15 ms·

Amazon fires: Brazil threatened over EU trade deal

149 points by Nux 7y ago

dmix 7y ago
There's also the huge sargassum seaweed problem that is heavily influenced by the mass deforestation of the Amazon [1] (among others), which is significantly harming the beaches, impacting wildlife, and values of properties in Florida and Cancun and on all beaches along that whole side of the peninsula. I just came back from a trip to Mexico and it was everywhere and smells awful. You can smell it driving on the highway from the airport. Its diverting lots of resources from the Mexican navy, local governments, and volunteers who have to clean it up constantly to keep the beaches usable. There was plenty of sea turtles who love to eat the stuff. This is a good opportunity for some international pressure as the consequences are very much here and now. Not some hypothetical climate change in the future. 1. https://youtu.be/whqaV8xfOTg?t=85 https://youtu.be/whqaV8xfOTg?t=85
- sgt101 7y ago
  There is nothing hypothetical about climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recor...
  - Doxterpepper 7y ago
    I think his point is that the consequences of climate change are still down the road and just how bad it will be is yet to be seen. Harder to get people around on big changes due to climate change since we're a couple years off from big consequences. The impact from deforestation of the Amazon can be seen right now.
    - underbluewaters 7y ago
      The consequences of climate change are here and have been for years. In Hawaii >50% of coral reefs died off in 2015 [1], including my favorite fishing spots. Three years later most of this eroded habitat was then destroyed by winter swells. These reefs had never bleached in modern history. I saw a coral colony the size of a small house (100s of years old) flipped over and crushed. It was so sad that it was a major contributor to me deciding to leave the state. Many coastal communities are dealing with more serious problems. [1] https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/reefresponse/files/2016/09/WHI-Coral-Bleaching-Survey.pdf https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/reefresponse/files/2016/09/WHI-Coral...
  - dmix 7y ago
    Sure, yet many of the worst future risks are very much still abstract and not yet fully developed concrete risks in people's minds. Human motivation is very fickle and it seems to be in our nature to do everything last minute, maybe some genetic legacy to conserve energy and a natural aversion to adding more effort for yet another problem. With this sargassum issue they can no longer just say they "don't believe" in something when its in front of them. The stuff that's happening today is probably the best motivator to get people to invest in the future. That's why all of those BBC nature docs are the great sales pitches as they always touch on real issues happening now (see: shots of a polar bear on an ice block!). Plus it's not just climate change, it could be any major human disruption of natural habits.
    - sprafa 7y ago
      I think we’re beginning to see the madness of even a slight climate adjustment and how it’s impacting lives (and in the case of Greece and Portugal and many other people - killing people in massive fires) People are beginning to seriously freak out. I see that in the UK where I live and in Portugal where I come from and in Brasil where my family is from. People are seeing fires, drought and extreme weather (in Europe heatwaves are killing people). It feels like the end of times. To be fair climate change denial is mostly a political Problem. Most Americans believe in climate change and same in the Uk and I believe in most of the developed world.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        Eh, I live in Portugal and while climate change doesn't help, I also don't think that's the biggest cause of our large fires, we mostly just suck at managing the forest - we depopulated the interior without having a backup plan. The fires in the Artic and Siberia, that does feel like the end of times :/
        sprafa 7y ago
        I do feel temperatures have been getting higher than they used to be when I was a kid. Particularly in peak summer. In my hometown I don’t remember barely being able to be out in the sun for so many days as lately.
  - vixen99 7y ago
    The comment refers to 'some hypothetical climate change in the future'. Given that there is no justification for projecting trend lines beyond existing data points, use of the word hypothetical is correct.
    - sgt101 7y ago
      There is a clear justification in projecting the trend lines; we have a theory developed from observation that has predicted what has happened so far. This theory predicts that the trends will continue, it is robust and substantiated. The introduction of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere by humans is causing the earth to heat.
abhinai 7y ago
I wish the United States had the will power to similarly try and influence Brazil to stop the deforestation in Amazon.
- superpermutat0r 7y ago
  China seems to be the biggest Brazil partner. EU and USA do not contribute much.
  - radicalbyte 7y ago
    Given that the Chinese are big buyers of Soya Beans and the USA are using Soya Beans in their trade war against China, I can't help but think that they've basically been pouring petrol onto the Amazon..
  - diegoholiveira 7y ago
    > EU and USA do not contribute much. Not true.
- UglyToad 7y ago
  A cynic might point out that Bolsonaro was far more palatable to American finance and government than the alternative. He is to some degree America's monster and has caused a thawing of US-Brazil relations which wasn't possible under left wing leaders. https://www.thedialogue.org/blogs/2019/06/remaking-us-brazilian-relations-the-odyssey-of-trump-and-bolsonaro/ https://www.thedialogue.org/blogs/2019/06/remaking-us-brazil... The whole situation is terrible but I don't think the establishment powers in the US would have much interest in pressuring his administration.
- diegoholiveira 7y ago
  They have, but when they do, everyone in latin america call them imperialists, so, why bother?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    When has the US tried to influence Brazil to stop the deforestation in Amazon?
panpanna 7y ago
About time. If this president has no problem openly screwing his own people and lie about it right in your face, I don't think he makes the greatest trade partner anyway.
- cubaia 7y ago
  Aside from your opinion about that president, this is an interesting take, since the trades are between countries and the markets within those countries -- not between presidents. > I don't think he makes the greatest trade partner anyway This seems to imply that the president of Brazil represents the entirety of an economic block, and as such a trade deal should suffer because of just one person?
  - petre 7y ago
