6 ms·

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 strateg

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.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Personally, I think preserving the rain forest is more important than Brazil remaining a single country.
    - gberger 7y ago
      Right, but the Brazilian government will most likely act in a way as to preserve itself as a single country.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure, for example in the form of trade sanctions.
        Mirioron 7y ago
        So you'd also be okay with trade sanctions on the US over their CO2 output? Or does this only go one way, where poor countries have to do the best for the world while your country can do whatever they want?
        adrianN 7y ago
        Yes I would be okay with trade sanctions based on GHG emissions. That's how you would implement a carbon tax, you need tariffs for countries that don't want to join the tax system.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - throwaway189921 7y ago
      Personally, I think reducing CO2 emissions is more important than USA or China remaining single countries. Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure, for example in the form of trade sanctions.
ben_w 7y ago
CO2 isn’t the only reason to want to prevent deforestation. Also, yes, we should be encouraging mass reforestation everywhere and buying Wyoming to do that sounds like a good idea (though there may be more cost-effective options, I’m only saying “good” not “best”).
atombender 7y ago
Two answers: (1) Low-hanging fruit. Brazil has a huge CO2 sink today. It doesn't need to change infrastructure or teach its public new habits or almost anything in order to preserve it. We can preserve and even improve this CO2 sink with a single decision to ban its destruction. Other countries such as the U.S. has very few such big-ticket items -- it has a million small-ticket items, many of which require social engineering (reduce consumption, stop traveling) or big infrastructure changes (electric cars, public transit, gas tax, nuclear and renewable power, bans on various power-inefficient things). (2) Global warming is global. One country can destroy the environment for the entire planet. It's our responsibility to act everywhere. Environmentalism doesn't need borders. One could also argue that Brazil doesn't have the moral right to destroy a natural resource like this (nor does any other country). Your comment smells of whataboutism. How dare we impinge on another country's sovereignty when our own garden desperately needs tending? The answer in all such cases is, of course: You can do both.
- jackvezkovic 7y ago
  It's not whataboutism. It's a matter of principles. International pressure to "buy" a part of another country under the flag of environmental protection is not a reasonable option. It is a quite extreme measure. Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. For me, it all sounds like outsourcing environmental responsibility. Just put in perspective the cost/payoff of this proposal. This arrogance in the argument that the Amazon is not from Brazil and shouldn't be trusted with them is bad for the environmental discussion that needs to happen. Can't we really not think of better solutions?
  - maxheadroom 7y ago
    >Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. Eu não posso entender: Your proposed solution is that Brasil should carry-on doing whatever it wants with the Amazon Rain Forest and other countries should address their own CO^2 emissions, correct? What is the argument, then, when you consider that Brasil will surpass those very same countries in CO^2 emissions when it no longer has a sink to counteract the effects of its own emissions? Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want," whilst largely ignoring the fact that Brasil would - based on your proposition - be the resultant Sampson to the environment as a direct byproduct of that very premise. Why can't it be both that the "world's lungs", as the Amazon Rainforest is oft coined, not be devastated and other countries fix their emissions? This "muh sovruntee" mentality is precisely why we're stagnating (or even regressing) any progress on the positive feedback loop that we're currently sliding into. For example (if I understand correctly), it's why the states backed out of the Paris Agreements[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
agumonkey 7y ago
That was the argument made by Bolsonaro. I know he's using it as an hypocritical reason to carry his own absurd acts. It's a race to the bottom, but that's true.. other countries cannot accuse him unless they're clean.
- lucb1e 7y ago
  I take it Bolsonaro is a Brazilian government official. This is not how "taking a deep look in-house" works: if we argue that we should look in the mirror before looking at them, they can't use that argument to wish away any changes required in Brazil to keep the Amazon in a reasonable state. They should take a deep look in-house as well. And if they wish us to help with that (development aid from wealthy countries), they are welcome to ask, since it benefits us all.

