There's a lot of people working in that automation. That
| earn much more and make the country more efficient, more
| production means more jobs down the road.
|
| Also, countries like brasil don't export commodities just
| because they want, there 's a web of tariff to keep
| producing countries from industrializing those products.
| ratww wrote:
| _> There 's a lot of people working in that automation._
|
| Sorry for the pun, but Brazil isn't really reaping the
| benefits of agricultural automation to compensate for the
| issues being an exclusively primary-sector exporter
| causes. Automation scales very well. Also notice that I'm
| not saying Brazil shouldn't keep doing what it is doing,
| I'm saying that other more developed-country-ish sectors
| should be expanded too.
|
| _> Also, countries like brasil don 't export commodities
| just because they want, there 's a web of tariff to keep
| producing countries from industrializing those products._
|
| If that's the case, then saying "Brazil needs to import
| primary sector stuff before they grow fo' real like us"
| is even worse :) They want Brazil to suffer before it has
| a chance to become a developed country.
| is_true wrote:
| They don't want more developed countries. Period.
|
| Also, I don't know where you are from, but brazil has a
| healthy agritech industry selling know-how and technology
| to other countries.
| ratww wrote:
| The only people who "don't want more developed countries"
| are the people that want Brazil to keep being a primary
| sector exporter that suffers from Resource curse
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse).
|
| I'm from Brazil but I have lived abroad for a while. And
| what I said before doesn't negate the fact that Brazil
| has a healthy agritech industry. This industry still
| doesn't make up for the problems caused by the current
| policies. And one thing doesn't really negate the other.
| We don't have to kill the primary sector for others to
| develop.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| We can agree on that.
|
| My point was not that the current model is a good one,
| but rather that its problem is not one of generating
| wealth but rather one of distributing it, which you just
| demonstrated as well.
|
| I guarantee you, I was not defending the current focus on
| developing /latifundios/ at the expense of everything
| else.
| ratww wrote:
| Ah perfect, then we're in agreement.
|
| A lot of people assume I'm being a radical and saying
| Brazil should stop exporting meat/soy/etc. I'm not.
|
| What I'm saying is that Brazil needs is a plan that's not
| simply "keep fucking the country even though it's not
| really working".
|
| I'm not a fan of people from richer countries saying
| "Brazil should keep doing what it seems to want to do",
| because this is also way too favourable to them.
| cassianoleal wrote:
| I'm not a fan of richer (or poorer!) countries saying
| much of anything about what other countries should or
| should not do. :) Everyone is biased. Everyone is
| hypocritical to some degree. We should find common
| ground, not impose or be imposed on.
| ratww wrote:
| Agree.
|
| I think it's kinda easy to find common ground, but
| _everyone_ should be allowed a voice. With the "shut up,
| let Brazil destroy forests, we did it too", the only
| people that seem to be getting a voice are politically-
| correct privileged people from rich countries (who want
| to keep taking advantage of Brazil), criminals in Brazil
| destroying the forest and the corrupt current Brazilian
| government.
| rglullis wrote:
| The alternative to "not enrich the country" will be "make
| it even poorer and unequal than it already is".
| ratww wrote:
| Bullshit.
|
| Brasil has >70% people working in the service sector. The
| percentage of people working in agriculture has actually
| shrunk since the Lula years. Mechanization and automation
| will guarantee it keeps shrinking.
|
| The current economic measures are favouring only the
| primary sector to the detriment of others.
|
| I'm not even calling for ceasing imports of agricultural
| stuff, all I'm saying is that the current madness is
| already making the people poorer.
| rglullis wrote:
| It is _precisely_ because so many people working in the
| service sector that the country does not get rich. Doesn
| 't build any wealth, doesn't get to export anything.
|
| And also, it is not the amount of people working that
| determines how to enrich the country. It is the overall
| output. Brazil has nothing but the agro sector at the
| moment. To build a stronger industry, they need to come
| up with the resources from somewhere. And agro is as good
| as any of the alternatives.
| ratww wrote:
| Yes, and? My point is precisely that those people aren't
| going to start working in agriculture. The number of
| people working in agriculture is only shrinking, and
| there's several labour problems with agricultural work in
| Brazil that won't cause farm/livestock workers to see the
| money.
|
| I'm not suggesting people move to the services sector.
| rglullis wrote:
| > The number of people working in agriculture is only
| shrinking
|
| The number of people working doesn't matter. What matters
| is that the country gets _through_ agriculture the
| resources needed to invest in the other sectors.
| ratww wrote:
| In theory that makes a lot of sense. Truly. In reality,
| believing that and going froward with this plan was an
| immense setback to the country and the population.
|
| Europe/US/etc letting Brazil keep doing what it's doing
| is mostly helping Europe/US/etc at the expense of
| Brazilians and the environment.
| rglullis wrote:
| I am not arguing in favor of the US or Europe, and I am
| also not arguing that Brazil should keep putting down
| trees just to sell more soybeans for the US and China.
|
| What I am saying is that the rich countries need to quit
| their double standard. The EU keeps putting absurd trade
| barriers to protect their own farmers. The US subsidizes
| their corn farms, effectively killing the Brazilian
| industry for biofuels. European NGOs are financed to
| disparage Brazil's investments in hydropower, while
| depending on Putin for gas and coal.
|
| So, yeah, agro business is far from ideal, but now is the
| only feasible alternative for Brazil to come up with
| _any_ chance of development, and they will also work
| against _that_? I 'd be more than willing to listen what
| they have to say if they were setting the example...
| ratww wrote:
| Alright then we're in agreement.
|
| _> What I am saying is that the rich countries need to
| quit their double standard. The EU keeps putting absurd
| trade barriers to protect their own farmers. The US
| subsidizes their corn farms, effectively killing the
| Brazilian industry for biofuels. European NGOs are
| financed to disparage Brazil 's investments in
| hydropower, while depending on Putin for gas and coal._
|
| Oh, I agree with all that. That's an important post.
