5 ms·

I don't see how this addresses the issue of deforestation in places like the Amazon. The effect that this "practice" has had on the environment is irreversible

I don't see how this addresses the issue of deforestation in places like the Amazon. The effect that this "practice" has had on the environment is irreversible at this point. But to each his own. Any positive news regarding the environment are always welcome.

aaronbrethorst 8y ago
Especially with Brazil's fascist[1] new president, Jair Bolsonaro, making moves to destroy the amazon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazils-bolsonaro-hands-farming-interests-greater-sway-over-amazon-lands/2019/01/02/be536c36-0ea2-11e9-8f0c-6f878a26288a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazils-bo... [1] Not an exaggeration. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-genuine-fascist-is-on-the-verge-of-power-in-brazil/ https://www.thenation.com/article/a-genuine-fascist-is-on-th...
- jewelry 8y ago
  technically, we have no stand to blame them on developing their economy...
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    Here's a fun thought: they could hold the rainforest hostage. Hey world that relies on our land to absorb carbon, we're gonna start deforesting and developing x acres per year unless you pay us y dollars not to. Nice biosphere you've got here, it'd be a shame if somebody threw a brick through the equilibrium...
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Equador tried that [1]. The world didn't care. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/02/216878935/ecuador-to-world-pay-up-to-save-the-rainforest-world-to-ecuador-meh https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/02/216878935/ecua...
      - User23 8y ago
        The money has never indicated it cares about global warming or sea level rise. No rich people are looking to liquidate their beachfront New York, Florida, or California property, and they're certainly not buying up Alaskan beaches speculating on the next Greenland farming bonanza. Startup idea: global warming REIT.
  - skilled 8y ago
    Who is them? I didn't know countries had divinely invoked certificates for owning the planet. It is all in your head buddy.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      It is generally recognized that people who inhabit a particular region rightfully determine what happens in that region. That may mean that multinational corporations have more difficulty subsuming and consuming particular local economies as quickly as you might prefer, but that's just tough.
- devmunchies 8y ago
  I don’t think being a fascist has anything to do with deforestation. There’s a history of fascists wanting to preserve the “motherland”. Even views such as ecofascism as portrayed in Linkola’s Can Life Prevail? I only care about ecologically minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point.
  - blotter_paper 8y ago
    >I only care about ecology minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point. This is a rather strong statement given that it comes right after a recognition that fascist governments have historically had some ecologically friendly ideals. Are we talking about accepting literal genocide? Like, if we don't take care of the environment then everybody dies, so a fascist dictator who systematically wipes out an ethnic minority but also drastically cuts carbon emissions and restores a rainforest is a net-win? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm genuinely curious if that's what you're talking about, or if I'm parsing unintended meaning in your comment. I could see it either way.
    - devmunchies 8y ago
      IF we are taking about the end of the human race, which is in fact a possibility if we continue with the current trends, then anything that could curb human appetites and populations is free game IMO. People don’t realize what’s at stake. Interpret that how you like.
      - blotter_paper 8y ago
        Okay, so we're talking about genocide not as an acceptable loss in exchange for sound environmental policy but rather as an environmental policy in its own right through its active reduction in the number of living humans. Glad we cleared that up. What do you think the chances of us having a lively planet in 200 years are without your proposed mass killings? What is your ideal target number for how many humans would be left after a purge, and how does it affect your guesstimates for how likely our planet is to survive? If you're willing to suggest mass killings, I suspect that you've given those sorts of questions some thought. It would be hard to justify mass killings if you didn't have some strong opinions about how likely ecological armageddon is in both scenarios. Edit: typo.
- adnzzzzZ 8y ago
  80% of my country's (Brazil) energy generation is done through renewable means. This isn't even close to true for most first world countries, and certainly not the US. Maybe before worrying about countries you know nothing about (as well as carelessly calling our elected officials fascists) you should start looking at your own, wherever you're from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
  - black-tea 8y ago
    Indeed. Americans are quick to point their fat fingers at others while they drive their humongous vehicles to the drive-through.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    80% of the electricity generation, not energy.
  - semi-extrinsic 8y ago
    I've noticed a trend where Americans outright call Bolsonaro a fascist, even serious economists appearing on podcasts. I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to.
    - briandear 8y ago
      Let’s be accurate: left-wing Americans call him a fascist. But to be fair to Bolsonaro, the other guy was worse.
    - swebs 8y ago
      >Americans >I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to. If there's one country where you're free to say whatever you want about the president, it's the USA.
      - scrollaway 8y ago

