4 ms·

> An area of Amazon rainforest roughly the size of a football pitch is now being cleared every single minute, according to satellite data. A football pitch is

by koolba 7y ago

> An area of Amazon rainforest roughly the size of a football pitch is now being cleared every single minute, according to satellite data. A football pitch is 7,140 square meters so that’s 10,281,600 square meters per day. That’s 10.3 square kilometers per day, which assuming 24/7/365 work progress comes out to 3752 square kilometers per year. According to Wikipedia the Amazon rainforest is about 5.5M square kilometers so that’s 0.0682% per year assuming zero regrowth. Honestly that does not seem like a lot.

patagonia 7y ago
If you’re gonna use math to show how unimpressed you are, I’d be more impressed if you factored in the increased rate of clearing over time.
- koolba 7y ago
  I considered it but if it’s anything like the US the rate would be relatively consistent over time until it eventually tapers out to a steady state vs regrowth. Here’s a fun read if you’re curious: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/Forest...
  - patagonia 7y ago
    If you're curious you could have googled something like "rate of growth of amazon deforestation". If you would, you'd have seen in the summary of the 1st result from Wikipedia: "The annual rate of deforestation in the Amazon region dramatically increased from 1991 to 2003." The title of the third result is: "Brazil: deforestation in the Amazon increased 29% over last year". So if you want to dismiss an idea that you had, maybe step outside your head. If you want to draw historic correlations maybe don't try to do so based on completely different examples. There are very few South American issues on which I'd use U.S. historical data points for which to draw forward looking conclusions. Military growth? Energy policy? Monetary policy? Natural resource utilization? I wouldn't for any of those. But you boldly chose,,, deforestation? If you're gonna try to sound smart by dismissing something out of hand, then be smart. But for the love of god don't trivialize deforestation just as climate change is in the beginning stages of getting really, really bad, based on some half baked hunch you have, and then suggest I read some 64 page document that has, more than likely, no value add to the discussion. (Sorry but not sorry for the tone. Trivializing this issue is not ok. The logic was not correct. Patronizingly suggesting I read a 64 page doc, like a professor handing out homework. This is climate change, and the arguments were weak to wrong.)
    - koolba 7y ago
      > If you're curious you could have googled something like "rate of growth of amazon deforestation". If you would, you'd have seen in the summary of the 1st result from Wikipedia: "The annual rate of deforestation in the Amazon region dramatically increased from 1991 to 2003." The title of the third result is: "Brazil: deforestation in the Amazon increased 29% over last year". So if you want to dismiss an idea that you had, maybe step outside your head. If you want to draw historic correlations maybe don't try to do so based on completely different examples. There are very few South American issues on which I'd use U.S. historical data points for which to draw forward looking conclusions. Military growth? Energy policy? Monetary policy? Natural resource utilization? I wouldn't for any of those. But you boldly chose,,, deforestation? The numbers also dropped off significantly in 2009 and the latest figures seem to jive with my back of the envelope math. The "football pitch per minute" level quoted in the article is is below the averages for the past decade. > If you're gonna try to sound smart by dismissing something out of hand, then be smart. But for the love of god don't trivialize deforestation just as climate change is in the beginning stages of getting really, really bad, based on some half baked hunch you have, and then suggest I read some 64 page document that has, more than likely, no value add to the discussion. > (Sorry but not sorry for the tone. Trivializing this issue is not ok... Being outraged does not give any additional credibility to your opinion. Far from it. > ... The logic was not correct. Patronizingly suggesting I read a 64 page doc, like a professor handing out homework. This is climate change, and the arguments were weak to wrong.) I linked to an article that lists out estimates of the timber resources of the USA over the past 100-years. It seemed relevant to me as, though it's not apples to apples to compare any two countries across the globe, it's more relevant than arbitrarily claiming any level of cutting is going to end the world.
- dajohnson89 7y ago
  he said the line would be drawn at 10x, so it's a constant rate.
6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago
> The single biggest reason to fell trees, according to official figures, is to create new pastures for cattle... I doubt there's going to be much regrowth. It's still a huge and increasing number, regardless of whether it's a small fraction. It's how we go "Oh that's not so bad, we can allow more of it." And more and more of it. Let's say 10x that number is where you draw the line and don't allow any faster. In a lifetime (80 years) 60% of it is gone, but it never happened quickly. Pretending large numbers don't matter because they're small fractions only counts when they're really small fractions and there are other forces at play to fix it.
- autoexec 7y ago
  Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. You also can't replace the unique species of plants and animals that took millions of years to evolve in that environment. Any major removal of rainforest is a huge loss. The fact that it's happening because of cows and greed is just an insulting waste of a very unique and important resource.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    > Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. To be fair (and I'm not one to defend deforestation in the slightest) new growth does capture more CO2. Of course the other points in your comment are more important, to me at least.
    - pvaldes 7y ago
      > New growth does capture more CO2 If we cut a tree it seems that the new rings are much thin than the older rings, we could assume that the tree is growing slower each year but this image is deceiving Is true than the older tree is investing much more energy on reproduction, flowers and (most) fruits do not capture CO2 But the tree's work of a year, a cilinder of wood of just 5cm thick has much more mass than a solid stick of 50cm (young tree), because the diameter of the older ring is 6m and its height 30m, whereas the younger tree is a solid stick of 50cm x 5m. The older tree can be putting much more mass over its shoulders each year than the younger tree = capturing more CO2. Second: We don't want faster growing trees to capture CO2. We should aim for slow trees instead. The faster a tree grows, more "spongy" its wood. More brittle and less durable. Hard woods instead are really slow growers, specially when young, but weigth much more (much more CO2 captured in the same space) and this wood lasts intact much more decades. The CO2 capture is much more reliable. The ultra fast tree lives 30, maybe 50 years and then is over, the slow three can live for 500-1000 years easily.
egypturnash 7y ago
“Also, the rainy season is only now coming to an end, and because deforestation typically takes place in the drier months of the year, the official fears that the pace of losses could pick up speed. "In truth, it can be even worse," he said, because many of the areas recently damaged haven't yet been picked up by satellite images.” - from further down in the article, the speaker is an anonymous person in Brazil’s conservation department who isn’t giving his name for fear of reprisals,
mobilefriendly 7y ago
A single pitch seems too much in 2019. The Amazon is the most biologically diverse and rich belt in the world. It is paramount to protect this heritage. They are clearing it mostly for cattle and illegal timber. This is a massive systemic failure to assign the correct value to this land and to have legal systems capable of protecting it.
- username444 7y ago
  This. It's not just that one block of minecraft was once forest and is now dirt. It's a loss of ecosystem for huge numbers of species. It's additional GHG as they transport the wood. Some of that wood will end up being burnt, adding more GHGs. That's not to say anyone outside the Amazon is entitled to it, but it's not just "not so bad", it actually is bad.
vbuwivbiu 7y ago
Divides a big number by a huge number and now it doesn't seem so bad
titzer 7y ago
> assuming zero regrowth. "Regrowth" does not imply a restoration of the pristine ecosystem. Loss of biodiversity is irreversible. It might look "fine" to you to see leaves everywhere, but the thousands upon thousands of complex and intricate food webs don't just spring back overnight, or even over a century. When things go extinct, they just don't come back, ever. (reforestation always brings this image to mind: https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-08-25/amateur-restoration-botches-jesus-painting-spain https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-08-25/amateur-restoration-b...)

