25 ms·

Brazil has the power to save the Amazon rainforest, or destroy it

165 points by vincvinc 7y ago

adrianN 7y ago
The rest of the world has the power to force Brazil to save the Amazon. Stop importing soy and beef from Brazil, tie tariffs directly to satellite-based measurements of rainforest area.
- hu3 7y ago
  I'd love to see this kind of auto-calculated tariff be applied to the entire world instead of just one country. Might as well start with the biggest offenders: China and USA.
  - mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
    Go ahead, if you are from a nation that trades with US, what’s stopping you?
    - ben_w 7y ago
      Tariffs are set by governments not individuals.
      - mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
        Pressure your government?
        charliesome 7y ago
        Why are you so interested in shutting down discussion on this topic? People are talking about and lobbying their governments on this. It's entirely reasonable that we talk about it here too.
        mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
        I misread the parent comment. That said, I’m curious how you’d apply an automatic teriff? Who would enforce it?
        sprafa 7y ago
        There is no such thing as an automatic tariff that I’ve ever heard about. Tariffs have always been controlled by politicians.
- mathgeek 7y ago
  The rest of the world hasn’t even figured out how to force themselves to save their own equivalents, with few exceptions. Any action taken across borders should also be taken within borders. Sadly with the timeline of destruction, those two may be necessarily synchronous.
  - taejo 7y ago
    > The rest of the world hasn’t even figured out how to force themselves to save their own equivalents, with few exceptions. It may be politically easier to impose sanctions or tariffs on foreign countries than to ban or tax their own electorate. I'm in favour of forcing other countries to clean up especially if those countries in turn force my country to do the same.
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      What's more likely to happen is trade wars and maybe even real wars, because you're essentially wishing for destabilization of countries.
      - emn13 7y ago
        Some trade sanctions are a far cry from destabilization; and even destabilization need not lead to war. And while I think it's an unnecessary trade-off to make, I would further question your implicit assumption that any war is by definition worse than loss of the amazon rainforest. Look, if you reason like that you essentially say that you can never apply any pressure on others, because pressure might turn out to be too much, and might then lead to destabilization, and might then lead to conflict, which might grow into a horrible large-scale war. But that's putting yourself in a very weak position. Others may well take advantage, and you may end up in an even worse situation - on average. All that doomsday thinking about pressure is probably usually being to pessimistic. And even if things go badly, they shouldn't do so overnight; it's quite unlikely another nation wouldn't have the opportunity to reduce pressure before push comes to the rhetorical shoving.
        7y ago
- mayankkaizen 7y ago
  Sure, but before that rest of the world must make sure they have done everything they can in their own territories. But I doubt that is the case. Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism.
  - dfcmt 7y ago
    >Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism. You've described environmentalism.
  - fulafel 7y ago
    Isn't this argument essentially saying that progress needs to happen in lockstep in all countries, otherwise it's unfair or hypocritical? A sure receipe to gridlock everything. Perfect is the enemy of good, given the urgency it's really necessary to act pragmatically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
    - Mirioron 7y ago
      Because it is unfair and hypocritical. That's how western countries became rich, but now all the poor countries are being barred from this path. People in poor countries suffer. You're basically saying that they should have fewer opportunities than others.
      - fulafel 7y ago
        People in poor countries also stand to suffer disproportionately from climate change. So it's definitely a good thing in Brazilian self interest too. Of course we should do our best towards fairness as well, but perfectionism amounts to giving up. Edit: also, many rich countries have chopped away their forests and it's now plain that doing sustainable forestry would have been much better even for the time.
      - emn13 7y ago