    Brazilians chose him to represent them and negotiate trade deals. He refused to meet France's foreign affairs minister and had a haircut instead. I guess these are the consequences and one thing leads to another. At least the EU is acting more like a block this time, rather than being in disagreement. Why give Brazil aid from EU taxpayer money to fight deforestation if they're not interested? We could take his advice and use those funds to plant trees in Europe instead. https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/bolsonaros-amazon-sized-spat-with-germany-norway-threatens-europe-south-america-trade-deal/2019/08/20/cc60ee3c-c2b8-11e9-8bf7-cde2d9e09055_story.html%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/world/t...
TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
The agricultural trade is the root cause of the Amazon deforestation, so this is good.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
neves 7y ago
Don't forget that our climate change denier President was elected due to fake news and extreme right radical content freely spread in Facebook, WhatsApp and YouTube. The companies responsible for these services, who put their profit over everything else, are the main culprit. Our fellow software developers who work there also have their due share. It isn't a easy subject to talk about, but our profession disregard of Ethics is a serious problem.
- Iv 7y ago
  Hmmm... First, that's an excuse. The blame comes to the voters first. Second, the main media this happened through was Fox News, which is a pure propaganda machine, that design lies and presents them as facts. Third, I am fine with companies choosing to not intervene in political debate and stay as neutral as possible when it comes to manually applying filters on content. Being used to transmit propaganda is not the same as producing it
  - icebraining 7y ago
    I don't think Fox News got Bolsonaro elected.
- nafizh 7y ago
  Ideally, at this point, working for Facebook should have become a badge of shame.
- skrebbel 7y ago
  WhatsApp? A direct messaging service? They have no recommendation engine, no algorithms, no nothing. It's all just infrastructure. How can you blame WhatsApp? I mean, it's basically just "SMS, but then free". Blaming WhatsApp for the messages its users send is like blaming ISPs for piracy, right?
  - sprafa 7y ago
    There was massive disinformation campaign through targeted massive whatsapp groups. Everyone in Brasil is on whatsapp so that was a way to do it. I understand your point but some research would help. It’s not so much as blaming ISPs for piracy but blaming hosting services for serving stuff like 8chan ir far right neonazi websites. Yes the networks are different but we still need to consider the consequences and how to mitigate things. It’s either that or chaos.
albandread 7y ago
As Boris criticises Brazil; he might want to reflect that until the 1990s; here in the UK we used to set our own fields on fire to burn the stubble. I remember the smoke; and the red sun and moon. I am pro preserving the rain-forest; but interestingly enough that is also a human managed environment and has been for 1000s of years. As for bio-diversity; I am pretty sure a lot of the UK was once forested and certainly had wolves, bears and other inconvenient creatures; at this point we are starting to even wipe out our insects. For the sake of bio-diversity we should re-introduce all those animals.
- myeviltwin 7y ago
  Unfortunately you cannot re-introduce those that are extinct, or doomed because of the gene pool already diminished. A complex ecosystem needs long time to develop.
mklarmann 7y ago
Am I a bit wimpy, when I have to think about all the animals that live in these forest, right now being burned alive? I have a hard time grasping why, again, people are so damn greedy. For the quick money, basically destroy this precious resource of the amazon forest. I am really angry. I stand with the people, that care about this and want it to end [1] I do hope, that this Mr. "Trump of the Tropics", listens to his colleagues in Germany, France, etc. and just stops. I cannot consume any more beef from south america, knowing this is happening because of it. [1]: https://twitter.com/violadavis/status/1164720036021321728?s=20 https://twitter.com/violadavis/status/1164720036021321728?s=...
major505 7y ago
Deflorestation and fires are a problem in the Brazilian amazon many since ever. Besides news of fire in amazon this is a common phenomenon that time of the year. The biggest problem is this is the Dry season, combining with fires spread by farmers owners used to clean the land and start a new crop (or grazing for animals), that inevitable get out of control. The thing is, biggest producers usually follow more strict rules, medium and small farms still start fires, because is a quicker and cheapper way to clean the land in the start of a new season. I`m not a specialist, but as far as I researched, staring fires, specially in native florests, is illegal, but the ambiental police is low in resources when it comes of fiscalization and appplication of the law. The fund to protect the amazon florest, had been cut in radically in the last 10 years. To give perspective, in the last goverment, it was dropped from 6.5 billion to 1.2 billion. What we can take from the current situation: - There was increase in fire area in the amazon region, but this happens in a yearly basis. - There where a sistematic cut in the budget for protecting the florest. - Add the low budget situation, to corruption of polititians in the regional level, and is a recipt for disaster. - The current news are worrisome, but they are boosted by the current political climate. The press hate Bolsonaro almost as much as they hate Trump. Some of it based in facts, some in pure histeria. - Much international pressure are now comming because the brazilian goverment stop working with international ONGs that used to receive money for goverment to do nothing about. No international ONGs cried with almost 100k area fires that happened in 2010, or the 79ks that happened a few years before. - In the end is all about money. The forest will continue to burn, animals will continue to die. No on will remmember in a few months. - Independent of what the goverment does (and is current doing a crappy job, don't take me wrong), there will still be attacked by the press. Is how it works.
- diegoholiveira 7y ago
  Exactly. Those people blaming the current president doesn't understand that this is not a new problem. They're doing this only because the president is not who they want. I never saw the world saying anything when the Left was in the government and this same thing happen.
  - zekrioca 7y ago
vfc1 7y ago