by koolba 7y ago

patagonia 7y ago

If you’re gonna use math to show how unimpressed you are, I’d be more impressed if you factored in the increased rate of clearing over time.

koolba 7y ago
I considered it but if it’s anything like the US the rate would be relatively consistent over time until it eventually tapers out to a steady state vs regrowth. Here’s a fun read if you’re curious: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/Forest...
- patagonia 7y ago
  If you're curious you could have googled something like "rate of growth of amazon deforestation". If you would, you'd have seen in the summary of the 1st result from Wikipedia: "The annual rate of deforestation in the Amazon region dramatically increased from 1991 to 2003." The title of the third result is: "Brazil: deforestation in the Amazon increased 29% over last year". So if you want to dismiss an idea that you had, maybe step outside your head. If you want to draw historic correlations maybe don't try to do so based on completely different examples. There are very few South American issues on which I'd use U.S. historical data points for which to draw forward looking conclusions. Military growth? Energy policy? Monetary policy? Natural resource utilization? I wouldn't for any of those. But you boldly chose,,, deforestation? If you're gonna try to sound smart by dismissing something out of hand, then be smart. But for the love of god don't trivialize deforestation just as climate change is in the beginning stages of getting really, really bad, based on some half baked hunch you have, and then suggest I read some 64 page document that has, more than likely, no value add to the discussion. (Sorry but not sorry for the tone. Trivializing this issue is not ok. The logic was not correct. Patronizingly suggesting I read a 64 page doc, like a professor handing out homework. This is climate change, and the arguments were weak to wrong.)
  - koolba 7y ago
    > If you're curious you could have googled something like "rate of growth of amazon deforestation". If you would, you'd have seen in the summary of the 1st result from Wikipedia: "The annual rate of deforestation in the Amazon region dramatically increased from 1991 to 2003." The title of the third result is: "Brazil: deforestation in the Amazon increased 29% over last year". So if you want to dismiss an idea that you had, maybe step outside your head. If you want to draw historic correlations maybe don't try to do so based on completely different examples. There are very few South American issues on which I'd use U.S. historical data points for which to draw forward looking conclusions. Military growth? Energy policy? Monetary policy? Natural resource utilization? I wouldn't for any of those. But you boldly chose,,, deforestation? The numbers also dropped off significantly in 2009 and the latest figures seem to jive with my back of the envelope math. The "football pitch per minute" level quoted in the article is is below the averages for the past decade. > If you're gonna try to sound smart by dismissing something out of hand, then be smart. But for the love of god don't trivialize deforestation just as climate change is in the beginning stages of getting really, really bad, based on some half baked hunch you have, and then suggest I read some 64 page document that has, more than likely, no value add to the discussion. > (Sorry but not sorry for the tone. Trivializing this issue is not ok... Being outraged does not give any additional credibility to your opinion. Far from it. > ... The logic was not correct. Patronizingly suggesting I read a 64 page doc, like a professor handing out homework. This is climate change, and the arguments were weak to wrong.) I linked to an article that lists out estimates of the timber resources of the USA over the past 100-years. It seemed relevant to me as, though it's not apples to apples to compare any two countries across the globe, it's more relevant than arbitrarily claiming any level of cutting is going to end the world.
dajohnson89 7y ago
he said the line would be drawn at 10x, so it's a constant rate.

