10 ms·

Brazil to open 860K acres of protected Amazon rainforest to logging, mining, etc

281 points by SimplyUseless 9y ago

deusum 9y ago
While an important issue, the article states that it is still in the proposal phase.
- eatbitseveryday 9y ago
  The article title does not match the submission title: "Brazil to open up 860,000 acres of protected Amazon rainforest to logging, mining and farming"
- pdkl95 9y ago
  The problem is that while there is a lot of variability at the project level, the H. sapiens as a species is clearly still moving in a very self-destructive direction. Chomsky recently called it "Racing To The Precipice"[1]. The fact that a massive deforestation project was considered as a proposal shows that the derivative is still negative. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY#t=135 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY#t=135
the_absurdist 9y ago
Take a commercial flight where you have a chance to look down on the rainforest in Brazil or Peru. You'll be absolutely astonished and sickened at how much is already gone.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- senorjazz 9y ago
  The same for Europe, although it was all cut down longer ago. The same of parts of the US. The trees and land are a resource for these countries with vast numbers living in poverty. Telling them they cannot use these resources just isn't going to work. If we non-Amazon countries want them to stop deforestation, we have to dig into our pockets. But we we don't. Ecuador tried it, requesting funds for not drilling for oil. They were offered next to nothing, so the drilling is going ahead, which means roads and roads mean deforestation. I speak for someone from the UK. We cut down our forests for the industrial revolution. We reached and passed peak oil in the north sea for the (supposed) benefit of the country as a whole. How can we expect other countries to not use (abuse) their resources the same?
  - whyenot 9y ago
    > Ecuador tried it, requesting funds for not drilling for oil. Another perspective would be that they attempted to blackmail the rest of the world by threatening to open Yasuni National Park to drilling, a World Heritage Site, home to uncontacted Waorani people, and one of the last locations with large land mammals left in the western Amazon. I spent a lot of time in the park and in Block 16, an area to the west that was opened to drilling in the 1990s. There are no easy solutions, just a lot of gray, corruption, and suffering. The whole no drilling thing was a complete charade. They were already building the roads.
    - aaron695 9y ago
      > Another perspective would be that they attempted to blackmail How is it blackmail if it's a viable option they are going ahead with? Are you suggesting they are/were bluffing? > home to uncontacted Waorani people It is unconscionable we do not contact these people and bring them basics like modern medicine and education about proper hygiene. Basically they are animals in a zoo for our pleasure atm.
      - thg 9y ago
        > It is unconscionable we do not contact these people and bring them basics like modern medicine and education about proper hygiene. And destroy their culture and way of living in the process? Why? We don't have any right to force on them what you think is 'better' for them. That's happened so often in history, it's time that people finally realize that they do way more harm than good by forcing their views and 'standards' on others.
        aaron695 9y ago
        You mean the mens culture? Most photo's I've seen have been young angry men. I guess fair enough, they get to go back and control the rest. Not a bad life perhaps. They don't die in childbirth. They get to rape without consequence (This has been documented) They don't get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectovaginal_fistula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectovaginal_fistula The world is getting a better place and continues to get better (documented). Yet people want to shut them out. All because their 'culture' is interesting to us. ie a zoo. At least in North Korea the world isn't happy about the situation. Here they love it.
- grecy 9y ago
  The same happened in North America, it was just before you were born so it's not in your memory. For an amazing account of how mind-blowingly quickly it happened once heavy machinery was introduced, I recommend reading "The Golden Spruce: A true story of myth, madness and greed" [1] [1] http://amzn.to/2t3hIpL http://amzn.to/2t3hIpL
- curun1r 9y ago
  Taking a commercial flight over Southeast Asia is a very similar experience. Endless acres of once-rain-forrest that's since turned into palm oil plantations. Occasionally you'll see massive fires set by people who are too lazy to clear the land themselves. It's totally depressing. Since seeing that, I've now started reading labels and boycotting any product made with palm oil. Since it's not the healthiest stuff, it's mostly a win-win.