It's a complex issue, Brasil is doing what the US and Europe did 150 years ago: burning down the forest and taking advantage of natural resources until a large percentage of the country is covered by agricultural fields. We did so why can't they? I think they shouldn't because of global warming and what science tell us, but there should be some compensation given under the form of a tax to keep the forest alive, I don't think that would be ecological blackmail at all. The biggest export of Brasil is soy beans (27 billion market) mostly to China - https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/bra/show/1201/2017/ https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/bra/show..., but of course its much more complicated then that. The China demand has increased recently due to the US trade wars, so that plays a role too. There are tens of different crops used for all sorts of products, like palm oil used in doughnuts, kids cereals etc. For example, leather is exported to China, that produces clothes that are sold globally a lot of it to the west, but not only. The Amazon basin has a huge concentration of cattle in the world (200 million heads), and is a huge exporter of soy beans (27 billion market). Pasture land and cattle feed crops are the main driver of the deforestation, so reducing global meat comsumption is the only way to stop the economic incentive to tear down the rainforest. Brasil by itself has no interest in tearing down the forest to feed their population, this level of agriculture is for exporting and for feeding a highly resource intensive and environmental impactful process: meat production. Its a global problem, maybe threatening the trade deal with Brasil is an effective short term solution to put some brakes on at least some of the damage, but without a global change of common habits like eating too much meat, the deforestation is not going to slow down anytime soon, by the contrary.
- major505 7y ago
  Lets be honest here: having a florest jsut for having a florest, does no good. The amazon needs to be exploited for its natural resources, otherwise may as well not exist, but if gonna do it, we need to do it rigth. And burning the florest to plant soil or grazing land is a shit way to do it. And in the end, if having a florest in place helps people make money, they will start working harder in preserving it. Is like legal elephant hunting. My looks barbaric to some (i really dislike it), but is the only reason that there still elephants today, and people who used to hunt them for the preys, now help preserve because they make more money of rich tourist that pay big bucks to shoot an animal.
anewguy9000 7y ago
for comparison: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra... interestingly nasa says there is nothing unusual about the fires, while it is brazil's space agency that the mainstream news is quoting. which reference is trusted just seems to depend on which will get the most clicks?
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  The fires are larger than on the few previous years. They are still well bellow the historical average. The recent trend has been of growth. A lot of this year's fires have been on a natural preservation area that in theory can not be used to agriculture. Some people claim the area got out of equilibrium due to global warming and the fire was unavoidable, some claim it's a criminal fire caused by people that want to plant there. Honestly, I have no idea how to assess media claims anymore, most likely, both are false and it's something else.
stebann 7y ago
Amazon deforestation and land-business model is the human piece of all this. Far right in South-America always wanted to have more land and more space for their agro-business, and now they have many political influence to do whatever they want. They don't care the damage and they are screwing every industry in South-America for their goals. Argentine president, Mauricio Macri, also let his business partners to do the same in the Chaco. I hope other European countries respond.
anonymousDan 7y ago
From an Irish perspective, this is actually quite clever politics from the Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister). Ever since this potential trade deal was announced, he has been getting it in the neck from the Irish beef industry, who are quite powerful and stand to lose a lot if open access to EU markets is given to Brazilian and Argentinian producers. So I can't imagine he would lose too much sleep if the trade deal was in fact cancelled because of this.
wtdata 7y ago
We all want to stop the fires, but the fires are the same as they ever were. This isn't about the fires, if it was, the sanctions would have taken place already during Dilma or Lula's government: "As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years." [1] [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...
- neves 7y ago
  The fire activity has radically decreased in the last years. The average isn't a good measure.
  - wtdata 7y ago
    You mean, with President Temer?
    - neves 7y ago
      No, since Marina Silva was the Environment Minister. Her effective work decrease deforestation.
vosper 7y ago
So this is a stick, but where's the carrot? All these countries that are complaining about the burning forest - why don't they pony up some cash and pay Brazil not to burn it down? If the Amazon is the "lungs of the world" then surely between all the countries of the world (or, just a few, or just one rich one) we could make it worth their while to keep the forest intact.
- shados 7y ago
  I mean, the Brazilians will suffer too when the lack of Amazon forest starts fucking the world up. With that said, yes, 100% agree that we should just pay them to stop the bleeding. That forest is worth more than money. We can figure out a better solution later.
  - ikll 7y ago
    Europe did pay. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-norway/norway-stops-amazon-fund-contribution-in-dispute-with-brazil-idUSKCN1V52C9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-norway... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-a...
    - shados 7y ago
      I was more thinking if a bunch of first world countries got together and put up an amount of money that Brazil can't possibly give up on.
      - ikll 7y ago
        Well, for what it's worth, according to the articles it amounted to billions of dollars. It was supposed to be used to police the area for deforestation, fires and other things. As a Brazilian I disagree that other countries should be paying us anything, we should sort those problems by ourselves.
speeder 7y ago
I am from Brazil, my SO family is from the Amazon. A lot of this situation is rather complicated, but I will try to write a little of what I know. 1. This is dry season, and fires are common, not just human-started ones, natural fires are common too, fires do have a role in the ecosystem. 2. A lot of the alarm raised by the media is more due to the hate on the president than for good reasons, for example people are using as number of the "increase of fires" comparisons between 2019 and 2013, but 2013 was a year where the amount of fires was particularly low, there was some recent years where the number of fires were just a little behind the current number, and the current number is still waaaaay smaller than what it was some decades ago. 3. It is illegal to clear land using fire in Brazil, usually the ones doing it are tiny farmers that don't have resources to clear land the correct way, or megacorporations that don't care (Cargill is a common culprit, not saying they are the ones at fault this time, but often they are). 4. Brazillian laws are kinda loopsided in ways that incentive people to do some weird stuff, for example brazillian environment laws are MUCH, MUCH harsher than other laws, this actually decreases compliance, because getting caught is so dangerous compared to some other crimes, that doing other crimes to not get caught is incentivized, there was a infamous case of a mayor of a town that just outright murdered cops because the punishment for murder was smaller than the punishment he would get if the cops managed to get to his property and investigate it.