[HN Gopher] Stop irreversible damage to the Amazon
___________________________________________________________________
Stop irreversible damage to the Amazon
Author : musha68k
Score : 133 points
Date : 2023-04-20 14:23 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.junglekeepers.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.junglekeepers.org)
| ploden wrote:
| Donated! Direct land acquisition by nonprofits is the future of
| conservation. I did the math once, and with the annual budget of
| The Nature Conservancy, you could purchase 20% of Nebraska in a
| perfectly reasonable amount of time.
| Arrath wrote:
| I am very proud to have been involved in the Nature
| Conservancy's effort to restore wetlands in Oregon. I
| completely agree that land acquisition is a great path forward,
| as long as the longevity of that acquisition can be secured.
|
| https://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/10/prweb565374.htm
| ajot wrote:
| Donating money for someone to buy land is a big no for me.
| Privatisation of land to some benefactor doesn't seem to be the
| best strategy for preservation. How do you know ownership will
| not be transferred in the future?
|
| Also, why is it we never see a "reverse damage done for centuries
| to european and north american forests" NGO? Why do you always
| think of the Amazon? Leave peruvians, bolivians, brasilians, etc
| alone. And stop using coal to generate electricity, thank you
| very much.
| ruined wrote:
| >Also, why is it we never see a "reverse damage done for
| centuries to european and north american forests" NGO?
|
| north american forest defense orgs are prosecuted as domestic
| terrorists. there are a couple "tree planting" startups but
| mostly they seem to be timber company greenwashing
| mijamo wrote:
| There is a lot of reforestation happening in Europe. In France
| for instance the low time for forest was in the 17th century
| and since then the forest surface has doubled and is steadily
| increasing.
|
| You could also note that now Japan has more forests than Brazil
| in percentage of the territory while having a much higher
| population density, and that Brazil used to have double as much
| forest than Japan around 100 years ago.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| > Also, why is it we never see a "reverse damage done for
| centuries to european and north american forests" NGO?
|
| You'll never see if you never look!
|
| https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/
| burkaman wrote:
| Also https://planetwild.com/, which is very early but has
| been focused on Europe so far.
| khrbrt wrote:
| And Mossy Earth: https://www.mossy.earth/
|
| I'm a big fan of their YT channel:
| https://www.youtube.com/@MossyEarth for well produced
| videos on their various restoration projects across Europe.
| Very inspiring for things I'd love to start where I live.
|
| We need to reform zoning to reduce suburban and exurban
| sprawl and there is no shortage of disturbed land that
| needs to be rehabilitated.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| There is really no future proof strategy.
| [deleted]
| redprince wrote:
| Considering the massive scale of deforestation going on in the
| Amazonas, this feels like trying to put out a forest fire by
| spitting into it.
|
| "In the Legal Amazon, deforestation reached 356 km2 in March
| 2023, according to DETER data."
| https://www.wwf.org.br/?85360/Deforestation-alerts-remain-hi...
|
| 365 km2 are 87,970 acres. And that's just Brazil. The goal of the
| junglekeepers is to save 300,000 acres. They are at it for more
| than 10 years now.
| jandrese wrote:
| Seems to me like you could do a lot to frustrate loggers with
| 300k acres of land, especially if you are strategic in the
| purchases and do things like buying a giant ring of land (or
| more realistically a strip that has natural boundaries like
| rivers and mountains on the other sides) and then disallowing
| the construction of roads through it.
| the_lonely_road wrote:
| Who is guarding the land? Does it have cameras on it that you
| can use to see how the land looks? Feels like a waste of
| money if the authorities can't protect the land.
| jandrese wrote:
| Probably commercial satellite imagery. The protections
| would have to be legal, IE suing the logging companies for
| trespassing on your land and "vandalizing" it.
|
| It would be way too dangerous to do something like claiming
| that the company was dumping all of that perfectly good
| logging equipment on your land and helpfully "cleaning it
| up" by loading them on trailers and driving off.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| a lot of the Amazon is under semi-permanent cloud cover..