- notadoc 9y ago
  Or just look around on Google Maps in Satellite view.
- Natsu 9y ago
  I've tried that during many different trips. At best I saw a carpet of green the one time that it wasn't either night or obscured by a layer of clouds.
- MicroBerto 9y ago
  Yet it's my car that's blamed for a rise in global carbon dioxide. Makes sense.
louithethrid 9y ago
There will be the usual walk through the park of unusable vectors to solve this. The only thing that could stop this is direct action - meaning, editing organisms to resist humanity. Making trees fireproof, equipping animals with diseases. The only wulf to hold back man, is another man.
- castle-bravo 9y ago
  Have you read Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam trilogy? It's one of my all-time favourite works of science fiction. Human beings have the (rarely used) capacity to improve the quality and usability of our surroundings. If at some point in the future, we should collectively decide to rehabilitate this planet of ours, mutant poisonous kudzu and HIV-reservoir mosquitoes will not make the work any easier.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Fire is necessary for healthy forests. And although I am excited about the emerging prospects of genetic alteration I'm pretty sure it's not going to get as far as making carbon based lifeforms fireproof.
spodek 9y ago
What responsibility does a typical reader of HN have? What can a reader do?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Brazil is failing for roughly the same reasons as most of the rest of South America: excesses of state power, which are too attractive for business to pass up. The economy is depressed by excessive policy, the people have bigger problems than the destruction of the Amazon. In addition, because the government owns the woodland, there's basically no reason to replant or maintain, which means that if you want lumber you have to go into old growth forest.
  - andrenth 9y ago
    You've been downvoted but your answer is spot-on.
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    I wish someone knowledgeable about forestry could explain why replanting is not done. What are the costs and subtleties, beside political friction I mean. Or maybe it's only political.
    - non-prophet 9y ago
      Replanting is only done when economically viable and future "land use" is for regeneration of the harvested species. This is done is Pacific Northwest of the US for Douglas Fir. Replanting isn't used in US Northern Hardwood production as the stands are cut to retain trees that reproduce and in another 15-30 year period another variable retention harvest is performed [1]. Modern forestry leverages ecological theory such as disturbance regimes to mimic changes and diversify the timber stands for risk management and ecological factors [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_retention [2] https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lter/pubs/pdf/pub3272.pdf https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lt...
    - 9y ago
noddy1 9y ago
sadly capitalism seems to be an incredibly effective and efficient way to completely destroy the rainforests. there does not seem to be any solution.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Capitalism saved the forests in North America, Brazil has a lot of state power and the corruption that comes with it. If the people of Brazil value the rainforest at all, it is a lower priority than whatever they are dealing with in their day to day life. In North America, there is more forest cover than there was 200 years ago, thanks to private ownership and maintenance of woodlands. Because of how productive these private woodlands are, there's largely no reason to cut down old growth forest.
  - rmellow 9y ago
    "If the people of Brazil value the rainforest at all, it is a lower priority than whatever they are dealing with in their day to day life." You assume Brazilians are represented by their government. In theory, yes. In theory.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      No, I'm saying that if they're going to fight for anything in their government, it's not going to be this first.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    There's barely any old growth forest left to cut in the US.
    - vortico 9y ago
      I'm not sure why you're downvoted because you're correct. But I suppose microcolonel's point is that capitalism has converted them to private forests for harvest. I should note that growing forests consume 10-11 times more CO2 than old growth forests, and the US is excellent at keeping growth rates as high as possible or a given tract of land.
gigatexal 9y ago
Wow. A failing state pimps it’s resources. This is terrible.
ufo 9y ago
The article didn't talk about the political context: the current president is facing corruption charges and a threat of impeachment and is buying support from congress by opening the government coffers (or what remains of it) and ceding to various lobbying groups.