        That's a lovely tale, but is it actually true? The path "western" countries took to riches was long, painful, and destructive. The alternatives available today simply weren't available then. If indeed the only route to modernization were via the exact path medieval Europe ended up taking then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not the case - right? If all you have to burn is wood, and all you can grow are relatively unimproved crops, then that's what you burn and grow. But nowadays even the poorest of countries has better options available, and likely can get some help in exploring those options too. Also, brazil is not some weak, destitute country. It's GDP is comparable to italy & france, and even per capita it's similar to the EU members bulgaria and romania. At PPP, the average income is pretty much smack on the world average, similar to china and serbia (the poorest EU country). Brazil isn't rich, but neither is it poor; it has the means to spend at least a small amount of effort avoiding deforstation. And let's not forget that deforestation will likely hurt Brazil too in the medium term; trying to avoid that isn't asking for a major sacrifice. It's asking for calm, rationality, and discipline. And yes, that's not at all trivial, but it's not a black and white affair either; some improvement is probably achievable, right?
- sprafa 7y ago
  Or you could pay Brasil to stop destroying it. That’s something the current president, as insidious as he might be, is correct about. Why does Brasil have to suffer alone for the world’s lungs? If the world benefits the world should pay.
  - wrong_variable 7y ago
    Even brazilian breath oxygen. What "suffering" has the rest of the world done to brazil ?
    - sprafa 7y ago
      Clearly you’re not a student of Brazilian history. Until 1988 Brasil lived under a CIA supported military dictatorship. I’m sure there are more examples of brutal Us intervention (same as there are in all of Latin America) but that’s the biggest one. Also look at this map https://medium.com/@indica/climate-winners-and-losers-in-two-maps-c89f17ef0a80?fbclid=IwAR1gff7oAyfhnAsgYPTBgojZJoH7mz0WHsEtxVul2zbwqFyt9ix7C3ZSN0c https://medium.com/@indica/climate-winners-and-losers-in-two... Brasil who is not one of the top contributors to climate change will be one of the most affected countries. Now they want to chop their forests for productive activities and they’re being climateblamed for first world activists. What I say to that - clean up your own house first. If you really want the amazon protected, pay for it by taxing your own carbon emissions. Brasil is going to suffer from your climate change activities, so it deserves compensation. TLDR- Brasil is getting fucked by climate change. So the answer to this idiot idea that Brasil should be paying for the world’s sin is - no, fuck you back. You want to absolve yourself of your sins, pay up.
      - boudewijnrempt 7y ago
        But Brazil also fucking itself... Talk about biting your head off to spite your nose.
        sprafa 7y ago
        I won’t disagree with you there. Even this recent election of the neofascist Bolsonaro was essentially a self destructive act, very much grounded in identify politics (particularly anti-homosexual).
- tchaffee 7y ago
  How are you going to get China, a huge consumer of soy, to play along? Chinese investors are making significant investments in Brazilian agriculture. I'm fairly certain they will not welcome Chinese government tariffs on imported soy, nor do I think the Chinese government has any interest in those types of tariffs.
harwoodleon 7y ago
Seems to me that if the Amazon collapses we all lose. Why not sanction Brazil? Or at least put together an international coalition / treaty to buy the Amazon and other rainforests and protect them? Stopping buying from Brazil won’t halt the internal markets purchasing of beef and soy, which as I am aware makes up the majority of the land usage.
- jackvezkovic 7y ago
  I find it incredible how people are eager to protect the environment in other people's countries before taking a deep look in-house. Suggesting to buy a strategically important area of Brazil under the umbrella of saving the world is just purely naive or hypocrite. China and US are the main contributors to global warming. Not even the Amazon as it currently stands can keep up with that. Shouldn't we apply sanctions to both of these countries then? Or form a coalition to buy Wyoming (the state with the highest CO2 emissions per capita) e.g., since it is in the interest of the world? If the Amazon rainforest does not belong to Brazil, then why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska belong to the US? Just to clarify, I am not pro bringing down the Amazon rainforest, only raising the flag on the tendency to outsource responsibility when it comes to the environment.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    I'm reasonably sure that there is a large overlap of people who are in favor of buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it and people who want drastic measures to reduce GHG emissions in their own countries and a carbon tax with tariffs on imports from countries that don't have an equivalent system.
    - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
      "Buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it" shows how little you foreigners understand of our country. It's a huge amount of land that is mostly unoccupied. There are serious concerns that smaller rogue countries will pop up in certain parts of it led by local militias. If we want Brazil to remain as one country then the first thing needed to do is to actually be present in a lot of this territory, and that won't happen if the majority of it can't be economically exploited in any way, especially in a country like Brazil where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and north regions, are extremely poor. Like any issue related to global warming, it's a little more complicated than people think.