|
| _> So, yeah, agro business is far from ideal, but now is
| the only feasible alternative for Brazil to come up with
| any chance of development, and they will also work
| against that? I 'd be more than willing to listen what
| they have to say if they were setting the example..._
|
| I guess my whole point is that foreigners saying "we did
| it before to grow, Brazil should do it too" is
| nonsensical, hypocritical and very self-serving,
| precisely because of your second paragraph. At the same
| time, I'm ok with foreigners telling Brazil to stop
| cutting trees because it opens the door to us at least
| replying with something like the second paragraph.
| kmeisthax wrote:
| The thing is, "paying Brazil to not raze the Amazon" has
| already been tried and failed. The government sees it as a
| way to fleece rich environmentalists and has no interest in
| abandoning their meal ticket.
|
| Even if the government was aligned on keeping the Amazon as
| it was, they have their own enforcement struggles. Once an
| illegal developer has razed a plot of land, there's not
| really much the government can do to stop them. The damage
| has _already been done_. Even worse, by the time the
| government is even aware of a particular section of
| illegally cleared land, it 's already been sold off,
| developed, and has people living in it. The only option now
| is to either:
|
| 1. Grandfather in the illegal land
|
| 2. Forcibly evict and ruin the lives of people who bought
| into the illegal purchase so that the scarred land can
| remain fallow for decades
|
| Overwhelmingly Brazilian courts have chosen #1 over #2.
| Enforcement is too far behind land development to make any
| sort of "pay to save" scheme work.
| [deleted]
| mistrial9 wrote:
| two wrongs do not make a "right"
| specialp wrote:
| It doesn't and I am not advocating cutting down all the
| forests. But it is very easy to have had already done it,
| reaped the benefits of being an agricultural/economic
| powerhouse and then tell a developing country that was not
| good. Is the USA now reversing that mistake by turning
| farmland and sprawling suburbs back to forest? No. It could
| be done. It is just that will cost something to do. It is
| easier to tell someone else to not cut down their forest.
| That does not cost anything.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Timber and beef are not the significant chunks of the
| world's economy that they once were. There are alternatives
| now for consumers and for economic planners.
|
| Alternatives that don't lead to future death of entire
| ecosystems and the impoverishment of large sections of the
| world's population.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| Same goes for Europe.
|
| We love to point the finger at Brazil and other developing
| countries, while profiting for centuries from deforestation of
| our own territory.
|
| Maybe we should simply plant 18 new trees per second in the
| West?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Yes. Use eminent domain to crawl back the suburbia. Pay
| people what is the value of newly forested land. Then provide
| them some living place few square meters is proven to be
| enough by examples in East Asia.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| Could you explain why you want to grow trees on the 1% of
| land that has housing on it, instead of on the 99% of land
| that hasn't?
| Ekaros wrote:
| Because every bit helps and everyone should be ready to
| make some minor sacrifices for the planet. After all they
| are asking others to die from hunger.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| Because grass, one of the the world's most well tended
| and sprawling crops, doesn't help feeding people near as
| much compared to the other 99% of the land that isn't
| "housing".
| throwaway6734 wrote:
| The modern situation is different though. All those trees
| were used to bootstrap the current level of technological
| progress that Brazil doesn't need to do.
|
| Ideally wealthier countries would purchase/subsidize these
| areas so they don't need to be logged
| ratww wrote:
| Yep. Brazil doesn't need to go trough another industrial
| revolution. Germany is happy to sell machines to Brazil.
| beeforpork wrote:
| Killing the Amazon is a crime. Nothing done in the US or
| anywhere else changes that, regardless of whether that was a
| crime, too.
|
| It is also not hypocritical unless you personally cut down a
| tree, or unless you believe in the collective responsibility of
| nations. I don't think 'the Brazialians' are responsible for
| killing the Amazon -- it's probably a minority of people and we
| shouldn't care which nation they belong too. This is a serious
| global problem, and it accidentally happens in some country.
| Neither collective blame nor collective shame will help. This
| problem must be criticised.
| ajot wrote:
| Well, crimes should not go unpunished, and if we can, revert
| the wrongdoing.
|
| What are US or Europe citizens, NGOs and governments doing to
| restate their forests to, at least, their pre-industrial
| magnitude? Recover your environments before lecturing and
| chastising us third world humans.
| impeplague wrote:
| Recent US elections made the people almost freak out because of
| the suspected Russia influence. In every developing country, not
| only Brazil, this is the norm and not the exception.
|
| Bolsonaro's election received heavy support from the
| international (and national) finance sector. They projected a
| higher gain under his government. And most of these people are
| from developed countries.
|
| People from rich country may not be really aware that the
| commodities come from somwere. The recent Russian war sure made
| this more clear. Developing countries are locked in that role.
|
| If a country like Brazil, Russia or China reduces significantly
| its exports, everyone living costs rise. This is obviously true
| for high technology goods, but while you can survive with no
| smartphone, you can't with no food and energy.
|
| I'm talking about this most obvious stuff to make this point:
| rich countries exports their poverty. USA still has a firm hand
| on the entire continent, and will not let it go, Brazil included.
|
| As someone from Brazil, I really hope BRICS+ continues to grow.
| While the G7 can easily suffocate small dissidents, a entire
| block can not be. Sanctions against Russia stared to make
| European governments fall, what happens if you sanction half the
| world population?
|
| I'm reserving judgment in the Russia's war in this post, becase
| most of these implications don't depends on who is right.
| Gravyness wrote:
| What about 2020, and 2019? I'm more interested in the trend than
| in the absolute number.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Those saying this is an "unavoidable" catastrophe and inevitable
| consequence of economics are being selective about history.
|
| We've taken strong conservation and violent prevention measures
| before against ecological practices of sovereign nation states
| that are detrimental to our lives.
|
| Perhaps the only 'successful' part of the US "war on drugs" was
| coca eradication [1], including the use of biological warfare
| (pests), herbicides and crop burning. We probably would have
| napalmed the Afghan poppy fields, but in the end the Taliban did
| it for us.
|
| The ivory trade is almost extinguished, let's be honest, not
| because we stemmed demand but because we were prepared to shoot
| the poachers. It's no secret the SAS operated "free-fire" in
| those parts of Africa, also training locals on "man hunting".
