6 ms·

The only solution is a massive embargo on products that are causing deforestation (eg Ipe hardwood, soy, cattle) until there’s a system of tracking where these

The only solution is a massive embargo on products that are causing deforestation (eg Ipe hardwood, soy, cattle) until there’s a system of tracking where these are coming from in whole supply chain with international verification. The future of the amazon forest cannot depend on governments such as Bolsonaro’s that are clearly anti-science and anti-environment.

KozmoNau7 7y ago
Unfortunately no government in the world has the courage and conviction to actually do this. They're way too deep in the pockets of corporate interests, who would stand to lose significant profits if these embargoes were implemented. I've been advocating for responsible and sustainable supply chains for years, but no politician seems to want to follow through with it.
moosey 7y ago
We need to pay them not to destroy it, and build them infrastructure, for free. There were a multitude of opportunities for the nations of South America, in particular, to flourish, and we have stolen them, either with military action, or via economic pressures and corruption, because the United States can't keep it's rabid multi-national companies on a leash. The only just solution is to pay the people of these nations and build infrastructure so that they can have economic prosperity as well. Otherwise, there is no better place for them to look than the jungles that we all depend on for survival.
- pacala 7y ago
  People in South American countries have as much agency as people in the US. Among other things, they are capable of corruption and destruction on their own. The solution for preventing natural ecosystems loss in South America is to be primarily found in South America, not in the US. Or China for that matter.
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    > People in South American countries have as much agency as people in the US. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you're implying that the US bears no responsibility for the present state of those countries. I'm not sure if you have knowledge of the history of South America and the horrors of regime change that directly resulted from American foreign policy. If you don't, I'd suggest reading more about it as it will clearly explain a lot of the present socioeconomic issues in that region of the world. I very much doubt anyone could imply anything of the like with full knowledge of what occurred there during the 70s and 80s. I do agree with your final sentence though, that the solution should primarily be found in South America.
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    If someone outside South America goes in to South America and creates problems via military force, the solution to that problem may indeed come from the outside force changing its behavior. We are all connected and forces outside of South America have definitely contributed to economic problems on the continent.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
tengbretson 7y ago
This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. History has shown that the only reliable way to make a people more environmentally-conscious is to make enough of them wealthy enough to have the free time/energy/sentimentality to care.
- diego_moita 7y ago
  > This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. > make enough of them wealthy enough No, it is a very good idea. The champions on deforestation in Brazil are precisely the wealthiest plutocrats in the country, big farmers and the lumber industry. They are also the ones more susceptible to economic pressure. Blairo Maggi, a former agriculture minister in Brazil, was nicknamed "the golden chainsaw" for the huge deforestation he promoted. Some agricultural embargoes by the European Union were enough to get him a change of heart, defend more forest conservation and turn him into a critic of the environmental policies of the Bozo (our new president).
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  Aren’t wealthy people more responsible for consumption of the beef that is being grown on clear cut forest land?
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Wealthy people may make more superficial choices regarding environmental impact, but broadly speaking energy consumption is directly related to one's standard of living. The reality is that what one eats and what kind of car one drives is not especially important in terms of environmental impact. Even you don't drive a car at all, you're still consuming fossil fuels for transport every time you buy goods that were shipped to you (or goods whose components were shipped at any point from raw resource extraction to final assembly, so basically everything). Even if you don't eat meat, a huge number of facets in one's life is contingent on converting land to be used by humans in some way (e.g. paving roads, clearing power lines for utilities, etc.). Impact of these superficial choices is minimal. The most environmentally friendly type of living is being a subsistence farmer or a hunter-gatherer in a part of the world that is not industrialized at all. Like Papua New Guinea. But of course few people would want to trade their first world lives to live like the average Papua. Our standards of living are directly correlated with energy consumption. Having a peaceful society with good healthcare, education, and employment means having a food production industry industrialized enough such that a small portion of society can maintain the industries necessary for survival while most of the rest of the population provides services to each other and there's still enough surplus to spend on welfare and other resources dedicated to those that can't contribute effectively. This cannot be done in subsistence societies - heck it can rarely be accomplished reliably even in industrialized societies, and it has only been achieved with a relative degree of stability in the wealthiest post-industrial societies. Not eating meat isn't going to stop deforestation in the Amazon - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Amazon is disappearing. The Amazon ins disappearing because South Americans have decided that the economic growth provided by deforestation is worth the environmental impact. Growing cattle is only part of what this land is used for, and while lower demand for beef may reduce the rate at which the land is used to grow cows it doesn't fulfill the desires that is driving deforestation. The deforestation will stop when the people that are in a position to decide whether to convert forest to farm or pasture feels the preservation of the forest outweighs the bounties provided by the latter. Robust alternatives to agriculture as a means for economic growth are what will affect deforestation, but bringing wealth to hundreds of millions of people in South America is a tougher problem to solve. And if South Americans choose to prioritize economic growth over the environment are we in such a good position to judge them? When much of the first world was in South America's position in terms of industrialization and social development, we chose to cut down forests, exploit natural resources, and convert wilderness into agricultural land or for other uses. It's the easiest way to climb the ladder of development and become an industrialized society. It'd be better for the environment if other countries didn't follow our example, but it'd be hypocritical to judge them for making the same decisions our societies did when we stood in their shoes.
empath75 7y ago
I’m not sure how we will ever get humanity to agree on whatever solution is necessary. There is too much profit to be made in the short term, and the consequences won’t be felt by the people destroying the environment today.
MR4D 7y ago
Your comment is politically antagonistic. Keep your politics out and focus on the message [0]: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It destroys intellectual curiosity, which the site exists for." Bolsonaro has only been President of Brazil since January of this year, and yet you are saying the future cannot depend on people like him? Not sure how he can cause such wide deforestation in only 4 months. The future of the Amazon surely doesn't depend on the people before him who made this mess! [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