| you need something else to "see" .. various groups have
| been 'monitoring' the ever-increasing logging for more
| than 20 years already..
| jgilias wrote:
| SAR is a thing, works perfectly well through clouds, and
| is pretty easy to use to detect deforestation.
| bluGill wrote:
| The government will just use eminent domain to take the land
| needed for roads. You can be annoying to loggers, but you
| can't stop them that way.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| Lots of places, they wouldn't even need eminent domain. Not
| sure what the situation's like in Brazil, but even in the
| US with its unusually-strong notions of what "owning land"
| means, trying to do cute shit like that is often not
| allowed, for obvious reasons. Easements are A Thing. You
| might get away with it if no-one with resources opposes
| you, but if they do, you're likely to lose in court.
| jandrese wrote:
| Yeah, you'll probably lose in the end, but at the same
| time you make logging more expensive and difficult. This
| is a pretty standard playbook for environmental
| activists, for better or worse.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| I have never heard of a case where such a scheme,
| blocking road access with a narrow strip of property,
| lasted longer than 48 hours in the U.S.
|
| Can you link to any examples?
| [deleted]
| jandrese wrote:
| Marvin Heemeyer, the Killdozer guy, felt that he had been
| wronged in a case exactly like this, with the landowner
| cutting off access to his property.
| rch wrote:
| One of the goals is to work with loggers to provide an
| alternative path to prosperity.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Perhaps they could learn a new skill such as coding. I
| hear Python is popular
| tough wrote:
| Python in the Jungle got a whole new meaning today
| jgilias wrote:
| From what I've read about logging in the Amazon this wouldn't
| do much. Basically no one would care about your deed unless
| you have boots on the ground there.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| >20 coffees to save the Amazon
|
| Which 20 coffees? 20 Starbucks coffees? 20 no-name donut shop
| coffees? 20 instant-scoop grocery store coffees? If coffees are
| to become a bona fide currency, we're going to need more precise
| denominations here.
|
| Or hopefully we can just stop with the coffee-pricing analogies
| because it's getting ridiculous and your would-be customers think
| you sound ridiculous. It's outdated sales-talk.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| $100, so, $5/coffee.
|
| That'd be _extremely_ expensive for a normal coffee, even at
| 2023 prices and assuming some rip-off place like Starbucks or
| quite-fancy cafes that actually put some of the high price into
| getting excellent beans. It 's unthinkably high for home-made
| coffee. You can get extremely nice beans and not hit $2/coffee.
|
| $5 is close to the cost of a hot caffeinated milkshake, though.
| blackoil wrote:
| Starbucks sell 4 Billion of them, so they aren't impractical
| to set the benchmark price.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I assume a lot of those 4B are sugary dessert drinks
| containing coffee, not what is colloquially referred to as
| a "coffee". At least I hope.
| Magi604 wrote:
| Towards the bottom they say $100 = 20 coffees, so they're are
| pricing a coffee as $5 per cup.
|
| The first Google hit for "Junglekeepers Charity Rating" brings
| up this link claiming they are a scam:
|
| https://www.complaintsboard.com/junglekeepers-scam-charity-c...
| jandrese wrote:
| That review reads like it was written by someone with a major
| axe to grind. I don't know if these guys are legit, but I'm
| not going to trust only this one haters opinion on it.
| [deleted]
| mannycalavera42 wrote:
| and in the same page there is user comment that says:
|
| This non-profit is not a scam. They have done some well
| documented work to protect the Las Piedras Region, they are
| running a ranger program covering 55,000+ acres of rainforest
| working with the local communities and have partner with
| established philanthropies. See for instance the involvement
| of Age Of Union: https://www.ageofunion.com/feature/film-the-
| heart-of-a-missi... or some of the features about the work on
| ABC: https://youtu.be/8FAbqkaI9HY
|
| Criticism is useful, but perhaps researching thoroughly
| before make wild claims like these can help. I invite people
| to do their own research.