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca_eradication
| 01acheru wrote:
| If those living in high income countries don't support poorer
| countries to keep their forests healthy complaining about them
| being chopped is hypocritical.
|
| I live in Italy, the Po Valley I live in was a marshland with
| lots of centenarian trees. Since Roman times marshes have been
| drought and most of the forests were chopped to make room for
| agriculture (and to build Venice, which sits on millions and
| millions of trees).
|
| I recently went to Portugal, where most forests have been chopped
| and substituted with huge eucalyptus or cork oak monocultures.
|
| The same goes for France, Germany, etc.
|
| We destroyed our environment so we could have progress. Now we
| understand that the environment is precious and must be taken
| care of, so it's up to us to pay other countries to preserve
| their environment. This money will eventually be used to buy
| "progress" and end on our pockets once again so it's not even a
| bad deal economically speaking, it just takes the will (which is
| lacking almost anywhere).
| emadabdulrahim wrote:
| I'm from one of the so called poor countries and let me tell
| you, we aren't that poor. We just have much much higher levels
| of corruption and static generational wealth. Add to that
| extremely selfish and poor planning from politicians at the
| top.
| 01acheru wrote:
| Static generational wealth, corruption, selfishness and poor
| planning are incredibly common in high income countries too.
|
| My father is Brazilian and I lived there for almost ten
| years, from mid 90s to mid 00s, and indeed Brazil as a
| country is not that poor: if you could split the GDP equally
| amongst the population. Since this is not the case in reality
| there are millions and millions well below the poverty line
| and this is what makes a country a poor country, a country
| where a lot of people are poor.
|
| When you have a lot of poor people many things go out of
| control, and also taking advantage of poor people is a piece
| of cake for those at the top of the money pyramid.
|
| Deforestation in Brazil will not stop unless farmers and
| locals that live around the Amazon (or other green areas such
| as the Pantanal or the now almost destroyed Mata Atlantica)
| get paid to not touch it, help it regrow and pursue different
| agricultural styles or different crops. The Brazilian
| government doesn't have the money to do that even if
| corruption went to zero and private entities will not act
| since in most cases they are the ones fomenting
| deforestation.
|
| The only hope for South American forests to thrive is foreign
| intervention: local governments won't act, local corporations
| won't act and most of the local population is simply too poor
| to care.
| linuxftw wrote:
| They're just doing what other continents did hundreds or
| thousands of years ago. If you want to save the forests, make
| them economically more valuable than converting them into other
| uses.
|
| If there's 100M iphones in the world that retail for around $1000
| each, that's $100B dollars. We could have invested that money
| into building some kind of park that welcomes visitors. No,
| instead we chose as a society to take pretty photos for instagram
| for fake internet points.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| They have a value that greater than just their economic value!
|
| The environment created us, we created economics. It's an
| artificial concept that will never capture the true value of
| nature.
| linuxftw wrote:
| > They have a value that greater than just their economic
| value!
|
| Then investing at the economic value would be profitable, and
| people should clearly do this.
| m_a_g wrote:
| lvass wrote:
| Tell me how well preserved your forests are.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_forests_of_th.
| ..
| sremani wrote:
| my main man, Brazil feeds a lot of people outside its borders.
| I am not fan of Brazilian agriculture and its intense
| practices. If you live in USA, Brazil is a competitor albeit a
| dinged one, but if you go on sanctioning countries that provide
| food and fertilizer around the world, people are going to die
| and nations are going to collapse in matter of months not
| years.
|
| Be careful what you wish for, it can come true.
| contrapetista wrote:
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| The documentary "Surviving Progress" has a part that covers the
| situation in the Amazon. This is an extract of it.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jeA7u5paQQ
| acraabrazil wrote:
| In the Amazon Region of Brazil
|
| - We integrate advanced agroforestry restoration systems
|
| - Provide people living here with greater self-sufficiency and
| economic prosperity
|
| https://acraabrazil.org/about
| theropost wrote:
| So, lets fund the planting of 20+ trees per second to help
| counter-balance it. Someone can plant around 200 trees per day
| with basic tools (lower end - some can do upward of 1000) but
| lets go with the lower number.
|
| 24 hours per day X 60 minutes X 60 seconds X 20 trees per second
| = 1,728,000 trees per day = 8640 people required
|
| This certainly seems feasible - we just need the economics to
| justify it.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Maybe countries criticising Brazil should raise down their
| suburbs and plants even more trees there.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| The 500 IQ comment in its full glory.
| Gravyness wrote:
| Is the person you commented ugly too, or do you have an
| argument better than calling someone an imbecile?
| slowhand09 wrote:
| Interesting comments below. Just some food for thought.
|
| Fertilized, less land is required to grow equivalent quantities
| of crops.
|
| Petroleum products, especially natural gas is a raw material as
| well as fuel for nitrogen fertilizer production.
|
| Higher petroleum prices mean higher fertilizer prices. Higher
| fertilizer prices mean higher food prices.
|
| Scarcity increases prices. Worldwide food production is down for
| many reasons: weather, war, disease, lack of workers, inflation,
| and cost to fertilize. Expect prices to rise, significantly more
| than they have.
| pfdietz wrote:
| Or, PV will continue to crash in price, electrolytic hydrogen
| will get cheaper than SMR hydrogen, and fertilizer will remain
| cheap. The big concern with fertilizer is not so much energy
| use, btw, it's N2O emission.
| gonational wrote:
| In the 2.7 million square miles of rain forest, 114 miles[1] were
| lost.
|
| That's 0.004% - huge.
|
| 1. Assuming 1 tree per 100 square feet.
| agumonkey wrote:
| on the other hand there's a video of a guy planting one tree per
| minute here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbA-hoIuHM4
| hu3 wrote:
| If we really care about what happens in Brazil we should offer
| economically viable solutions rather than pointing fingers and
| accusing them of doing something that we did in the past for a
| long time.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| There are only four economically viable solutions:
|
| 1) Boycott or put drastic tariffs on Brazilian meat and soy,
| aka the products that are made out of the areas which were
| former rainforest. The problem: China won't give a fuck about
| Western sanction and Bolsonaro and his goons will happily sell
| to them (aided by the fact that China still has issues with pig
| fever in their domestic meat production).