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  1. "Fires are common" - means Brazil should have been ready to tackle them, and taken steps to minimize the chances of them breaking out in areas where people are active. It seems it hasn't; and - on the contrary, has let logging and other economic activity which can increase chances of fires expand excessively and without proper regulation. Finally, researchers claim that most fires right now are caused by humans (and many started intentionally): https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/brazils-amazon-fires-started-by-humans-environmentalists-say/ar-AAGb8KR?li=AAggFp4 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/brazils-amazon-fires-st... 2. How do you know the alarm is due to the "hate on the President"? Also, the increase of fires should and can measured relative to _last_ year, not 2013. Since 2014 there was a gradual decrease, and the amount/area of fires has nearly doubled from 2018 to this year. 3. If it's illegal and damaging, why are people and corporations doing it, and doing it much more this year? It seems that to a great extent this is due to the new government's policy and rhetoric; and to a lesser extent it's an ongoing problem which both the previous and the current government have not addressed well enough. 4. Well, it seems the government is trying to avoid enforcing these harsh laws. For example: > The environmental minister, Ricardo Salles, tweeted on Wednesday that the fires were caused by dry weather, wind, and heat. But CNN meteorologist Haley Brink said the fires are "definitely human-induced," and can't be attributed to natural causes like lightning strikes. so it seems the government is voluntarily looking the other way. If it claims this is the cause, they are unlikely to vigorously pursue the culprits. Bottom line: Don't do apologism for the government. Its behavior on environmental issues is inexcusable, regardless of any other issues.
andrenth 7y ago
There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding this issue. 1) It is dry season in the region, and wildfires are a normal occurrence. 2) Wildfires are up compared to the same month last year, but still below the historical average. 3) Brazil already has strict environment protection laws which trump even property rights. In the Amazon region, for example, 80% of the area of any property must be preserved with native vegetation. No developed country even comes close. The reason there is so much hyperbole about the situation in Brazil is both political and economic. Economically, the current administration has cut funding to questionable NGOs, which used to take the money and do nothing productive, or even worse, engage in biopiracy. This has sparked strong reactions from those used to receive Brazilian taxpayer money. European politicians fake outrage, but their positions can be explained by the recent Mercosur-EU agreement, which has generated a strong reaction by local producers, used to European protectionism. See France, for example. Macron is simultaneously criticized by both the left and the right, and is trying a political win with local producers and greens, even appealing to a photo of an Amazon wildfire taken 20 years ago by a photographer who died in 2003 to put blame in the current Brazilian administration [2]. Politically, this is only generating such a big reaction because of who's in charge of government in Brazil. The media worldwide tends strongly to the left, and any opportunity to criticize a right-wing administration is not wasted. I'm not saying any government should be above criticism, but things have to be done rationally. 1) If one refers to wildfire monitoring data [3], it can be easily seen that the worst years were in the 2002-2007 range, at levels twice as bad as the recent years. The country was then under a left-wing administration, and the current media and political reactions were nowhere to be seen. 2) Bolivia has much more lax environment protection laws, and is currently facing a way larger wildfire problem, probably the largest in its history. You hardly see anything about it in the media, except sometimes as a footnote in a story about Brazil. No European president is threatening their sovereignty; no one says their president is the destroyer of the Earth. 3) The previous (impeached) Brazilian administration cut environmental protection funds in 2015 from R$ 6b to R$ 1b. There was no outrage. Yet somehow otherwise reasonable people think the Amazon was destroyed in 7 months by the current administration. [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra... [2] https://factcheck.afp.com/prayforamazonas-thousands-people-are-sharing-old-pictures-posts-about-amazon-rainforest-fires https://factcheck.afp.com/prayforamazonas-thousands-people-a... [3] http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal/estatistica_paises http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal/estatistica_pa...
argo_ 7y ago
things in Brazil are getting really weird.. most ministers and politicians started to use alt-right vaporwave meme aesthetics on their social media profiles, even though this is a clearly neonazi joke
lbrito 7y ago
I'm from Brazil. For the rest of HN which might not know: the president has long dismissed environmental issues as idle "communist" talk (in his own words: "Construction projects get delayed because someone finds a petrified poo of an indigenous person"[1]. His Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles, has a history[2] of environment-related crimes. He is basically a lobbyist for mining and logging corporations. The Amazon fires are just the most jarring example of how the administration doesn't care about the environment, but they are far from the only or even the greatest environmental issue right now in Brazil. [1] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2019/08/cocozinho-petrificado-de-indio-barra-licenciamento-de-obras-diz-bolsonaro.shtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2019/08/cocozinho-petr... [2] https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2018/12/19/justica-de-sp-condena-futuro-ministro-do-meio-ambiente-por-improbidade-administrativa.ghtml https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2018/12/19/justica...
lbrito 7y ago
It is interesting to see the global shock about the fires. For us in Brazil, it is hardly a shock coming from this administration. Here are some facts the president that should shed a light on how he and his office views environmental issues. If anyone is interested I can gather some links to detail any of them. * The Minister of the Environment was condemned for crimes against the environment in 2017. * Brazil has a Ministry of the Environment. President Bolsonaro unsuccessfully tried to extinguish that ministry once he assumed office. * President Bolsonaro transferred the Brazilian Forest Serivce to the Ministry of Agriculture (!!). It previously was under the Ministry of the Environment. * Ricardo Salles (Minister of the Environment) decided to review _all_ the national reserves in Brazil so they can get resized or extinguished. * A standard procedure when officers find illegal logging sites is to destroy their logging equipment (chainsaws etc). President Bolsonaro personally asked his minister of the Environment to instruct officers not to do that. * Environmental protection agencies now announce beforehand where the inspections are going to be. * President Bolsonaro received a fine for illegal fishing a few years ago. A few months after assuming office, he fired the officer (just a regular low-level environment officer, same level as municipal police) that fined him.