hexo 7y ago
I'm completely sure they'll do anything to suck as much money from its destruction as possible. They don't really give about ecology and not even milimeter about planet or other people. You know, they'll go to heaven anyway since their chesus already saved 'em, so why would they care, whyyyyy?
- boyadjian 7y ago
  Same thing for all over the world.
boyadjian 7y ago
The only problem for the Amazon rainforest is high birth rates in Brazil and in the rest of the world. If high birth rates continue, then there will be no more rainforest, I can assure you.
- zorked 7y ago
  Brazil's fertility rate is somewhere between France and Germany.
  - lucb1e 7y ago
    This. I must admit that I had similar thoughts to u/boyadjian about the world's population. A few months ago I read the book Factfulness, which turned my world view upside down. Particularly on the point of fertility, the best we can do is help the final billion people that currently live in extreme poverty. This causes the transition from large families and high mortality rate to 2-child families with low mortality, independent of religion or anything else. We are almost there, except for that last 13%. The population explosion we have seen in the last century is due to the transition, where people got large families and suddenly none of the children died before they could get children of their own. The projection from the UN is that the population increase will stop around the year 2100 and top off at about 12 billion. That's a lot of people, but there is no reasonable alternative: nobody will stand for killing even one billion people, let alone the multiple billions that would make a significant difference in humanity's footprint. For perspective, to kill one billion, you would have to kill everyone currently alive in both north and south America. We can't let Africa starve to death (most of them aren't starving to death anymore anyway), so withholding vaccines or development aid won't prevent those four extra billion people from coming into the world, either. We need to continue to support countries to make the transition as fast as possible. Even if it is a big risk to try and live with 12 billion people on this planet, that is the only way forward that people will support, and so it is our only option. By the way, if anyone else would like a copy of Factfulness, I think the book is hugely important to read for everyone. If you think the price is too steep, I would be happy to pay 50% of your copy. (I would say 100%, but people abuse stuff that is free, and it's not expensive anyway.) I can also share a preview of the book to help you decide whether you should buy a copy or not.
forinti 7y ago
The Amazon still has a long way to go. At the moment, the Cerrado (tropical savanna) region is probably in more danger. In the Mato Grosso Region, it is cut down in order to make way for soy. In Goias, there are plans to build dams in areas of preservation. This is the region where my favorite animal lives: the maned wolf. These places are also quite dry and the Amazon produces the humidity they need. Without the Amazon, the Southeast will become a lot drier. So Brazilians themselves ought worry about it.
- ufo 7y ago
  The amazon does not have a long way to go. There is still much of it left but scientists believe that at some point between 20% and 30% deforastation there could be a turning point with irreversible changes to rainfall patterns that would turn most of the amazon rainforrest into a savanna.
pell 7y ago
The current administration is more interested in imprisoning the opposition.
vfc1 7y ago
The fall of the rainforest in 100 years or so is a certainty at this point, as well as the temperature rising over 2 degrees. There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable measures to prevent that. If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by populists. There is no way, it all happens slowly, much slower than the electoral cycle, the politicians in charge are usually seeking personal glory and long mandates, these measures would mean political suicide. 12 years is the time we have to prevent the rise of 2 degrees, its not hapening its as good as done.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  > There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable measures to prevent that. I increasingly view demands for coordination as counterproductive. There will never be full consensus about anything. Meanwhile, if e.g. California imposed a carbon tax on its own, would it destroy them? No, people wouldn't stop living in California just because it became more economical to install solar panels or buy a Nissan Leaf rather than a Toyota. And a market of even that size that went hard for fossil fuel alternatives would both show others that it can be done and create an economic advantage for itself by getting ahead of the curve and causing the companies implementing what must be the future for everyone as businesses inside their jurisdiction. > If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by populists. The answer is to make it revenue neutral and distribute the money as a cash dividend to the population. Then people whinge about the tax and love the credit and it cancels out across the population -- exactly cancels out, because that's what revenue neutral means. But you still get the consumer preference for things that don't destroy the world.