|
| 2) Pay off Bolsonaro and his goons. That stops the destruction,
| but provides a fascist dictatorship with even _more_ money.
|
| 3) Hope for Lula to win in the elections in October. The
| problem: Bolsonaro may manipulate the election to stay in
| power, either in front (by having Lula arrested or preventing
| him from campaigning, public debates etc.) or afterwards
| (outright vote manipulation). Or he might legitimately win
| despite his current lag in the polls, which makes the situation
| even worse than it already is.
|
| 4) Have the CIA do what they have a lot of experience in: get
| rid of Bolsonaro and his goons, either by abducting him and
| hold him to trial in the US similar to drug barons or by
| permanently eliminating him. That would be the cleanest way and
| send a signal to other criminal destroyers of nature, but
| without a whole lot of effort the resulting power vacuum may
| destabilize the region even more than it already is.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Trying to effect a regime change of a G20 member nation with
| a population of over 200 million? Yeah, can't see how that
| could backfire at all...
| dormento wrote:
| Echoing the comments of fellow brazilian brethren in this
| thread: "As a Brazilian, I would be completely ok with
| that." /s
|
| (And after yesterdays shameful meeting with the embassies,
| I only say this half-joking...)
| collegeburner wrote:
| "regime change is bad except when it's for a reason i like"
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| Quite scary to see Americans still thinking like this.
| Surely this explains the country's many fuckups in this
| century, e.g., Afghanistan and Iraq.
| [deleted]
| Smithalicious wrote:
| I really don't think the CIA should be the global judge, jury
| and executioner. I don't think the US assassinating the
| leader of one of the world's largest countries to "send a
| signal" is conductive to world peace.
| softcactus wrote:
| Economically we should think of it like this:
|
| Our early industrialization contributed massively to global
| warming. It allowed us to become extremely wealthy, but also we
| incurred a "carbon debt" to the rest of the planet, since our
| atmosphere is a shared resource.
|
| Now that others are trying to industrialize, we should repay
| that "carbon debt" to offset the cost of allowing them to
| industrialize cleanly, since we had the benefit early on of not
| having to worry about our impact on the environment. The gains
| that we made early on were at everyone's expense.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| There is definitely a debt, but primary industries aren't
| what they were when Europe and North America were
| deforesting. To use that an a justification now is a weak
| argument when there are alternatives that would add more
| value to the economy.
| ratww wrote:
| As someone born in Brazil, I'm tired of this condescending
| bullshit.
|
| There are several economically viable solutions, but Brazilian
| government should be interested in pursuing them, rather than
| only pursuing things that only benefits the current friends of
| the government (such as deforestation).
|
| US/EU/etc forcing Brazil to get its shit together would be
| BETTER for the population. We don't need the deforestation to
| progress. Quite the opposite.
|
| If Brazil were to wage a war on another country, would it be
| fine just because Europe/US also did it in the past?
| hu3 wrote:
| > There are several economically viable solutions...
|
| Such as? The sheer scale of what Brazil feeds to the rest of
| the world would hardly accommodate for "several economically
| viable solutions".
|
| 2020 paper about the issue:
| https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2003270117
|
| You can't simply tell a third-world country to halt a major
| part of their economy.
| ratww wrote:
| I answered somewhere else.
|
| Brazil being a major exporter of only primary sector goods
| isn't doing the population of the country any favours.
|
| _> If people from other countries really want Brazilian
| economy to get off the ground, they should want Brazil to
| export processed and manufactured goods, or other sectors._
|
| _> Treating Brazil like a big farm is doing neither Brazil
| nor the environment any favours._
|
| _> The "We should't criticise Brazil" is not only
| hypocritical, it's also counter-intuitive._
|
| It's not about halting a major part of its economy. It's
| about not fucking up the rest of the economy only to
| accommodate a sector that isn't doing that much good for
| the greater part of the population.
|
| China/EU/US actually love the cheap meat. The "let's not
| criticise" is as self-serving as it gets.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Yes, we can and do every time we tell country that its drug
| production is bad for the rest of the world.
|
| There is no moral reason not to intercede here, if suitable
| compensation and incentives are provided.
| roflc0ptic wrote:
| This is also "sins of the father" style reasoning. The fact
| that other people did a thing in the past doesn't mean I
| agree or support it. I have ancestors who fought with the
| confederacy; does this mean I shouldn't be opposed to human
| trafficking in 2022? I think that would be an unreasonable
| jump to make.
| ratww wrote:
| Exactly.
|
| This is a very weak argument for something that is so
| damaging as letting the forest be destroyed for what is
| virtually zero economical gain to the population.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Why should we also not point fingers? Deforestation fell
| dramatically under Lula while inequality fell and the economy
| grew quickly.
|
| What "we" did in the past means environmental protection should
| be subsidised by the west, but our history doesn't let Brazil's
| government off the hook.
| orbital223 wrote:
| Both deforestation and inequality fall when the economy does
| better and rise in times of economic crisis.
|
| The economic improvement "under" Lula was mostly due to
| international factors (the boon in the price of commodities)
| which is why it collapsed under Dilma (Lula's protege).
|
| Instead of using the economic surplus that fell into his lap
| to invest in infrastructure and industrialization, Lula used
| it to fund the largest corruption scheme in our history.
| cauefcr wrote:
| Well, just you wait for the 100 year Bolsonaro bullshit
| censoring of his government corruption
| https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2021-08-08/cem-anos-de-
| prot... to be lifted, and such number is likely to be
| updated, and also, Lula did not get convicted.
|
| Edit: trickle down economics has no basis in reality
| either.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > we should offer economically viable solutions rather than
| pointing fingers
|
| while i agree with you, i cant think of anything off the top of
| my head...any ideas?
| ratww wrote:
| The current government is heavily favouring the export of
| primary and finite resources.
|
| If people from other countries really want Brazilian economy
| to get off the ground, they should want Brazil to export
| processed and manufactured goods, or other sectors.
|
| Treating Brazil like a big farm is doing neither Brazil nor
| the environment any favours.