KozmoNau7 7y ago

Unfortunately no government in the world has the courage and conviction to actually do this. They're way too deep in the pockets of corporate interests, who would stand to lose significant profits if these embargoes were implemented. I've been advocating for responsible and sustainable supply chains for years, but no politician seems to want to follow through with it.

moosey 7y ago

We need to pay them not to destroy it, and build them infrastructure, for free. There were a multitude of opportunities for the nations of South America, in particular, to flourish, and we have stolen them, either with military action, or via economic pressures and corruption, because the United States can't keep it's rabid multi-national companies on a leash. The only just solution is to pay the people of these nations and build infrastructure so that they can have economic prosperity as well. Otherwise, there is no better place for them to look than the jungles that we all depend on for survival.

pacala 7y ago
People in South American countries have as much agency as people in the US. Among other things, they are capable of corruption and destruction on their own. The solution for preventing natural ecosystems loss in South America is to be primarily found in South America, not in the US. Or China for that matter.
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  > People in South American countries have as much agency as people in the US. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems as though you're implying that the US bears no responsibility for the present state of those countries. I'm not sure if you have knowledge of the history of South America and the horrors of regime change that directly resulted from American foreign policy. If you don't, I'd suggest reading more about it as it will clearly explain a lot of the present socioeconomic issues in that region of the world. I very much doubt anyone could imply anything of the like with full knowledge of what occurred there during the 70s and 80s. I do agree with your final sentence though, that the solution should primarily be found in South America.
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  If someone outside South America goes in to South America and creates problems via military force, the solution to that problem may indeed come from the outside force changing its behavior. We are all connected and forces outside of South America have definitely contributed to economic problems on the continent.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

tengbretson 7y ago

This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. History has shown that the only reliable way to make a people more environmentally-conscious is to make enough of them wealthy enough to have the free time/energy/sentimentality to care.

diego_moita 7y ago
> This would likely result in the opposite of the desired effect. > make enough of them wealthy enough No, it is a very good idea. The champions on deforestation in Brazil are precisely the wealthiest plutocrats in the country, big farmers and the lumber industry. They are also the ones more susceptible to economic pressure. Blairo Maggi, a former agriculture minister in Brazil, was nicknamed "the golden chainsaw" for the huge deforestation he promoted. Some agricultural embargoes by the European Union were enough to get him a change of heart, defend more forest conservation and turn him into a critic of the environmental policies of the Bozo (our new president).
TaylorAlexander 7y ago
Aren’t wealthy people more responsible for consumption of the beef that is being grown on clear cut forest land?
- manfredo 7y ago
  Wealthy people may make more superficial choices regarding environmental impact, but broadly speaking energy consumption is directly related to one's standard of living. The reality is that what one eats and what kind of car one drives is not especially important in terms of environmental impact. Even you don't drive a car at all, you're still consuming fossil fuels for transport every time you buy goods that were shipped to you (or goods whose components were shipped at any point from raw resource extraction to final assembly, so basically everything). Even if you don't eat meat, a huge number of facets in one's life is contingent on converting land to be used by humans in some way (e.g. paving roads, clearing power lines for utilities, etc.). Impact of these superficial choices is minimal. The most environmentally friendly type of living is being a subsistence farmer or a hunter-gatherer in a part of the world that is not industrialized at all. Like Papua New Guinea. But of course few people would want to trade their first world lives to live like the average Papua. Our standards of living are directly correlated with energy consumption. Having a peaceful society with good healthcare, education, and employment means having a food production industry industrialized enough such that a small portion of society can maintain the industries necessary for survival while most of the rest of the population provides services to each other and there's still enough surplus to spend on welfare and other resources dedicated to those that can't contribute effectively. This cannot be done in subsistence societies - heck it can rarely be accomplished reliably even in industrialized societies, and it has only been achieved with a relative degree of stability in the wealthiest post-industrial societies. Not eating meat isn't going to stop deforestation in the Amazon - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of why the Amazon is disappearing. The Amazon ins disappearing because South Americans have decided that the economic growth provided by deforestation is worth the environmental impact. Growing cattle is only part of what this land is used for, and while lower demand for beef may reduce the rate at which the land is used to grow cows it doesn't fulfill the desires that is driving deforestation. The deforestation will stop when the people that are in a position to decide whether to convert forest to farm or pasture feels the preservation of the forest outweighs the bounties provided by the latter. Robust alternatives to agriculture as a means for economic growth are what will affect deforestation, but bringing wealth to hundreds of millions of people in South America is a tougher problem to solve. And if South Americans choose to prioritize economic growth over the environment are we in such a good position to judge them? When much of the first world was in South America's position in terms of industrialization and social development, we chose to cut down forests, exploit natural resources, and convert wilderness into agricultural land or for other uses. It's the easiest way to climb the ladder of development and become an industrialized society. It'd be better for the environment if other countries didn't follow our example, but it'd be hypocritical to judge them for making the same decisions our societies did when we stood in their shoes.

empath75 7y ago

I’m not sure how we will ever get humanity to agree on whatever solution is necessary. There is too much profit to be made in the short term, and the consequences won’t be felt by the people destroying the environment today.

MR4D 7y ago

Your comment is politically antagonistic. Keep your politics out and focus on the message [0]: "Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It destroys intellectual curiosity, which the site exists for." Bolsonaro has only been President of Brazil since January of this year, and yet you are saying the future cannot depend on people like him? Not sure how he can cause such wide deforestation in only 4 months. The future of the Amazon surely doesn't depend on the people before him who made this mess! [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html