dfamorato 7y ago
There are some relevant information that must be taken in consideration. Brazil has about 66.3% of its overall land in a “reserved/protected” state, which is protected by law. Source: https://agroecologia.org.br/2019/01/14/censo-agropecuario-desautoriza-pesquisa-da-embrapa-sobre-a-preservacao-da-vegetacao-nativa-nos-imoveis-rurais/ https://agroecologia.org.br/2019/01/14/censo-agropecuario-de... This is over 631 million hectares of land destined for preservation, Equivalent to 48 European countries COMBINED. Amazon is not just IN BRAZIL, but spans over 9 nations. No, I am not saying that’s a “green light” for full on deforestation nor I am saying that Brazil is doing a the most fantastic job preserving it. What I am saying is that Brazil IS doing something to preserve the Amazon AND other forest land such as “Serra do Mar” and that a coalition of funds/resources could help improve enforcement of the law in these Protected areas. This much more “attainable” or acceptable by the current Brazilian government, which is currently very nationalist and patriotic. (President is retired Army captain, very right wing) Brazil would not part/sell with a piece of its national sovereign territory to anyone, even if it’s for a “greater good”, just as US would not sell the Tongass forest in Alaska or the Humboldt-Toiyabe in California/Nevada “for greater good” Every country has it’s share in controlling carbon emissions and global warming. No country should “outsource” their share of responsibility by enforcing environmental protection standards they are not willing to withhold themselves. TL;DR: Brazil has some protections in place, could use some help, would not sell the Amazon because it’s part/territory of Brazil and 8 other countries. Full disclosure: Brazilian by birth, American by choice
- fennecfoxen 7y ago
  There may be some protections in place, but President Jair Bolsonaro just forced scientist Ricardo Galvão to resign from the National Space Research Agency for having the audacity to report an 88% annual increase in deforestation in satellite data. The President called the numbers a lie. One can understand how this attitude undermines the integrity of the reserve.
ivanhoe 7y ago
On one hand it's horrible that Brazil and other 3rd world countries don't stop the jungle destruction, but on the other they're just doing what Europe has already done to it's own forests, so what gives us the right to moralize... very sad situation... my view is that really the West is the one that can stop it, by investing and insisting on green industries, and not doing any business with those that endanger rain forests. It's all about the money in the end, so if Brazil (and people in power) can make a lot more money from preserving rainforest than from cutting them, then lots of people in power will be incentivized to protect them. Otherwise, as any politicians, they'll try to please their voters and sponsors first.
- lautis 7y ago
  Even the most developed countries are very much quilty of the same. Just a week ago we had a thread about deforestation of the Pacific temperate rainforests. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20546288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20546288
- vhogemann 7y ago
  It's not about poor people trying to make a living. It's about rich people trying to get even more rich. Wood, Soybeans and Cattle. The agricultural industry is behind this.
  - dubeux 7y ago
    ^ This! Perfect. The glorious agrobusiness keeps boasting how great they are to Brazilian economy. Well, for more of the usual (huge inequity, deforestation, the largest use of agrotoxics in the world and everything on the package - terrible education, almost exclusively extractive economy, a militar police that ranks among the most lethal in the world...), yes, that's the way.
  - ivanhoe 7y ago
    Yes, and they get rich by exporting those goods.. to West, among others... same thing as poachers in Africa don't sell ivory to Africans, they sell it to the West and Asia...
codeisawesome 7y ago
I was wondering - what would happen if Beef and Soybeans were import-taxed in the US at an absurd rate, say 300%? Then, all cattle farming will have to occur in the US, thus needing no deforestation to grow meat.
- tchaffee 7y ago
  China is one of the biggest consumers of soy grown in Brazil.
gdubs 7y ago
Our economy doesn’t factor in the negative externalities, the damage to the environment done for the sake of making a profit. If we did factor in those costs, if we put a value on the Amazon as the lungs of the world, then it would be more profitable to preserve it than to destroy it. A carbon tax is a bipartisan solution to this problem. Factor in the negative externalities, and pay a dividend to places that provide a global, environmental service by protecting their forests.
fractallyte 7y ago
And the last piece of Hambacher Forest in Germany is also facing eradication, by a mining company. The German government is silent on the matter: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48931062 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48931062 It's time to stop fighting these wars on their respective front lines, and aggressively pursue the responsible ministers, executives and shareholders.