|
| The "We should't criticise Brazil, let them do what we also
| did before" is not only hypocritical, it's also counter-
| intuitive and very self-serving!
| mbg721 wrote:
| If Brazil is a big farm, is Argentina a big ranch? Or is
| there less of a difference than I'm perceiving?
| ratww wrote:
| I can't speak for Argentina, but Brazil is a farm/ranch
| mix, I guess. We do both.
| ErikVandeWater wrote:
| They have economically viable solutions. They're just not
| politically viable because the current system is designed for
| the profit of wealthy cartels.
| amelius wrote:
| Politicians don't care about long-term problems. This is what
| we should fix.
| goatcode wrote:
| This of course applies to all environmental issues, both
| foreign and domestic. There would be a lot more partnership and
| a lot less animosity if we universally adhered to your notion.
| We might actually get something done!
| panick21_ wrote:
| There is a good talk by an economist who basically said he
| was all exited to learn about optimal solution to those
| problems and then he went to a meeting where farmer were
| basically fighting people who wanted to reintroduce wolf. And
| he realized nobody cared how the optimal solution.
|
| Since then he works on trying to come up with solution that
| doesn't lead to the two groups trying to lynch each other.
| cute_boi wrote:
| Well, this is a common problem. Most of us don't care about
| each other if there are costs. We mostly care about self
| interest due to inner greed.
| goatcode wrote:
| Very true -- even among those who put on a facade of
| altruism. Those who are extreme about it have often had
| other motivations, and it ultimately boiled down to
| selfishness (either for material resource or personal
| safety, or for social rewards for appearing a certain
| way). It truly is sad!
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Agree. Imagine outsiders telling you that half your country is
| untouchable. I wonder if some future carbon credit system could
| pay them for the carbon sequestration that the Brazilian Amazon
| provides.
| Ekaros wrote:
| And those countries really aren't making their own cities
| much much much denser and replanting trees in freed up
| space...
| ratww wrote:
| _> Imagine outsiders telling you that half your country is
| untouchable_
|
| As a Brazilian, I would be completely ok with that. We can
| handle people telling us those things.
| Aerroon wrote:
| > _As a Brazilian, I would be completely ok with that. We
| can handle people telling us those things._
|
| Would you? Because this would absolutely escalate from
| words to actions. I could foresee this leading to quotas
| that if they're not met carry economic sanctions with them.
| That doesn't improve Brazil, does it?
|
| Sovereignty means that _nobody_ outside of Brazil gets a
| say without offering something major in return.
| ratww wrote:
| _> That doesn 't improve Brazil, does it?_
|
| I happen to believe that it does.
|
| In the worst case, we get to keep the forest.
|
| _> Sovereignty means that nobody outside of Brazil gets
| a say without offering something major in return._
|
| First world countries used to give us money for keeping
| the forest but the current government (prior to 2019,
| "the annual donations to the Amazon Fund have amounted to
| nearly $1.3 billion" [1]). We could get back to that.
|
| However I also happen to believe that, at best, the
| deforestation part is not important for Brazil's economy
| at all.
|
| Several others have mentioned [2][3] (and I agree with
| them) that the deforestation part is actually _damaging_
| to the economy and to the livelihood of law-following
| Brazilians, and is borne out of illegal activity.
|
| The current government could just start following the
| (Brazilian) law and the issue would disappear. Ah, but
| police is expensive, you say. Well, they could have used
| the 1.3 billion from EU/US. Maybe a new government will
| be able to get that back, one can only hope.
|
| [1] https://gizmodo.com/big-donors-are-pulling-out-of-
| brazils-am...
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32154495
|
| [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32152630
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| >As a Brazilian, I would be completely ok with that.
|
| Well, that's your view, and you have the right to have it.
| But, it's likely that the majority doesn't agree.
|
| Besides, if you ask me, outsiders that tell a country to
| not cut down their forests for economic/monetary purposes
| should pay for that privilege. That's not to talk of the
| arrogance of outsiders telling someone what to do.
| ratww wrote:
| Brazil is a "grown up" country. We can handle criticism.
| We don't need people being condescending to us about what
| others can or can't say to us. Let us brazilians defend
| ourselves, please?
|
| Another reason I'm fine with criticism is because the
| people saying "let Brazil deforest, we also did it" are
| the ones being favoured by Brazil fucking up the country.
| Europeans/Americans/Chinese are enjoying cheap Brazilian
| primary sector imports to the detriment of the rest of
| the Brazilian population.
|
| I also completely disagree that in 2022 Brazil will turn
| into a developed country by being a colony.
| Pmop wrote:
| I live close and know people who livelihoods depends on that
| forest. Believe it or not, it's not the farmers or loggers fault.
| Their livelihoods depends on that forest. Farmers depend on the
| rain cycle. Loggers depend on the forest staying healthy, so new
| trees grow so they can keep their business going. Illegal logging
| does happen but it isn't their fault exclusively either.
|
| The root cause is illegal occupation and settlement of land.
| People invade other people's land, often federal land, they cut
| down all of the trees, they burn it down, so they can clear it to
| set up makeshift camps. They then split and sell the land. Once
| there are people living on it, it's pretty much a lost cause due
| to how loosely enforced private ownership of land is, specially
| federal land. Also, it's a lucrative business, and involves
| corruption in all levels. People affected by it, like loggers who
| lose their property and livelihoods can hardly do anything, since
| the invaders will often get violent and the State wont do
| anything.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| that seems like a situation where one should fight fire with
| fire.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Just to be clear, you're advocating for setting fire to
| people's homes?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| No, I'm advocating maintaining tactical parity. 'fight fire
| with a fire' is a fairly common metaphor for reciprocal
| action.
| guilherme-puida wrote:
| I really want to see some sources to those claims.
|
| Illegal farmers and loggers have no interest in preserving the
| forest. They can just completely destroy some area, then move
| around to another one and start it all over again. Even farmers
| don't want to spend too much time in the same place if they can
| help it, the soil in the Amazon isn't that good for farming
| after a few harvests.
| Wertigoyr wrote:
| There are plenty of satellite picture showing deforestation
| without people living on it.
|
| Any further sources?