|
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
|
| your move
| tdeck wrote:
| That link 404s. Also, it's pretty suspicious that the
| website has no information about the nonprofit entity or
| its officers. Is it a 501(c)3? I can't tell. So I can't
| look it up on Charity Navigator or anything. It's very
| sketchy.
| gs17 wrote:
| Came up on Charity Navigator for me, searching by name.
| No rating, but it says they are a 501(c)(3).
|
| https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/881863507
| Magi604 wrote:
| I didn't say I agreed with what was in the link. Your move?
| aramachandran7 wrote:
| I disagree. You're getting caught in the semantics; the notion
| of 20 $5 coffees makes sense and is an easy and relatable way
| to reframe $100.
| pathsjs wrote:
| I don't know, coffee here costs 1EUR everywhere
| dylan604 wrote:
| $100 is pretty relatable as well though
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| I make coffee at home, from freshly roasted, freshly ground,
| high quality stuff. It comes out to around 5-10 cents a cup.
| [deleted]
| antibasilisk wrote:
| you're only 30 years too late, that must be some kind of record
| foo42 wrote:
| I just heard about this charity the other day listening to a
| fascinating episode of the Lex Fridman podcast with Paul Rosolie
| who seems very involved or possibly the founder.
|
| Fwiw he came across as very genuine (given some comments on here
| were skeptical of the charity)
| iamgoat wrote:
| Paul describing the process: 56:2656:28 They
| cut the forest, burn the forest. 56:2856:30 And then they
| run water through the sand. 56:3056:33 And the sand
| particles have bits of gold in it, not chunks. 56:3356:37
| But just little almost microscopic flecks of gold.
| 56:3756:40 And then they use the mercury to bind that.
| 56:4056:41 And then they burn off the mercury. 56:4156:43
| And that vapor goes up into the clouds. 56:4356:46 So
| just like everything else, it's all connected down there
| 56:4656:47 and then rains down into the rivers.
| 56:4756:50 And so the people in the region are having birth
| defects
|
| Destruction visible from above:
| https://www.google.com/maps/@-12.8121497,-70.1009866,76878m/...
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| They should mine bitcoin instead.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| This is cute, but I'm skeptical of it working in practice.
|
| Most mining and logging operations in Amazon rainforest is
| illegal anyway. I don't think they will care that the land is
| owned unless you can protect it somehow (including use of force.
| The rule of law hardly applies in those regions).
| rabf wrote:
| https://youtu.be/gPfriiHBBek
|
| Lex Fridman interview with the founder.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Imho the real thing we need to do is raze so many European towns
| and cities and return them to nature. That continent continues to
| deforest and it is carbon costly to inhabit. It is time for
| Germany to depopulate.
|
| They've simply been grandfathered in, but the climate costs of
| their past actions have accumulated a debt that can only be paid
| by dissolving the country.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| Starting with your house, right?
| renewiltord wrote:
| Haha, that's exactly the question the South Americans are
| asking of Europeans who have denuded the land they are in and
| now demand others don't.
|
| Take the beam out of your eye.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Both houses in the same planet maybe?
|
| Everything is connected perhaps?
|
| Clouds don't turn away at the frontier.
| xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote:
| > That continent continues to deforest
|
| "In 2020, the EU had an estimated 159 million hectares of
| forests. Their area has increased by almost 10% since 1990 (145
| million hectares)"
|
| https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/e...
| renewiltord wrote:
| That is clever choice of start and end
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2438-y.epdf
|
| With nothing to say of the fact that having pillaged our
| planet for hundreds of years, they make some pitiful
| concessions.
|
| It is like if a man stole a million dollars from you and then
| gave you a dollar a day for twenty years and claimed you've
| been the beneficiary.
|
| End European cities so that Earth may flourish again.
| mucle6 wrote:
| This implies we value trees and wildlife more than humans.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-20 23:04 UTC)