- gldalmaso 7y ago
  * Bolsonaro fired the director of INPE after calling deforestation data lies. * Bolsonaro refused to answer about environmental policy when asked about it by Germany and Norway who contribute millions to the Amazon Fund, he subsequently told Brazil doesn't need that money and told Norway to send the money to Germany to help them reforest. * One of his first actions in office was this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/02/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-amazon-rainforest-protections https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/02/brazil-jair-bo...
  - lbrito 7y ago
    >he subsequently told Brazil doesn't need that money and told Norway to send the money to Germany to help them reforest. Another answer of Bolsonaro's to Norway was pointing the finger at that country's supposed whale hunting. Unfortunately for him, the video he used to attack Norway was actually from the Faroe islandsm, which are Danish: https://www.france24.com/en/20190819-bolsonaro-takes-on-norway-for-whaling-but-bungles-it https://www.france24.com/en/20190819-bolsonaro-takes-on-norw...
mcsalgado 7y ago
I see a lot of bullshit being posted here. Bolsonaro himself actively encouraged the deforestation, during his campaign and during all of his current administration until now. "The fires are fueled not only by a rise in global temperatures but also by Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro. The fiery, anti-environment populist has encouraged settlements in the Amazon region, sacked the head of the government agency that monitors deforestation from space, and just this week blamed NGOs for setting the fires to make him look bad." https://www.wired.com/story/humans-more-than-drought-are-fueling-the-amazons-flames/ https://www.wired.com/story/humans-more-than-drought-are-fue...
ntnxw 7y ago
According to the NASA the fires of this year are in the average so what exactly are they trying to achieve? Is this simply populism? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra... >As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.
- goda90 7y ago
  Deforestation via slash and burn has been going on for years, but the rainforest isn't growing back at anywhere near the same rate(basically it's not growing back at all). Even if it is populism, what is wrong with finally taking action to curb that?
- bbmario 7y ago
  The reason Finland is doing this is the same why you are being down-voted for posting scientific data: political agenda. Science mostly doesn't matter, only when it fits your favorite narrative.
- monkeymagic1982 7y ago
  Europeans don't let science get in the way of groupthink or fucking over poorer countries for their own profit
  - alkonaut 7y ago
    It’s obviously a reaction to recent fire “alarms” in media but the statistics doesn’t say that this is somehow natural or normal. It’s simply been just as bad for many years.
    - jansan 7y ago
      Then why is everyone blaming the current president?
- sambal 7y ago
dragosmocrii 7y ago
I don't understand the reasoning behind this suggestion. Is it that the government in Brasil does not want to put off the fires because they see this as a great opportunity to clear more land for raising more cattle?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- thomasfortes 7y ago
  Yes, this and a few other things, just now (as of half an hour ago) the president authorized the armed forces to help with the fires, and it just happened because there's a lot of pressure, internal and from outside, but the actual president also wants to eliminate indigenous people and their land to allow illegal mining and illegal wood cutters to thrive. As I said, there's a lot more to this, for example, farmers started the burning (we're calling it "day of the fire") because of shit that the president said. Also he blamed NGOs for the fires, when asked if he had any proof he said "Is there need for proof?". He's a short sighted moron doing what short sighted morons do, it's a sad state of affairs here.
  - LTNBFU 7y ago
    Hang in there man, these right-wing authoritarians really suck balls.
- lbrito 7y ago
  Yes. Not just cattle but logging and mining. The Minister of the Environment is basically a lobbyist for such companies.
aznpwnzor 7y ago
The world needs to pay Brazil for management of the Amazon. If the Amazon is truly (and it is) this important to the planet, then they should be paid to not destroy it to earn a living.
- _tulpa 7y ago
  Jesus Christ... So Brazil gets to dictate some sort of hostage/cold-war scenario and you're suggesting that this is a good solution?
- tehwebguy 7y ago
  That is exactly what is being proposed, but the inverse.
- thomasfortes 7y ago
  Our government is short sighted so even if you all chipped something, our current president would rather have it burned to the ground to allow illegal mining, wood cutters and cattle raising on the burned ground. http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/home/ http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/home/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-a...
- Wowfunhappy 7y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree, but this feels like a diplomatic nightmare. It would encourage the rest of the world to threaten to burn their resources too, in order to extract payment. Perhaps we should be paying the rest of the world too, but what if there's a disagreement about how much a resource is worth? And remember, this is all money that could be invested in solar panels, or carbon capture, or countless other things.
  - mjevans 7y ago
    Clearly the UN should be funded and buy this to set aside as a global reserve.
hugh4life 7y ago
If these fires are being set intentionally, shouldn't it be possible to pinpoint exactly where these fires are occurring and monitor who is reclaiming the land for other purposes... and then sanction them?
- jefft255 7y ago
  Harder than you might think! People in my lab have worked on a system that monitor deforestation in Indonesia with satellite data https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2019.1579390 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2019.15... and it’s not a simple problem. You need to work tightly with local authorities, and they are often complicit in these deforestations.
mcfartin 7y ago
Wonder if any of the Amazon indeginous tribes had some ancient knowledge of handling fires. I bet there were some doozies back in the day lack of technology and tribal wars must have sparked some maybe there is some good strategy they came up with or did they just let them burn?
enterx 7y ago
free market they said. it's going to fun they said.