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.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Personally, I think preserving the rain forest is more important than Brazil remaining a single country.
  - gberger 7y ago
    Right, but the Brazilian government will most likely act in a way as to preserve itself as a single country.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure, for example in the form of trade sanctions.
      - Mirioron 7y ago
        So you'd also be okay with trade sanctions on the US over their CO2 output? Or does this only go one way, where poor countries have to do the best for the world while your country can do whatever they want?
        adrianN 7y ago
        Yes I would be okay with trade sanctions based on GHG emissions. That's how you would implement a carbon tax, you need tariffs for countries that don't want to join the tax system.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - throwaway189921 7y ago
    Personally, I think reducing CO2 emissions is more important than USA or China remaining single countries. Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure, for example in the form of trade sanctions.

ben_w 7y ago

CO2 isn’t the only reason to want to prevent deforestation. Also, yes, we should be encouraging mass reforestation everywhere and buying Wyoming to do that sounds like a good idea (though there may be more cost-effective options, I’m only saying “good” not “best”).

atombender 7y ago

Two answers: (1) Low-hanging fruit. Brazil has a huge CO2 sink today. It doesn't need to change infrastructure or teach its public new habits or almost anything in order to preserve it. We can preserve and even improve this CO2 sink with a single decision to ban its destruction. Other countries such as the U.S. has very few such big-ticket items -- it has a million small-ticket items, many of which require social engineering (reduce consumption, stop traveling) or big infrastructure changes (electric cars, public transit, gas tax, nuclear and renewable power, bans on various power-inefficient things). (2) Global warming is global. One country can destroy the environment for the entire planet. It's our responsibility to act everywhere. Environmentalism doesn't need borders. One could also argue that Brazil doesn't have the moral right to destroy a natural resource like this (nor does any other country). Your comment smells of whataboutism. How dare we impinge on another country's sovereignty when our own garden desperately needs tending? The answer in all such cases is, of course: You can do both.

jackvezkovic 7y ago
It's not whataboutism. It's a matter of principles. International pressure to "buy" a part of another country under the flag of environmental protection is not a reasonable option. It is a quite extreme measure. Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. For me, it all sounds like outsourcing environmental responsibility. Just put in perspective the cost/payoff of this proposal. This arrogance in the argument that the Amazon is not from Brazil and shouldn't be trusted with them is bad for the environmental discussion that needs to happen. Can't we really not think of better solutions?
- maxheadroom 7y ago
  >Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. Eu não posso entender: Your proposed solution is that Brasil should carry-on doing whatever it wants with the Amazon Rain Forest and other countries should address their own CO^2 emissions, correct? What is the argument, then, when you consider that Brasil will surpass those very same countries in CO^2 emissions when it no longer has a sink to counteract the effects of its own emissions? Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want," whilst largely ignoring the fact that Brasil would - based on your proposition - be the resultant Sampson to the environment as a direct byproduct of that very premise. Why can't it be both that the "world's lungs", as the Amazon Rainforest is oft coined, not be devastated and other countries fix their emissions? This "muh sovruntee" mentality is precisely why we're stagnating (or even regressing) any progress on the positive feedback loop that we're currently sliding into. For example (if I understand correctly), it's why the states backed out of the Paris Agreements[0]. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Paris_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

agumonkey 7y ago

That was the argument made by Bolsonaro. I know he's using it as an hypocritical reason to carry his own absurd acts. It's a race to the bottom, but that's true.. other countries cannot accuse him unless they're clean.

lucb1e 7y ago
I take it Bolsonaro is a Brazilian government official. This is not how "taking a deep look in-house" works: if we argue that we should look in the mirror before looking at them, they can't use that argument to wish away any changes required in Brazil to keep the Amazon in a reasonable state. They should take a deep look in-house as well. And if they wish us to help with that (development aid from wealthy countries), they are welcome to ask, since it benefits us all.