randyrand 9y ago
This is great news!
fithisux 9y ago
It never made countries richer. Only poorer. In this case, it will make the planet poorer.
chatman 9y ago
The forces which threw out Dilma Roussef are behind this over commercialization. Dilma would never have let this happen.
- sumedh 9y ago
  So are you saying all the corruption charges against Dilma are fabricated?
jokoon 9y ago
I predict that in the future, brazil will be invaded to stop logging so that those trees can keep making oxygen. I wonder, doesn't most oxygen come from those trees? I've read the expression "lung of the planet". Essentially it seems it's a matter of survival. Although increased CO2 concentration might also accelerate the growth of trees, so I don't really know.
- diego_moita 9y ago
  > I predict that in the future, brazil will be invaded to stop logging so that those trees can keep making oxygen. As a Brazilian I say that this is just plain stupid in 3 different levels: 1) World diplomacy is or should be ruled by the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty: the idea that each nation is free to conduct its internal affairs as it pleases. 2) Brazil is the 5th largest country in the world, one of the 10 largest economies and the 8th biggest population. Who has the resources to spare and fight a war with Brazil? 3) During the 90's the main argument by farmers and loggers for deforesting the Amazon was exactly arguments like yours. Back then this bullshit you say was called "internacionalização da Amazônia" and those parasites argument was: "we need to occupy the Amazon before the gringos do it". So, basically, when you say this bullshit you are supplying arguments to the enemy. Please, stop this bullshit. It is dangerous. It makes the fight of Brazilian environmentalists even harder.
  - jokoon 9y ago
    I agree with you, but air has no borders. And I'm not arguing for war.
- soneca 9y ago
  > I wonder, doesn't most oxygen come from those trees? I've read the expression "lung of the planet". Essentially it seems it's a matter of survival. No, the express is stupid. Amazon is an old forest and consume almost all oxygen it produces. Oxygen come mostly from algae in the ocean. Amazon is important for climate control and biodiversity.
grwthckrmstr 9y ago
As an average HN reader, I'm trying to understand the environmental consequences of these actions by the Brazilian government to Brazil and the World. Can someone ELI5?
horsawlarway 9y ago
The irony in this comment is astounding! You're literally forcing a moral perspective onto someone while in the same breath claiming that your moral perspective is that you shouldn't force views or standard onto others. That's so fucking contradictory it's literally asinine. --- To address your actual points: >And destroy their culture and way of living in the process? Why? We don't have any right to force on them what you think is 'better' for them. We objectively know in many cases medicine and health care that is better for them. Full stop. >it's time that people finally realize that they do way more harm than good by forcing their views and 'standards' on others. Prove it. You're making a huge claim here, where's the evidence? I'd argue that if your views and standards can't handle encounters with new or foreign views and standards, that they are clearly not suitable for practical application, and their days are numbered by matter of principle, not by any moral or ethical argument. Finally, the land those people occupy represents a large earning for the other impoverished people in the country. Who are you to decide (from afar, with no on the ground insight) that their rights are more valuable than the other people? Your entire argument is "feel good" but utterly useless, ill considered, and frankly a little disturbing.
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  Hi! You're pretty new here. You'll notice that the comment quality here tends to be very high. This is supported by the the guidelines for this community: >Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- thg 9y ago
  - European colonization of America (you know, all those Native Americans that still have to live in shitty conditions), - Roman conquerors, - Serbian conquerors, - Holy Land crusades, - Nazi holocaust.. The list goes on and on. And it always comes down to the same reasons. People wanting to exert power over other people, "liberating" them. The church in particular is especially known for that. Most wars were fought over "my god is the one true god and you have to worship him". Does it ever stop? How can you know that those people will agree with you about what's best for them? How can you know they want to be a part of society at all? I'm all for giving them a choice, but forcing them to live the way we think is best for them, e.g. making them give up their way of living entirely to live in brick and mortar houses and having to work factory jobs, isn't helping, it's exerting power and destroying a culture.