149 points by Nux 7y ago

dmix 7y ago

There's also the huge sargassum seaweed problem that is heavily influenced by the mass deforestation of the Amazon [1] (among others), which is significantly harming the beaches, impacting wildlife, and values of properties in Florida and Cancun and on all beaches along that whole side of the peninsula. I just came back from a trip to Mexico and it was everywhere and smells awful. You can smell it driving on the highway from the airport. Its diverting lots of resources from the Mexican navy, local governments, and volunteers who have to clean it up constantly to keep the beaches usable. There was plenty of sea turtles who love to eat the stuff. This is a good opportunity for some international pressure as the consequences are very much here and now. Not some hypothetical climate change in the future. 1. https://youtu.be/whqaV8xfOTg?t=85 https://youtu.be/whqaV8xfOTg?t=85

sgt101 7y ago
There is nothing hypothetical about climate change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recor...
- Doxterpepper 7y ago
  I think his point is that the consequences of climate change are still down the road and just how bad it will be is yet to be seen. Harder to get people around on big changes due to climate change since we're a couple years off from big consequences. The impact from deforestation of the Amazon can be seen right now.
  - underbluewaters 7y ago
    The consequences of climate change are here and have been for years. In Hawaii >50% of coral reefs died off in 2015 [1], including my favorite fishing spots. Three years later most of this eroded habitat was then destroyed by winter swells. These reefs had never bleached in modern history. I saw a coral colony the size of a small house (100s of years old) flipped over and crushed. It was so sad that it was a major contributor to me deciding to leave the state. Many coastal communities are dealing with more serious problems. [1] https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/reefresponse/files/2016/09/WHI-Coral-Bleaching-Survey.pdf https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/reefresponse/files/2016/09/WHI-Coral...
- dmix 7y ago
  Sure, yet many of the worst future risks are very much still abstract and not yet fully developed concrete risks in people's minds. Human motivation is very fickle and it seems to be in our nature to do everything last minute, maybe some genetic legacy to conserve energy and a natural aversion to adding more effort for yet another problem. With this sargassum issue they can no longer just say they "don't believe" in something when its in front of them. The stuff that's happening today is probably the best motivator to get people to invest in the future. That's why all of those BBC nature docs are the great sales pitches as they always touch on real issues happening now (see: shots of a polar bear on an ice block!). Plus it's not just climate change, it could be any major human disruption of natural habits.
  - sprafa 7y ago
    I think we’re beginning to see the madness of even a slight climate adjustment and how it’s impacting lives (and in the case of Greece and Portugal and many other people - killing people in massive fires) People are beginning to seriously freak out. I see that in the UK where I live and in Portugal where I come from and in Brasil where my family is from. People are seeing fires, drought and extreme weather (in Europe heatwaves are killing people). It feels like the end of times. To be fair climate change denial is mostly a political Problem. Most Americans believe in climate change and same in the Uk and I believe in most of the developed world.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Eh, I live in Portugal and while climate change doesn't help, I also don't think that's the biggest cause of our large fires, we mostly just suck at managing the forest - we depopulated the interior without having a backup plan. The fires in the Artic and Siberia, that does feel like the end of times :/
      - sprafa 7y ago
        I do feel temperatures have been getting higher than they used to be when I was a kid. Particularly in peak summer. In my hometown I don’t remember barely being able to be out in the sun for so many days as lately.
- vixen99 7y ago
  The comment refers to 'some hypothetical climate change in the future'. Given that there is no justification for projecting trend lines beyond existing data points, use of the word hypothetical is correct.
  - sgt101 7y ago
    There is a clear justification in projecting the trend lines; we have a theory developed from observation that has predicted what has happened so far. This theory predicts that the trends will continue, it is robust and substantiated. The introduction of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere by humans is causing the earth to heat.

abhinai 7y ago

I wish the United States had the will power to similarly try and influence Brazil to stop the deforestation in Amazon.

superpermutat0r 7y ago
China seems to be the biggest Brazil partner. EU and USA do not contribute much.
- radicalbyte 7y ago
  Given that the Chinese are big buyers of Soya Beans and the USA are using Soya Beans in their trade war against China, I can't help but think that they've basically been pouring petrol onto the Amazon..
- diegoholiveira 7y ago
  > EU and USA do not contribute much. Not true.
UglyToad 7y ago
A cynic might point out that Bolsonaro was far more palatable to American finance and government than the alternative. He is to some degree America's monster and has caused a thawing of US-Brazil relations which wasn't possible under left wing leaders. https://www.thedialogue.org/blogs/2019/06/remaking-us-brazilian-relations-the-odyssey-of-trump-and-bolsonaro/ https://www.thedialogue.org/blogs/2019/06/remaking-us-brazil... The whole situation is terrible but I don't think the establishment powers in the US would have much interest in pressuring his administration.
diegoholiveira 7y ago
They have, but when they do, everyone in latin america call them imperialists, so, why bother?
- icebraining 7y ago
  When has the US tried to influence Brazil to stop the deforestation in Amazon?

panpanna 7y ago

About time. If this president has no problem openly screwing his own people and lie about it right in your face, I don't think he makes the greatest trade partner anyway.

cubaia 7y ago
Aside from your opinion about that president, this is an interesting take, since the trades are between countries and the markets within those countries -- not between presidents. > I don't think he makes the greatest trade partner anyway This seems to imply that the president of Brazil represents the entirety of an economic block, and as such a trade deal should suffer because of just one person?
- petre 7y ago
  Brazilians chose him to represent them and negotiate trade deals. He refused to meet France's foreign affairs minister and had a haircut instead. I guess these are the consequences and one thing leads to another. At least the EU is acting more like a block this time, rather than being in disagreement. Why give Brazil aid from EU taxpayer money to fight deforestation if they're not interested? We could take his advice and use those funds to plant trees in Europe instead. https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/bolsonaros-amazon-sized-spat-with-germany-norway-threatens-europe-south-america-trade-deal/2019/08/20/cc60ee3c-c2b8-11e9-8bf7-cde2d9e09055_story.html%3foutputType=amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/world/t...

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago

The agricultural trade is the root cause of the Amazon deforestation, so this is good.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

neves 7y ago

Don't forget that our climate change denier President was elected due to fake news and extreme right radical content freely spread in Facebook, WhatsApp and YouTube. The companies responsible for these services, who put their profit over everything else, are the main culprit. Our fellow software developers who work there also have their due share. It isn't a easy subject to talk about, but our profession disregard of Ethics is a serious problem.