165 points by vincvinc 7y ago

The rest of the world has the power to force Brazil to save the Amazon. Stop importing soy and beef from Brazil, tie tariffs directly to satellite-based measurements of rainforest area.

hu3 7y ago
I'd love to see this kind of auto-calculated tariff be applied to the entire world instead of just one country. Might as well start with the biggest offenders: China and USA.
- mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
  Go ahead, if you are from a nation that trades with US, what’s stopping you?
  - ben_w 7y ago
    Tariffs are set by governments not individuals.
    - mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
      Pressure your government?
      - charliesome 7y ago
        Why are you so interested in shutting down discussion on this topic? People are talking about and lobbying their governments on this. It's entirely reasonable that we talk about it here too.
        mrhappyunhappy 7y ago
        I misread the parent comment. That said, I’m curious how you’d apply an automatic teriff? Who would enforce it?
        sprafa 7y ago
        There is no such thing as an automatic tariff that I’ve ever heard about. Tariffs have always been controlled by politicians.
mathgeek 7y ago
The rest of the world hasn’t even figured out how to force themselves to save their own equivalents, with few exceptions. Any action taken across borders should also be taken within borders. Sadly with the timeline of destruction, those two may be necessarily synchronous.
- taejo 7y ago
  > The rest of the world hasn’t even figured out how to force themselves to save their own equivalents, with few exceptions. It may be politically easier to impose sanctions or tariffs on foreign countries than to ban or tax their own electorate. I'm in favour of forcing other countries to clean up especially if those countries in turn force my country to do the same.
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    What's more likely to happen is trade wars and maybe even real wars, because you're essentially wishing for destabilization of countries.
    - emn13 7y ago
      Some trade sanctions are a far cry from destabilization; and even destabilization need not lead to war. And while I think it's an unnecessary trade-off to make, I would further question your implicit assumption that any war is by definition worse than loss of the amazon rainforest. Look, if you reason like that you essentially say that you can never apply any pressure on others, because pressure might turn out to be too much, and might then lead to destabilization, and might then lead to conflict, which might grow into a horrible large-scale war. But that's putting yourself in a very weak position. Others may well take advantage, and you may end up in an even worse situation - on average. All that doomsday thinking about pressure is probably usually being to pessimistic. And even if things go badly, they shouldn't do so overnight; it's quite unlikely another nation wouldn't have the opportunity to reduce pressure before push comes to the rhetorical shoving.
      - 7y ago
mayankkaizen 7y ago
Sure, but before that rest of the world must make sure they have done everything they can in their own territories. But I doubt that is the case. Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism.
- dfcmt 7y ago
  >Otherwise it is nothing more than hooliganism. You've described environmentalism.
- fulafel 7y ago
  Isn't this argument essentially saying that progress needs to happen in lockstep in all countries, otherwise it's unfair or hypocritical? A sure receipe to gridlock everything. Perfect is the enemy of good, given the urgency it's really necessary to act pragmatically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
  - Mirioron 7y ago
    Because it is unfair and hypocritical. That's how western countries became rich, but now all the poor countries are being barred from this path. People in poor countries suffer. You're basically saying that they should have fewer opportunities than others.
    - fulafel 7y ago
      People in poor countries also stand to suffer disproportionately from climate change. So it's definitely a good thing in Brazilian self interest too. Of course we should do our best towards fairness as well, but perfectionism amounts to giving up. Edit: also, many rich countries have chopped away their forests and it's now plain that doing sustainable forestry would have been much better even for the time.
    - emn13 7y ago
      That's a lovely tale, but is it actually true? The path "western" countries took to riches was long, painful, and destructive. The alternatives available today simply weren't available then. If indeed the only route to modernization were via the exact path medieval Europe ended up taking then maybe you'd have a point. But that's not the case - right? If all you have to burn is wood, and all you can grow are relatively unimproved crops, then that's what you burn and grow. But nowadays even the poorest of countries has better options available, and likely can get some help in exploring those options too. Also, brazil is not some weak, destitute country. It's GDP is comparable to italy & france, and even per capita it's similar to the EU members bulgaria and romania. At PPP, the average income is pretty much smack on the world average, similar to china and serbia (the poorest EU country). Brazil isn't rich, but neither is it poor; it has the means to spend at least a small amount of effort avoiding deforstation. And let's not forget that deforestation will likely hurt Brazil too in the medium term; trying to avoid that isn't asking for a major sacrifice. It's asking for calm, rationality, and discipline. And yes, that's not at all trivial, but it's not a black and white affair either; some improvement is probably achievable, right?
sprafa 7y ago
Or you could pay Brasil to stop destroying it. That’s something the current president, as insidious as he might be, is correct about. Why does Brasil have to suffer alone for the world’s lungs? If the world benefits the world should pay.
- wrong_variable 7y ago
  Even brazilian breath oxygen. What "suffering" has the rest of the world done to brazil ?
  - sprafa 7y ago
    Clearly you’re not a student of Brazilian history. Until 1988 Brasil lived under a CIA supported military dictatorship. I’m sure there are more examples of brutal Us intervention (same as there are in all of Latin America) but that’s the biggest one. Also look at this map https://medium.com/@indica/climate-winners-and-losers-in-two-maps-c89f17ef0a80?fbclid=IwAR1gff7oAyfhnAsgYPTBgojZJoH7mz0WHsEtxVul2zbwqFyt9ix7C3ZSN0c https://medium.com/@indica/climate-winners-and-losers-in-two... Brasil who is not one of the top contributors to climate change will be one of the most affected countries. Now they want to chop their forests for productive activities and they’re being climateblamed for first world activists. What I say to that - clean up your own house first. If you really want the amazon protected, pay for it by taxing your own carbon emissions. Brasil is going to suffer from your climate change activities, so it deserves compensation. TLDR- Brasil is getting fucked by climate change. So the answer to this idiot idea that Brasil should be paying for the world’s sin is - no, fuck you back. You want to absolve yourself of your sins, pay up.
    - boudewijnrempt 7y ago
      But Brazil also fucking itself... Talk about biting your head off to spite your nose.
      - sprafa 7y ago
        I won’t disagree with you there. Even this recent election of the neofascist Bolsonaro was essentially a self destructive act, very much grounded in identify politics (particularly anti-homosexual).
tchaffee 7y ago
How are you going to get China, a huge consumer of soy, to play along? Chinese investors are making significant investments in Brazilian agriculture. I'm fairly certain they will not welcome Chinese government tariffs on imported soy, nor do I think the Chinese government has any interest in those types of tariffs.