| skilled wrote:
| It's not unheard of that in Africa many groups/tribes form
| together to fight back against poachers. Is there anything like
| this happening in the Amazon rainforest?
|
| And if no, then why not? Do people think a politician with his
| fancy suit is going to step his foot into the swamp to try and
| meet halfway?
|
| These assholes are literally destroying the world and the human
| race is none the wiser....
|
| I sometimes wonder what would happen if rather than trying to
| evolve on a technological level, humanity evolved to protect and
| harmonize this world.
|
| Holy shit it's not even funny the level of ignorance that
| permeates topics of destroying the Earth.
| zach_garwood wrote:
| There have been fights between Amazonian tribes and landowners.
| The tribes are relocated (or killed).
| dormento wrote:
| We had deaths reported just this week, by Sonia Guajajara who
| represents one of the most prominent indigenous people's
| association and is running in the next elections.
|
| The thing is, in the end, its often poacher/miners shooting at
| unarmed people, often in the middle of the jungle, far away
| from the effective jurisdiction of whoever else would care. And
| the very insitutions that could oversee and act to prevent
| violence have been sistematically dismantled by the current
| fascist-in-chief, either by removing key people or by being
| financially strangled.
|
| But hey, at least now you won't lose your license for speeding
| and buying ammo is easier than ever.
| vitorbaptistaa wrote:
| Of course. The local tribes are fighting the invaders since
| 1500.
| guilherme-puida wrote:
| > It's not unheard of that in Africa many groups/tribes form
| together to fight back against poachers. Is there anything like
| this happening in the Amazon rainforest?
|
| There is. People just get killed and everything is swept under
| the rug.
| rodolphoarruda wrote:
| Wood extraction in the Amazon is a crime. It's aggravated crime
| if done in indigenous lands. It's aggravated even more if done
| for illegal mining activities. The state police (civil and
| military) from the various Brazilian states that compose the
| Amazon forest has the legal obligation to investigate and arrest
| criminals within the region. The problem is the region is just
| too big. But let's assume that somehow all those criminals lose
| their ability to profit on the product of their crimes
| altogether, within a 5 to 10 years time span, all the vegetation
| would be naturally restored. The Amazon forest is unstoppable.
|
| I live in the state of Sao Paulo, far from the Amazon forest, and
| the vegetation here requires a lot of work to be tamed. If you
| leave an empty allotment 2 or 3 months without any care, you will
| get knee height grass and all sorts of "exotic" plants coming out
| of the ground. The Amazon is orders of magnitude more aggressive
| than this one.
|
| So once you stop the illegal activity, the forest will come back.
| The problem is not the forest, but the people -- indigenous or
| not -- affected by the illegal activities. Recently we saw
| headlines about the murder of two people in the region, an
| activist and a journalist. So many others have died when they
| crossed paths with criminals. This is a humanitarian problem
| before an ecological problem.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| The problem is that the current government doesn't WANT to
| investigate and arrest criminals. They cut funding, merged
| environmental protection and indigenous affairs into the
| agricultural ministry. This is well documented.
|
| The forest is on the edge of becoming a net carbon producer for
| the first time. This doesn't simply reverse when it regrows
| from some saplings. Its capacity to create clouds to replenish
| water is already heavily compromised. When that stops this
| simply doesn't reverse. When you burn sections without first
| clearing it of its animal populations they perish, destroying
| the ecosystems that often needs animals to help germinate new
| trees. The mercury used for illegal gold mining doesn't just go
| out of the river and back into the bottle. Billions of animals
| die from these actions and the results will be irreversible.
|
| To call the Amazon unstoppable, to say that the humans that are
| dying is the real problem, smacks of the ignorance that has led
| us to this point.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > The forest is on the edge of becoming a net carbon producer
| for the first time.
|
| Forests in general are stable - _carbon neutral_, unless
| disturbed. Oceans are where most of the Earth oxygen is
| converted from CO2.
|
| The real reason why Brazil needs to save the Amazon, for
| South America, is water supply - rain forest induced water
| evaporation is main source of water for the Rio de la Plata
| basin - where several of the biggest and developed cities in
| the South America are.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > But let's assume that somehow all those criminals lose their
| ability to profit on the product of their crimes altogether,
| within a 5 to 10 years time span, all the vegetation would be
| naturally restored. The Amazon forest is unstoppable.
|
| Recent research points out that the Amazon (and in fact most
| Earth's supposedly wild) rainforest is a elaborate example of
| centuries of forest bio-engineering, and it doesn't simply
| recover if abandoned; decaying into desert instead. Further
| bio-engineering would be required to repair it to it's
| "original" state.
| niahmiah wrote:
| Unless you live there, there is nothing you can do about it.
| Nothing to hack, no news.
| spillguard wrote:
| I'm not sure I agree with this point. What if this news article
| is the spark that inspires someone to hack together a solution
| for awareness of the issue? Or maybe create an alternative for
| some of the imports that the Amazon is being cut down to
| create? This issue may be happening in Brazil, but it affects
| everyone (as the forest is a major carbon sink) and can
| definitely be affected by others, given time.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| Even if you live there, there is probably not that much to do
| about it. Too much money involved
| 9dev wrote:
| Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether
| some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or
| responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity.
|
| Specifically, I would like to question if Brazil can or even
| should be trusted to handle the Amazon forest in a responsible
| manner. Over the past decades, objectively, it has shown that the
| country, or maybe primarily its government, doesn't: The forest
| is continuously decimated, ever faster, with full and open
| support by the government itself.
|
| Considering that the Amazon is of broader concern than just
| Brazil's jurisdiction alone, would it -- and I'd include other,
| similar areas around the globe here too -- make sense to move
| administration to a more responsible body, the UN for example
| (not specifically the UN, but you get the idea)?
|
| This may sound offensive to you for all kinds of reasons,
| especially if you're Brazilian, and I sincerely apologise for
| that. But please consider that maybe the challenges ahead of
| humanity as a whole require new solutions, new ways to think
| about who "owns" land?
| Aerroon wrote:
| And how many millions of people are you willing to kill for
| this? Because you're essentially suggesting that the rest of
| the world should invade and occupy the _sovereign_ territory of
| a nation with 200 million people.