281 points by SimplyUseless 9y ago

deusum 9y ago

While an important issue, the article states that it is still in the proposal phase.

eatbitseveryday 9y ago
The article title does not match the submission title: "Brazil to open up 860,000 acres of protected Amazon rainforest to logging, mining and farming"
pdkl95 9y ago
The problem is that while there is a lot of variability at the project level, the H. sapiens as a species is clearly still moving in a very self-destructive direction. Chomsky recently called it "Racing To The Precipice"[1]. The fact that a massive deforestation project was considered as a proposal shows that the derivative is still negative. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY#t=135 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY#t=135

the_absurdist 9y ago

Take a commercial flight where you have a chance to look down on the rainforest in Brazil or Peru. You'll be absolutely astonished and sickened at how much is already gone.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
senorjazz 9y ago
The same for Europe, although it was all cut down longer ago. The same of parts of the US. The trees and land are a resource for these countries with vast numbers living in poverty. Telling them they cannot use these resources just isn't going to work. If we non-Amazon countries want them to stop deforestation, we have to dig into our pockets. But we we don't. Ecuador tried it, requesting funds for not drilling for oil. They were offered next to nothing, so the drilling is going ahead, which means roads and roads mean deforestation. I speak for someone from the UK. We cut down our forests for the industrial revolution. We reached and passed peak oil in the north sea for the (supposed) benefit of the country as a whole. How can we expect other countries to not use (abuse) their resources the same?
- whyenot 9y ago
  > Ecuador tried it, requesting funds for not drilling for oil. Another perspective would be that they attempted to blackmail the rest of the world by threatening to open Yasuni National Park to drilling, a World Heritage Site, home to uncontacted Waorani people, and one of the last locations with large land mammals left in the western Amazon. I spent a lot of time in the park and in Block 16, an area to the west that was opened to drilling in the 1990s. There are no easy solutions, just a lot of gray, corruption, and suffering. The whole no drilling thing was a complete charade. They were already building the roads.
  - aaron695 9y ago
    > Another perspective would be that they attempted to blackmail How is it blackmail if it's a viable option they are going ahead with? Are you suggesting they are/were bluffing? > home to uncontacted Waorani people It is unconscionable we do not contact these people and bring them basics like modern medicine and education about proper hygiene. Basically they are animals in a zoo for our pleasure atm.
    - thg 9y ago
      > It is unconscionable we do not contact these people and bring them basics like modern medicine and education about proper hygiene. And destroy their culture and way of living in the process? Why? We don't have any right to force on them what you think is 'better' for them. That's happened so often in history, it's time that people finally realize that they do way more harm than good by forcing their views and 'standards' on others.
      - aaron695 9y ago
        You mean the mens culture? Most photo's I've seen have been young angry men. I guess fair enough, they get to go back and control the rest. Not a bad life perhaps. They don't die in childbirth. They get to rape without consequence (This has been documented) They don't get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectovaginal_fistula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectovaginal_fistula The world is getting a better place and continues to get better (documented). Yet people want to shut them out. All because their 'culture' is interesting to us. ie a zoo. At least in North Korea the world isn't happy about the situation. Here they love it.
grecy 9y ago
The same happened in North America, it was just before you were born so it's not in your memory. For an amazing account of how mind-blowingly quickly it happened once heavy machinery was introduced, I recommend reading "The Golden Spruce: A true story of myth, madness and greed" [1] [1] http://amzn.to/2t3hIpL http://amzn.to/2t3hIpL
curun1r 9y ago
Taking a commercial flight over Southeast Asia is a very similar experience. Endless acres of once-rain-forrest that's since turned into palm oil plantations. Occasionally you'll see massive fires set by people who are too lazy to clear the land themselves. It's totally depressing. Since seeing that, I've now started reading labels and boycotting any product made with palm oil. Since it's not the healthiest stuff, it's mostly a win-win.
notadoc 9y ago
Or just look around on Google Maps in Satellite view.
Natsu 9y ago
I've tried that during many different trips. At best I saw a carpet of green the one time that it wasn't either night or obscured by a layer of clouds.
MicroBerto 9y ago
Yet it's my car that's blamed for a rise in global carbon dioxide. Makes sense.