harwoodleon 7y ago

Seems to me that if the Amazon collapses we all lose. Why not sanction Brazil? Or at least put together an international coalition / treaty to buy the Amazon and other rainforests and protect them? Stopping buying from Brazil won’t halt the internal markets purchasing of beef and soy, which as I am aware makes up the majority of the land usage.

jackvezkovic 7y ago
I find it incredible how people are eager to protect the environment in other people's countries before taking a deep look in-house. Suggesting to buy a strategically important area of Brazil under the umbrella of saving the world is just purely naive or hypocrite. China and US are the main contributors to global warming. Not even the Amazon as it currently stands can keep up with that. Shouldn't we apply sanctions to both of these countries then? Or form a coalition to buy Wyoming (the state with the highest CO2 emissions per capita) e.g., since it is in the interest of the world? If the Amazon rainforest does not belong to Brazil, then why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska belong to the US? Just to clarify, I am not pro bringing down the Amazon rainforest, only raising the flag on the tendency to outsource responsibility when it comes to the environment.
- adrianN 7y ago
  I'm reasonably sure that there is a large overlap of people who are in favor of buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it and people who want drastic measures to reduce GHG emissions in their own countries and a carbon tax with tariffs on imports from countries that don't have an equivalent system.
  - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
    "Buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it" shows how little you foreigners understand of our country. It's a huge amount of land that is mostly unoccupied. There are serious concerns that smaller rogue countries will pop up in certain parts of it led by local militias. If we want Brazil to remain as one country then the first thing needed to do is to actually be present in a lot of this territory, and that won't happen if the majority of it can't be economically exploited in any way, especially in a country like Brazil where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and north regions, are extremely poor. Like any issue related to global warming, it's a little more complicated than people think.