Iv 7y ago
Hmmm... First, that's an excuse. The blame comes to the voters first. Second, the main media this happened through was Fox News, which is a pure propaganda machine, that design lies and presents them as facts. Third, I am fine with companies choosing to not intervene in political debate and stay as neutral as possible when it comes to manually applying filters on content. Being used to transmit propaganda is not the same as producing it
- icebraining 7y ago
  I don't think Fox News got Bolsonaro elected.
nafizh 7y ago
Ideally, at this point, working for Facebook should have become a badge of shame.
skrebbel 7y ago
WhatsApp? A direct messaging service? They have no recommendation engine, no algorithms, no nothing. It's all just infrastructure. How can you blame WhatsApp? I mean, it's basically just "SMS, but then free". Blaming WhatsApp for the messages its users send is like blaming ISPs for piracy, right?
- sprafa 7y ago
  There was massive disinformation campaign through targeted massive whatsapp groups. Everyone in Brasil is on whatsapp so that was a way to do it. I understand your point but some research would help. It’s not so much as blaming ISPs for piracy but blaming hosting services for serving stuff like 8chan ir far right neonazi websites. Yes the networks are different but we still need to consider the consequences and how to mitigate things. It’s either that or chaos.

albandread 7y ago

As Boris criticises Brazil; he might want to reflect that until the 1990s; here in the UK we used to set our own fields on fire to burn the stubble. I remember the smoke; and the red sun and moon. I am pro preserving the rain-forest; but interestingly enough that is also a human managed environment and has been for 1000s of years. As for bio-diversity; I am pretty sure a lot of the UK was once forested and certainly had wolves, bears and other inconvenient creatures; at this point we are starting to even wipe out our insects. For the sake of bio-diversity we should re-introduce all those animals.

myeviltwin 7y ago
Unfortunately you cannot re-introduce those that are extinct, or doomed because of the gene pool already diminished. A complex ecosystem needs long time to develop.

mklarmann 7y ago

Am I a bit wimpy, when I have to think about all the animals that live in these forest, right now being burned alive? I have a hard time grasping why, again, people are so damn greedy. For the quick money, basically destroy this precious resource of the amazon forest. I am really angry. I stand with the people, that care about this and want it to end [1] I do hope, that this Mr. "Trump of the Tropics", listens to his colleagues in Germany, France, etc. and just stops. I cannot consume any more beef from south america, knowing this is happening because of it. [1]: https://twitter.com/violadavis/status/1164720036021321728?s=20 https://twitter.com/violadavis/status/1164720036021321728?s=...

major505 7y ago

Deflorestation and fires are a problem in the Brazilian amazon many since ever. Besides news of fire in amazon this is a common phenomenon that time of the year. The biggest problem is this is the Dry season, combining with fires spread by farmers owners used to clean the land and start a new crop (or grazing for animals), that inevitable get out of control. The thing is, biggest producers usually follow more strict rules, medium and small farms still start fires, because is a quicker and cheapper way to clean the land in the start of a new season. I`m not a specialist, but as far as I researched, staring fires, specially in native florests, is illegal, but the ambiental police is low in resources when it comes of fiscalization and appplication of the law. The fund to protect the amazon florest, had been cut in radically in the last 10 years. To give perspective, in the last goverment, it was dropped from 6.5 billion to 1.2 billion. What we can take from the current situation: - There was increase in fire area in the amazon region, but this happens in a yearly basis. - There where a sistematic cut in the budget for protecting the florest. - Add the low budget situation, to corruption of polititians in the regional level, and is a recipt for disaster. - The current news are worrisome, but they are boosted by the current political climate. The press hate Bolsonaro almost as much as they hate Trump. Some of it based in facts, some in pure histeria. - Much international pressure are now comming because the brazilian goverment stop working with international ONGs that used to receive money for goverment to do nothing about. No international ONGs cried with almost 100k area fires that happened in 2010, or the 79ks that happened a few years before. - In the end is all about money. The forest will continue to burn, animals will continue to die. No on will remmember in a few months. - Independent of what the goverment does (and is current doing a crappy job, don't take me wrong), there will still be attacked by the press. Is how it works.

diegoholiveira 7y ago
Exactly. Those people blaming the current president doesn't understand that this is not a new problem. They're doing this only because the president is not who they want. I never saw the world saying anything when the Left was in the government and this same thing happen.
- zekrioca 7y ago

vfc1 7y ago

It's a complex issue, Brasil is doing what the US and Europe did 150 years ago: burning down the forest and taking advantage of natural resources until a large percentage of the country is covered by agricultural fields. We did so why can't they? I think they shouldn't because of global warming and what science tell us, but there should be some compensation given under the form of a tax to keep the forest alive, I don't think that would be ecological blackmail at all. The biggest export of Brasil is soy beans (27 billion market) mostly to China - https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/bra/show/1201/2017/ https://oec.world/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/bra/show..., but of course its much more complicated then that. The China demand has increased recently due to the US trade wars, so that plays a role too. There are tens of different crops used for all sorts of products, like palm oil used in doughnuts, kids cereals etc. For example, leather is exported to China, that produces clothes that are sold globally a lot of it to the west, but not only. The Amazon basin has a huge concentration of cattle in the world (200 million heads), and is a huge exporter of soy beans (27 billion market). Pasture land and cattle feed crops are the main driver of the deforestation, so reducing global meat comsumption is the only way to stop the economic incentive to tear down the rainforest. Brasil by itself has no interest in tearing down the forest to feed their population, this level of agriculture is for exporting and for feeding a highly resource intensive and environmental impactful process: meat production. Its a global problem, maybe threatening the trade deal with Brasil is an effective short term solution to put some brakes on at least some of the damage, but without a global change of common habits like eating too much meat, the deforestation is not going to slow down anytime soon, by the contrary.

major505 7y ago
Lets be honest here: having a florest jsut for having a florest, does no good. The amazon needs to be exploited for its natural resources, otherwise may as well not exist, but if gonna do it, we need to do it rigth. And burning the florest to plant soil or grazing land is a shit way to do it. And in the end, if having a florest in place helps people make money, they will start working harder in preserving it. Is like legal elephant hunting. My looks barbaric to some (i really dislike it), but is the only reason that there still elephants today, and people who used to hunt them for the preys, now help preserve because they make more money of rich tourist that pay big bucks to shoot an animal.