aaronbrethorst 8y ago

Especially with Brazil's fascist[1] new president, Jair Bolsonaro, making moves to destroy the amazon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazils-bolsonaro-hands-farming-interests-greater-sway-over-amazon-lands/2019/01/02/be536c36-0ea2-11e9-8f0c-6f878a26288a_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazils-bo... [1] Not an exaggeration. https://www.thenation.com/article/a-genuine-fascist-is-on-the-verge-of-power-in-brazil/ https://www.thenation.com/article/a-genuine-fascist-is-on-th...

jewelry 8y ago
technically, we have no stand to blame them on developing their economy...
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  Here's a fun thought: they could hold the rainforest hostage. Hey world that relies on our land to absorb carbon, we're gonna start deforesting and developing x acres per year unless you pay us y dollars not to. Nice biosphere you've got here, it'd be a shame if somebody threw a brick through the equilibrium...
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Equador tried that [1]. The world didn't care. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/02/216878935/ecuador-to-world-pay-up-to-save-the-rainforest-world-to-ecuador-meh https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/09/02/216878935/ecua...
    - User23 8y ago
      The money has never indicated it cares about global warming or sea level rise. No rich people are looking to liquidate their beachfront New York, Florida, or California property, and they're certainly not buying up Alaskan beaches speculating on the next Greenland farming bonanza. Startup idea: global warming REIT.
- skilled 8y ago
  Who is them? I didn't know countries had divinely invoked certificates for owning the planet. It is all in your head buddy.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    It is generally recognized that people who inhabit a particular region rightfully determine what happens in that region. That may mean that multinational corporations have more difficulty subsuming and consuming particular local economies as quickly as you might prefer, but that's just tough.
devmunchies 8y ago
I don’t think being a fascist has anything to do with deforestation. There’s a history of fascists wanting to preserve the “motherland”. Even views such as ecofascism as portrayed in Linkola’s Can Life Prevail? I only care about ecologically minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point.
- blotter_paper 8y ago
  >I only care about ecology minded governments and I don’t care about left or right. It’s the only important issue at this point. This is a rather strong statement given that it comes right after a recognition that fascist governments have historically had some ecologically friendly ideals. Are we talking about accepting literal genocide? Like, if we don't take care of the environment then everybody dies, so a fascist dictator who systematically wipes out an ethnic minority but also drastically cuts carbon emissions and restores a rainforest is a net-win? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm genuinely curious if that's what you're talking about, or if I'm parsing unintended meaning in your comment. I could see it either way.
  - devmunchies 8y ago
    IF we are taking about the end of the human race, which is in fact a possibility if we continue with the current trends, then anything that could curb human appetites and populations is free game IMO. People don’t realize what’s at stake. Interpret that how you like.
    - blotter_paper 8y ago
      Okay, so we're talking about genocide not as an acceptable loss in exchange for sound environmental policy but rather as an environmental policy in its own right through its active reduction in the number of living humans. Glad we cleared that up. What do you think the chances of us having a lively planet in 200 years are without your proposed mass killings? What is your ideal target number for how many humans would be left after a purge, and how does it affect your guesstimates for how likely our planet is to survive? If you're willing to suggest mass killings, I suspect that you've given those sorts of questions some thought. It would be hard to justify mass killings if you didn't have some strong opinions about how likely ecological armageddon is in both scenarios. Edit: typo.
adnzzzzZ 8y ago
80% of my country's (Brazil) energy generation is done through renewable means. This isn't even close to true for most first world countries, and certainly not the US. Maybe before worrying about countries you know nothing about (as well as carelessly calling our elected officials fascists) you should start looking at your own, wherever you're from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
- black-tea 8y ago
  Indeed. Americans are quick to point their fat fingers at others while they drive their humongous vehicles to the drive-through.
- icebraining 8y ago
  80% of the electricity generation, not energy.
- semi-extrinsic 8y ago
  I've noticed a trend where Americans outright call Bolsonaro a fascist, even serious economists appearing on podcasts. I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Let’s be accurate: left-wing Americans call him a fascist. But to be fair to Bolsonaro, the other guy was worse.
  - swebs 8y ago
    >Americans >I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to. If there's one country where you're free to say whatever you want about the president, it's the USA.
    - scrollaway 8y ago