hexo 7y ago

I'm completely sure they'll do anything to suck as much money from its destruction as possible. They don't really give about ecology and not even milimeter about planet or other people. You know, they'll go to heaven anyway since their chesus already saved 'em, so why would they care, whyyyyy?

boyadjian 7y ago
Same thing for all over the world.

boyadjian 7y ago

The only problem for the Amazon rainforest is high birth rates in Brazil and in the rest of the world. If high birth rates continue, then there will be no more rainforest, I can assure you.

zorked 7y ago
Brazil's fertility rate is somewhere between France and Germany.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  This. I must admit that I had similar thoughts to u/boyadjian about the world's population. A few months ago I read the book Factfulness, which turned my world view upside down. Particularly on the point of fertility, the best we can do is help the final billion people that currently live in extreme poverty. This causes the transition from large families and high mortality rate to 2-child families with low mortality, independent of religion or anything else. We are almost there, except for that last 13%. The population explosion we have seen in the last century is due to the transition, where people got large families and suddenly none of the children died before they could get children of their own. The projection from the UN is that the population increase will stop around the year 2100 and top off at about 12 billion. That's a lot of people, but there is no reasonable alternative: nobody will stand for killing even one billion people, let alone the multiple billions that would make a significant difference in humanity's footprint. For perspective, to kill one billion, you would have to kill everyone currently alive in both north and south America. We can't let Africa starve to death (most of them aren't starving to death anymore anyway), so withholding vaccines or development aid won't prevent those four extra billion people from coming into the world, either. We need to continue to support countries to make the transition as fast as possible. Even if it is a big risk to try and live with 12 billion people on this planet, that is the only way forward that people will support, and so it is our only option. By the way, if anyone else would like a copy of Factfulness, I think the book is hugely important to read for everyone. If you think the price is too steep, I would be happy to pay 50% of your copy. (I would say 100%, but people abuse stuff that is free, and it's not expensive anyway.) I can also share a preview of the book to help you decide whether you should buy a copy or not.

forinti 7y ago

The Amazon still has a long way to go. At the moment, the Cerrado (tropical savanna) region is probably in more danger. In the Mato Grosso Region, it is cut down in order to make way for soy. In Goias, there are plans to build dams in areas of preservation. This is the region where my favorite animal lives: the maned wolf. These places are also quite dry and the Amazon produces the humidity they need. Without the Amazon, the Southeast will become a lot drier. So Brazilians themselves ought worry about it.

ufo 7y ago
The amazon does not have a long way to go. There is still much of it left but scientists believe that at some point between 20% and 30% deforastation there could be a turning point with irreversible changes to rainfall patterns that would turn most of the amazon rainforrest into a savanna.

pell 7y ago

The current administration is more interested in imprisoning the opposition.

vfc1 7y ago

The fall of the rainforest in 100 years or so is a certainty at this point, as well as the temperature rising over 2 degrees. There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable measures to prevent that. If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by populists. There is no way, it all happens slowly, much slower than the electoral cycle, the politicians in charge are usually seeking personal glory and long mandates, these measures would mean political suicide. 12 years is the time we have to prevent the rise of 2 degrees, its not hapening its as good as done.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable measures to prevent that. I increasingly view demands for coordination as counterproductive. There will never be full consensus about anything. Meanwhile, if e.g. California imposed a carbon tax on its own, would it destroy them? No, people wouldn't stop living in California just because it became more economical to install solar panels or buy a Nissan Leaf rather than a Toyota. And a market of even that size that went hard for fossil fuel alternatives would both show others that it can be done and create an economic advantage for itself by getting ahead of the curve and causing the companies implementing what must be the future for everyone as businesses inside their jurisdiction. > If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by populists. The answer is to make it revenue neutral and distribute the money as a cash dividend to the population. Then people whinge about the tax and love the credit and it cancels out across the population -- exactly cancels out, because that's what revenue neutral means. But you still get the consumer preference for things that don't destroy the world.