|
| There is a snowball's chance in hell that anybody would
| willingly agree to this. Any kind of scheme you can come up
| with is guaranteed to cause more issues that will harm
| Brazilians.
|
| Other people telling you how to live your life is a recipe for
| disaster. One that we've seen over and over again.
| ElectricalUnion wrote:
| > Maybe, and this is a big maybe, we should think about whether
| some countries have a disproportionately large access to, or
| responsibility for, resources relevant to all of humanity.
|
| The problem is that this logic extends to most very large
| countries in the world.
|
| Are you gonna also appropriate Russia, Canada, China and United
| States of America land? Who is gonna police all of that? Does
| the rest of humanity have the collective firepower to stop,
| say, "just China" and "just the United States of America" from
| ruining the environment? I don't think this is feasible.
| krainboltgreene wrote:
| Ah, the imperialist approach.
| 9dev wrote:
| No, it's different. I'm not suggesting "the west" taking
| control of the Amazon, but humanity as a whole. The other
| option is hoping for the best or trusting a corrupt
| government to do the right thing for the rest of the globe.
| It hasn't worked well yet.
| kennywinker wrote:
| What incorruptible body could take control of the amazon on
| behalf of humanity? How would we chose its leaders? Who
| decides what is protected and what isn't?
| 9dev wrote:
| No body is incorruptible. But less corrupt would
| certainly be a step forward, no?
|
| I would suggest something like a global conservation fund
| responsible for guarding critical "infrastructure" of our
| planet. At some point, we will need to take action to
| prevent earth from becoming inhospitable, and this
| requires steering. Merely admitting defeat to greedy
| human nature doesn't seem to lead anywhere.
| kennywinker wrote:
| What troops do we send if Brazilians cut down trees after
| we tell them it's protected? Do we have to back coups to
| put in place a government that respects the global
| conservation fund if one rejects it?
|
| You're just describing imperialism one step removed.
|
| Saying we need structural change, but not more top down
| control, isn't throwing my hands up and admitting defeat
| to greedy human nature.
| kennywinker wrote:
| What that sounds a lot like to my ears is "white man's burden".
| I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to control
| and parent the developing world because they can't do it
| themselves.
|
| I'm no expert in what's happening on the ground in the amazon,
| but the story used to be clearing amazon to raise cattle to
| sell to mcdonalds. Idk if that's still the case, but i'd be
| willing to bet that the thing driving deforestation is resource
| extraction for global markets.
|
| It's temping to try to police brazil's extraction, but the far
| less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to police
| our own demand for what they're cutting down the rainforest to
| provide.
| 9dev wrote:
| > What that sounds a lot like to my ears is "white man's
| burden". I.e. we the developed world have a responsibility to
| control and parent the developing world because they can't do
| it themselves.
|
| The difference here being that it's not about taking control
| of the developing world, but saving resources humanity as a
| whole requires to keep earth habitable for us - this affects
| everyone, poor or rich. It's just that Brazil, right now, has
| a very unfortunate combination of a corrupt government, very
| valuable resources, and responsibility for the integrity of
| the forest.
|
| > It's temping to try to police brazil's extraction, but the
| far less paternalistic and colonial thing to do would be to
| police our own demand for what they're cutting down the
| rainforest to provide.
|
| That isn't mutually exclusive. At the very least, there
| should be sanctions put into place until Brazil starts
| actually trying to prevent extraction, not actively
| supporting it. But I could still see a global organization
| responsible for keeping core areas intact.
| kennywinker wrote:
| > It's just that Brazil, right now, has a very unfortunate
| combination of a corrupt government, very valuable
| resources, and responsibility for the integrity of the
| forest.
|
| That's not an accident. Not misfortune. That's a result of
| western colonialism. I'm no expert in brazil, but its
| history includes colonial governments, CIA backed coups,
| and IMF influence.
|
| It doesn't have a bad gov because whoops we elected a bad
| guy in 2019. It has a bad gov because throughout its entire
| history western govs and corporations have been exercising
| influence to be allowed to pilfer its resources.
| 9dev wrote:
| I do share your perspective, and think the same of the
| middle east and lots of African countries. That blame
| game doesn't solve the problem, however.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Europe is still deforesting. Uplift all Brazilians till they have
| the same standard of living or sit it out.
| hestefisk wrote:
| First step is to get rid of their climate change-denying madman
| President.
| Aerroon wrote:
| What are you suggesting here? That western countries should
| assassinate an elected world leader? Or that western countries
| should influence the next _democratic_ elections?
|
| If you don't see an issue here, then imagine if you were
| talking about the USA. Should other countries "get rid of" the
| US president if they don't like his policies?
| zerop wrote:
| As consumers of Wooden furniture and so much new housing
| construction happening around the work, we all are to be blamed
| too. We need to invent alternate to wooden furniture.
| frozenlettuce wrote:
| I'm Brazilian and I have a blast watching Property Brothers.
| "Oh, and I placed brazilian hardwood for the whole living room
| floor" - that is fancy in Canada, but here I would be arrested
| if I did that. Guess that I should lower my head even more for
| not being self-hating enough.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| The majority of the Brazilian rainforest isn't even being razed
| for furniture wood. It's simply burned down to provide for one
| season of feeding cows for meat or to plant soy to feed the
| cows.
|
| Then it's gone. Forever.
| lvass wrote:
| >Forever
|
| No. In fact, evidence suggests most of the rainforest was in
| fact laid by humans. It's artificially mostly made of trees
| with edible produce like acai and brazil nut.
| Sporktacular wrote:
| Yes, forever. And no it wasn't. The rainforest has existed
| for tens of millions of years (and has species much) older
| than humans have inhabited South America. And while they
| shaped it, there is NO way suggests we could just regrow
| it, even if we could organise the manpower and political
| will.
|
| When the forest loses the capacity to create clouds, it is
| game over. It will never be the same again, and that's just
| one of many of non-linear effects at work.
| makerofspoons wrote:
| Logging is actually only a tiny fraction of why the Amazon is
| being cleared: https://www.internetgeography.net/what-are-the-
| causes-of-def...