6gvONxR4sf7o 7y ago

> The single biggest reason to fell trees, according to official figures, is to create new pastures for cattle... I doubt there's going to be much regrowth. It's still a huge and increasing number, regardless of whether it's a small fraction. It's how we go "Oh that's not so bad, we can allow more of it." And more and more of it. Let's say 10x that number is where you draw the line and don't allow any faster. In a lifetime (80 years) 60% of it is gone, but it never happened quickly. Pretending large numbers don't matter because they're small fractions only counts when they're really small fractions and there are other forces at play to fix it.

autoexec 7y ago
Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. You also can't replace the unique species of plants and animals that took millions of years to evolve in that environment. Any major removal of rainforest is a huge loss. The fact that it's happening because of cows and greed is just an insulting waste of a very unique and important resource.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  > Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. To be fair (and I'm not one to defend deforestation in the slightest) new growth does capture more CO2. Of course the other points in your comment are more important, to me at least.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    > New growth does capture more CO2 If we cut a tree it seems that the new rings are much thin than the older rings, we could assume that the tree is growing slower each year but this image is deceiving Is true than the older tree is investing much more energy on reproduction, flowers and (most) fruits do not capture CO2 But the tree's work of a year, a cilinder of wood of just 5cm thick has much more mass than a solid stick of 50cm (young tree), because the diameter of the older ring is 6m and its height 30m, whereas the younger tree is a solid stick of 50cm x 5m. The older tree can be putting much more mass over its shoulders each year than the younger tree = capturing more CO2. Second: We don't want faster growing trees to capture CO2. We should aim for slow trees instead. The faster a tree grows, more "spongy" its wood. More brittle and less durable. Hard woods instead are really slow growers, specially when young, but weigth much more (much more CO2 captured in the same space) and this wood lasts intact much more decades. The CO2 capture is much more reliable. The ultra fast tree lives 30, maybe 50 years and then is over, the slow three can live for 500-1000 years easily.

egypturnash 7y ago

“Also, the rainy season is only now coming to an end, and because deforestation typically takes place in the drier months of the year, the official fears that the pace of losses could pick up speed. "In truth, it can be even worse," he said, because many of the areas recently damaged haven't yet been picked up by satellite images.” - from further down in the article, the speaker is an anonymous person in Brazil’s conservation department who isn’t giving his name for fear of reprisals,

mobilefriendly 7y ago

A single pitch seems too much in 2019. The Amazon is the most biologically diverse and rich belt in the world. It is paramount to protect this heritage. They are clearing it mostly for cattle and illegal timber. This is a massive systemic failure to assign the correct value to this land and to have legal systems capable of protecting it.

username444 7y ago
This. It's not just that one block of minecraft was once forest and is now dirt. It's a loss of ecosystem for huge numbers of species. It's additional GHG as they transport the wood. Some of that wood will end up being burnt, adding more GHGs. That's not to say anyone outside the Amazon is entitled to it, but it's not just "not so bad", it actually is bad.

vbuwivbiu 7y ago

Divides a big number by a huge number and now it doesn't seem so bad

titzer 7y ago

> assuming zero regrowth. "Regrowth" does not imply a restoration of the pristine ecosystem. Loss of biodiversity is irreversible. It might look "fine" to you to see leaves everywhere, but the thousands upon thousands of complex and intricate food webs don't just spring back overnight, or even over a century. When things go extinct, they just don't come back, ever. (reforestation always brings this image to mind: https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-08-25/amateur-restoration-botches-jesus-painting-spain https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-08-25/amateur-restoration-b...)