dfamorato 7y ago

There are some relevant information that must be taken in consideration. Brazil has about 66.3% of its overall land in a “reserved/protected” state, which is protected by law. Source: https://agroecologia.org.br/2019/01/14/censo-agropecuario-desautoriza-pesquisa-da-embrapa-sobre-a-preservacao-da-vegetacao-nativa-nos-imoveis-rurais/ https://agroecologia.org.br/2019/01/14/censo-agropecuario-de... This is over 631 million hectares of land destined for preservation, Equivalent to 48 European countries COMBINED. Amazon is not just IN BRAZIL, but spans over 9 nations. No, I am not saying that’s a “green light” for full on deforestation nor I am saying that Brazil is doing a the most fantastic job preserving it. What I am saying is that Brazil IS doing something to preserve the Amazon AND other forest land such as “Serra do Mar” and that a coalition of funds/resources could help improve enforcement of the law in these Protected areas. This much more “attainable” or acceptable by the current Brazilian government, which is currently very nationalist and patriotic. (President is retired Army captain, very right wing) Brazil would not part/sell with a piece of its national sovereign territory to anyone, even if it’s for a “greater good”, just as US would not sell the Tongass forest in Alaska or the Humboldt-Toiyabe in California/Nevada “for greater good” Every country has it’s share in controlling carbon emissions and global warming. No country should “outsource” their share of responsibility by enforcing environmental protection standards they are not willing to withhold themselves. TL;DR: Brazil has some protections in place, could use some help, would not sell the Amazon because it’s part/territory of Brazil and 8 other countries. Full disclosure: Brazilian by birth, American by choice

fennecfoxen 7y ago
There may be some protections in place, but President Jair Bolsonaro just forced scientist Ricardo Galvão to resign from the National Space Research Agency for having the audacity to report an 88% annual increase in deforestation in satellite data. The President called the numbers a lie. One can understand how this attitude undermines the integrity of the reserve.

ivanhoe 7y ago

On one hand it's horrible that Brazil and other 3rd world countries don't stop the jungle destruction, but on the other they're just doing what Europe has already done to it's own forests, so what gives us the right to moralize... very sad situation... my view is that really the West is the one that can stop it, by investing and insisting on green industries, and not doing any business with those that endanger rain forests. It's all about the money in the end, so if Brazil (and people in power) can make a lot more money from preserving rainforest than from cutting them, then lots of people in power will be incentivized to protect them. Otherwise, as any politicians, they'll try to please their voters and sponsors first.

lautis 7y ago
Even the most developed countries are very much quilty of the same. Just a week ago we had a thread about deforestation of the Pacific temperate rainforests. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20546288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20546288
vhogemann 7y ago
It's not about poor people trying to make a living. It's about rich people trying to get even more rich. Wood, Soybeans and Cattle. The agricultural industry is behind this.
- dubeux 7y ago
  ^ This! Perfect. The glorious agrobusiness keeps boasting how great they are to Brazilian economy. Well, for more of the usual (huge inequity, deforestation, the largest use of agrotoxics in the world and everything on the package - terrible education, almost exclusively extractive economy, a militar police that ranks among the most lethal in the world...), yes, that's the way.
- ivanhoe 7y ago
  Yes, and they get rich by exporting those goods.. to West, among others... same thing as poachers in Africa don't sell ivory to Africans, they sell it to the West and Asia...

codeisawesome 7y ago

I was wondering - what would happen if Beef and Soybeans were import-taxed in the US at an absurd rate, say 300%? Then, all cattle farming will have to occur in the US, thus needing no deforestation to grow meat.

tchaffee 7y ago
China is one of the biggest consumers of soy grown in Brazil.

gdubs 7y ago

Our economy doesn’t factor in the negative externalities, the damage to the environment done for the sake of making a profit. If we did factor in those costs, if we put a value on the Amazon as the lungs of the world, then it would be more profitable to preserve it than to destroy it. A carbon tax is a bipartisan solution to this problem. Factor in the negative externalities, and pay a dividend to places that provide a global, environmental service by protecting their forests.

fractallyte 7y ago

And the last piece of Hambacher Forest in Germany is also facing eradication, by a mining company. The German government is silent on the matter: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48931062 https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48931062 It's time to stop fighting these wars on their respective front lines, and aggressively pursue the responsible ministers, executives and shareholders.