|
| It's mostly being used for agriculture.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Timber is a red herring. Beef is the real problem.
| vixen99 wrote:
| So if it isn't plastic made from fossil fuels, what do you
| suggest?
|
| Apparently the global human mass excluding humans themselves
| who comprise 0.01% of the global biomass but including our
| constructions in concrete, asphalt, aggregates, bricks, plastic
| & glass exceeded the global biomass back in 2020. The same
| report claims that this anthropogenic mass doubles every 20
| years. I wonder what the thermal capacity of all this is let
| alone other manifest concerns.
|
| https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5
| is_true wrote:
| Actually wooden furniture is a great way to sequester carbon
| smileysteve wrote:
| Bamboo, Hemp, and post consumer paper /plastic/fiberglass
| composite.
| pastor_bob wrote:
| Most American wooden furniture is Domestic hardwood
| cute_boi wrote:
| Well, western countries also have some role in such destruction
| if we look deeply. Brazil cut amazon for animal farming and
| wealthy people & countries are the ones who import beef.
| Countries like China, the US, and the EU are major importers of
| Beef. Maybe these news articles also blame them?
|
| Brazil isn't a developed country and many people live under the
| belt of poverty. So, what are they supposed to do? In addition,
| corruption has made their life miserable. This is such a hard
| problem to solve.
|
| [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/617492/beef-and-veal-
| exp...
| Sporktacular wrote:
| This is economy vs. environment dichotomy is just lazy. "So,
| what are they supposed to do?" Not destroy a forest which
| belongs to every Brazilian to further enrich elite ranchers,
| agribusinesses and mining firms. This is the corruption you are
| talking about.
|
| It's not a hard problem - we know good governance is the
| solution, as it has been in the past. The incompetence and
| corruption of the current government are costing Brazil far
| more than the opportunity cost of not exploiting the forest.
| Doing so is such an inefficient solution, providing temporary
| gains for a few while leading to enormous hidden costs for
| literally everyone in the future.
|
| So sure, there should be import tariffs or bans on Brazilian
| beef, even sanctions on loggers, miners and ranchers etc. but
| the next significant step is to get this government out.
| fdsafdsfdsa wrote:
| What is morally and ethically worse - eating an animal fed and
| raised domestically, or eating soy-laiden "plant-based" foods
| that were grown on recently-raized rainforest several thousand
| miles away?
|
| It's our demand for goods that is causing this.
| cute_boi wrote:
| Most soybeans are used as animal fed. Also, the feeding animal
| 10KG to get 1KG looks rather wasteful? Lastly, you missed the
| methane pollution, water usage, ethics etc..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
| fdsafdsfdsa wrote:
| I'm fully aware of that, which is why I said "domestically
| FED and raised".
|
| >Also, the feeding animal 10KG to get 1KG looks rather
| wasteful?
|
| Depends heavily on what animal product you are producing.
| Obviously we won't be eating beef all the time. It also
| depends on what kind of farmland you have available, and what
| uses those crops have.
|
| Where I am (Wales, UK), the combination of the farmer' lobby
| and the "Welsh culture and heritage" lobby has meant that
| largely unprofitable sheep farming has been subsidised, and
| what should be productive wooded hillside makes lamb that no-
| one wants. I'm not saying that raising animals is always the
| best use of land.
| cute_boi wrote:
| Domestically fed and raised doesn't work in real world.
| There are so many people to feed.
| fdsafdsfdsa wrote:
| Pretty clearly you would have to radically re-think how
| much animal produce you would get to eat. Also -
| countries like The Netherlands have a strong tradition of
| backyard chickens to suppliment a household's diet.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Many of the domestically raised animals still eat imported
| soybeans.
| fdsafdsfdsa wrote:
| How many of the animals that are
|
| >"Domestically FED and raised"
|
| ??
| rswskg wrote:
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| leoff wrote:
| losing all the trees would improve the climate? We have to
| pump these numbers up!
| rozularen wrote:
| How can I report this comment? I find it offensive.
| superchroma wrote:
| judge2020 wrote:
| > How do I flag a comment?
|
| > Click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click the
| 'flag' link at the top. There's a small karma threshold
| before flag links appear.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
|
| The threshold is supposedly 31 karma[0] so you should already
| be allowed to do it.
|
| 0: https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-
| undocumented#flaggi...
| Bayart wrote:
| Brazil not existing doesn't imply the land wouldn't be used.
| And to settled populations such as we are, striping forest to
| plant crops comes as natural as breathing. The Amazon forest
| would be stripped as long as it's economically viable to do so,
| regardless of who governs it.
| hodder wrote:
| How would one model such a thing? The carbon sink is not
| material.
|
| What value do you place on the biodiversity and unique species
| of plants and animals that live there?
|
| At some point people need to just recognize and protect
| intangibles.
| boosteri wrote:
| Let's wait for a little bit longer till we exploit ours
| fully. We can then U-turn and start /exporting/ the /conserve
| and protect/ mentality aggressively /s
| hsavit1 wrote:
| If humanity cares about its existence in the long term then we
| simply cannot clear cut the amazon.
| Ekaros wrote:
| If we really cared about climate we would ban everything
| wasteful. Like useless internet services and companies. Do we
| need social media or media in general to survive?
| stonepresto wrote:
| There seem to be two lines of thinking:
|
| 1. Who are we (US, Canada, China - heavily developed nations) to
| criticize?
|
| 2. Bolsonaro is bad mkay
|
| I think the root of the problem in both situations is people in
| power both in the government and out of it who do not seek
| sustainability and often are susceptible to corruption or
| influence. In both situations, the profits did not go to your
| average human.
| [deleted]
| tambourine_man wrote:
| Its president is committed in destroying it.
|
| This meeting between Bolsonaro and Al Gore seems like a comedy
| sketch:
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CPpH7FRFcY0&t=65
| slothtrop wrote:
| China is not going to curb its demand for Brazilian products on
| this basis. The EU hypothetically could, but try to sell price
| increases to the public.
| harnomik wrote:
| That's 18 a second too much..
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-19 23:02 UTC)