louithethrid 9y ago

There will be the usual walk through the park of unusable vectors to solve this. The only thing that could stop this is direct action - meaning, editing organisms to resist humanity. Making trees fireproof, equipping animals with diseases. The only wulf to hold back man, is another man.

castle-bravo 9y ago
Have you read Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam trilogy? It's one of my all-time favourite works of science fiction. Human beings have the (rarely used) capacity to improve the quality and usability of our surroundings. If at some point in the future, we should collectively decide to rehabilitate this planet of ours, mutant poisonous kudzu and HIV-reservoir mosquitoes will not make the work any easier.
mythrwy 9y ago
Fire is necessary for healthy forests. And although I am excited about the emerging prospects of genetic alteration I'm pretty sure it's not going to get as far as making carbon based lifeforms fireproof.

spodek 9y ago

What responsibility does a typical reader of HN have? What can a reader do?

microcolonel 9y ago
Brazil is failing for roughly the same reasons as most of the rest of South America: excesses of state power, which are too attractive for business to pass up. The economy is depressed by excessive policy, the people have bigger problems than the destruction of the Amazon. In addition, because the government owns the woodland, there's basically no reason to replant or maintain, which means that if you want lumber you have to go into old growth forest.
- andrenth 9y ago
  You've been downvoted but your answer is spot-on.
- agumonkey 9y ago
  I wish someone knowledgeable about forestry could explain why replanting is not done. What are the costs and subtleties, beside political friction I mean. Or maybe it's only political.
  - non-prophet 9y ago
    Replanting is only done when economically viable and future "land use" is for regeneration of the harvested species. This is done is Pacific Northwest of the US for Douglas Fir. Replanting isn't used in US Northern Hardwood production as the stands are cut to retain trees that reproduce and in another 15-30 year period another variable retention harvest is performed [1]. Modern forestry leverages ecological theory such as disturbance regimes to mimic changes and diversify the timber stands for risk management and ecological factors [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_retention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_retention [2] https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lter/pubs/pdf/pub3272.pdf https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lt...
  - 9y ago

noddy1 9y ago

sadly capitalism seems to be an incredibly effective and efficient way to completely destroy the rainforests. there does not seem to be any solution.

microcolonel 9y ago
Capitalism saved the forests in North America, Brazil has a lot of state power and the corruption that comes with it. If the people of Brazil value the rainforest at all, it is a lower priority than whatever they are dealing with in their day to day life. In North America, there is more forest cover than there was 200 years ago, thanks to private ownership and maintenance of woodlands. Because of how productive these private woodlands are, there's largely no reason to cut down old growth forest.
- rmellow 9y ago
  "If the people of Brazil value the rainforest at all, it is a lower priority than whatever they are dealing with in their day to day life." You assume Brazilians are represented by their government. In theory, yes. In theory.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    No, I'm saying that if they're going to fight for anything in their government, it's not going to be this first.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  There's barely any old growth forest left to cut in the US.
  - vortico 9y ago
    I'm not sure why you're downvoted because you're correct. But I suppose microcolonel's point is that capitalism has converted them to private forests for harvest. I should note that growing forests consume 10-11 times more CO2 than old growth forests, and the US is excellent at keeping growth rates as high as possible or a given tract of land.

gigatexal 9y ago

Wow. A failing state pimps it’s resources. This is terrible.

ufo 9y ago

The article didn't talk about the political context: the current president is facing corruption charges and a threat of impeachment and is buying support from congress by opening the government coffers (or what remains of it) and ceding to various lobbying groups.

randyrand 9y ago

This is great news!

fithisux 9y ago

It never made countries richer. Only poorer. In this case, it will make the planet poorer.

chatman 9y ago

The forces which threw out Dilma Roussef are behind this over commercialization. Dilma would never have let this happen.

sumedh 9y ago
So are you saying all the corruption charges against Dilma are fabricated?

jokoon 9y ago

I predict that in the future, brazil will be invaded to stop logging so that those trees can keep making oxygen. I wonder, doesn't most oxygen come from those trees? I've read the expression "lung of the planet". Essentially it seems it's a matter of survival. Although increased CO2 concentration might also accelerate the growth of trees, so I don't really know.

diego_moita 9y ago
> I predict that in the future, brazil will be invaded to stop logging so that those trees can keep making oxygen. As a Brazilian I say that this is just plain stupid in 3 different levels: 1) World diplomacy is or should be ruled by the principle of Westphalian Sovereignty: the idea that each nation is free to conduct its internal affairs as it pleases. 2) Brazil is the 5th largest country in the world, one of the 10 largest economies and the 8th biggest population. Who has the resources to spare and fight a war with Brazil? 3) During the 90's the main argument by farmers and loggers for deforesting the Amazon was exactly arguments like yours. Back then this bullshit you say was called "internacionalização da Amazônia" and those parasites argument was: "we need to occupy the Amazon before the gringos do it". So, basically, when you say this bullshit you are supplying arguments to the enemy. Please, stop this bullshit. It is dangerous. It makes the fight of Brazilian environmentalists even harder.
- jokoon 9y ago
  I agree with you, but air has no borders. And I'm not arguing for war.
soneca 9y ago
> I wonder, doesn't most oxygen come from those trees? I've read the expression "lung of the planet". Essentially it seems it's a matter of survival. No, the express is stupid. Amazon is an old forest and consume almost all oxygen it produces. Oxygen come mostly from algae in the ocean. Amazon is important for climate control and biodiversity.

grwthckrmstr 9y ago

As an average HN reader, I'm trying to understand the environmental consequences of these actions by the Brazilian government to Brazil and the World. Can someone ELI5?

horsawlarway 9y ago

The irony in this comment is astounding! You're literally forcing a moral perspective onto someone while in the same breath claiming that your moral perspective is that you shouldn't force views or standard onto others. That's so fucking contradictory it's literally asinine. --- To address your actual points: >And destroy their culture and way of living in the process? Why? We don't have any right to force on them what you think is 'better' for them. We objectively know in many cases medicine and health care that is better for them. Full stop. >it's time that people finally realize that they do way more harm than good by forcing their views and 'standards' on others. Prove it. You're making a huge claim here, where's the evidence? I'd argue that if your views and standards can't handle encounters with new or foreign views and standards, that they are clearly not suitable for practical application, and their days are numbered by matter of principle, not by any moral or ethical argument. Finally, the land those people occupy represents a large earning for the other impoverished people in the country. Who are you to decide (from afar, with no on the ground insight) that their rights are more valuable than the other people? Your entire argument is "feel good" but utterly useless, ill considered, and frankly a little disturbing.

abandonliberty 9y ago
Hi! You're pretty new here. You'll notice that the comment quality here tends to be very high. This is supported by the the guidelines for this community: >Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. >When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
thg 9y ago
- European colonization of America (you know, all those Native Americans that still have to live in shitty conditions), - Roman conquerors, - Serbian conquerors, - Holy Land crusades, - Nazi holocaust.. The list goes on and on. And it always comes down to the same reasons. People wanting to exert power over other people, "liberating" them. The church in particular is especially known for that. Most wars were fought over "my god is the one true god and you have to worship him". Does it ever stop? How can you know that those people will agree with you about what's best for them? How can you know they want to be a part of society at all? I'm all for giving them a choice, but forcing them to live the way we think is best for them, e.g. making them give up their way of living entirely to live in brick and mortar houses and having to work factory jobs, isn't helping, it's exerting power and destroying a culture.