anewguy9000 7y ago

for comparison: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra... interestingly nasa says there is nothing unusual about the fires, while it is brazil's space agency that the mainstream news is quoting. which reference is trusted just seems to depend on which will get the most clicks?

marcosdumay 7y ago
The fires are larger than on the few previous years. They are still well bellow the historical average. The recent trend has been of growth. A lot of this year's fires have been on a natural preservation area that in theory can not be used to agriculture. Some people claim the area got out of equilibrium due to global warming and the fire was unavoidable, some claim it's a criminal fire caused by people that want to plant there. Honestly, I have no idea how to assess media claims anymore, most likely, both are false and it's something else.

stebann 7y ago

Amazon deforestation and land-business model is the human piece of all this. Far right in South-America always wanted to have more land and more space for their agro-business, and now they have many political influence to do whatever they want. They don't care the damage and they are screwing every industry in South-America for their goals. Argentine president, Mauricio Macri, also let his business partners to do the same in the Chaco. I hope other European countries respond.

anonymousDan 7y ago

From an Irish perspective, this is actually quite clever politics from the Leo Varadkar, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister). Ever since this potential trade deal was announced, he has been getting it in the neck from the Irish beef industry, who are quite powerful and stand to lose a lot if open access to EU markets is given to Brazilian and Argentinian producers. So I can't imagine he would lose too much sleep if the trade deal was in fact cancelled because of this.

wtdata 7y ago

We all want to stop the fires, but the fires are the same as they ever were. This isn't about the fires, if it was, the sanctions would have taken place already during Dilma or Lula's government: "As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years." [1] [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...

neves 7y ago
The fire activity has radically decreased in the last years. The average isn't a good measure.
- wtdata 7y ago
  You mean, with President Temer?
  - neves 7y ago
    No, since Marina Silva was the Environment Minister. Her effective work decrease deforestation.

vosper 7y ago

So this is a stick, but where's the carrot? All these countries that are complaining about the burning forest - why don't they pony up some cash and pay Brazil not to burn it down? If the Amazon is the "lungs of the world" then surely between all the countries of the world (or, just a few, or just one rich one) we could make it worth their while to keep the forest intact.

shados 7y ago
I mean, the Brazilians will suffer too when the lack of Amazon forest starts fucking the world up. With that said, yes, 100% agree that we should just pay them to stop the bleeding. That forest is worth more than money. We can figure out a better solution later.
- ikll 7y ago
  Europe did pay. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-norway/norway-stops-amazon-fund-contribution-in-dispute-with-brazil-idUSKCN1V52C9 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-norway... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-a...
  - shados 7y ago
    I was more thinking if a bunch of first world countries got together and put up an amount of money that Brazil can't possibly give up on.
    - ikll 7y ago
      Well, for what it's worth, according to the articles it amounted to billions of dollars. It was supposed to be used to police the area for deforestation, fires and other things. As a Brazilian I disagree that other countries should be paying us anything, we should sort those problems by ourselves.

speeder 7y ago

I am from Brazil, my SO family is from the Amazon. A lot of this situation is rather complicated, but I will try to write a little of what I know. 1. This is dry season, and fires are common, not just human-started ones, natural fires are common too, fires do have a role in the ecosystem. 2. A lot of the alarm raised by the media is more due to the hate on the president than for good reasons, for example people are using as number of the "increase of fires" comparisons between 2019 and 2013, but 2013 was a year where the amount of fires was particularly low, there was some recent years where the number of fires were just a little behind the current number, and the current number is still waaaaay smaller than what it was some decades ago. 3. It is illegal to clear land using fire in Brazil, usually the ones doing it are tiny farmers that don't have resources to clear land the correct way, or megacorporations that don't care (Cargill is a common culprit, not saying they are the ones at fault this time, but often they are). 4. Brazillian laws are kinda loopsided in ways that incentive people to do some weird stuff, for example brazillian environment laws are MUCH, MUCH harsher than other laws, this actually decreases compliance, because getting caught is so dangerous compared to some other crimes, that doing other crimes to not get caught is incentivized, there was a infamous case of a mayor of a town that just outright murdered cops because the punishment for murder was smaller than the punishment he would get if the cops managed to get to his property and investigate it.

einpoklum 7y ago
1. "Fires are common" - means Brazil should have been ready to tackle them, and taken steps to minimize the chances of them breaking out in areas where people are active. It seems it hasn't; and - on the contrary, has let logging and other economic activity which can increase chances of fires expand excessively and without proper regulation. Finally, researchers claim that most fires right now are caused by humans (and many started intentionally): https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/brazils-amazon-fires-started-by-humans-environmentalists-say/ar-AAGb8KR?li=AAggFp4 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/brazils-amazon-fires-st... 2. How do you know the alarm is due to the "hate on the President"? Also, the increase of fires should and can measured relative to _last_ year, not 2013. Since 2014 there was a gradual decrease, and the amount/area of fires has nearly doubled from 2018 to this year. 3. If it's illegal and damaging, why are people and corporations doing it, and doing it much more this year? It seems that to a great extent this is due to the new government's policy and rhetoric; and to a lesser extent it's an ongoing problem which both the previous and the current government have not addressed well enough. 4. Well, it seems the government is trying to avoid enforcing these harsh laws. For example: > The environmental minister, Ricardo Salles, tweeted on Wednesday that the fires were caused by dry weather, wind, and heat. But CNN meteorologist Haley Brink said the fires are "definitely human-induced," and can't be attributed to natural causes like lightning strikes. so it seems the government is voluntarily looking the other way. If it claims this is the cause, they are unlikely to vigorously pursue the culprits. Bottom line: Don't do apologism for the government. Its behavior on environmental issues is inexcusable, regardless of any other issues.

andrenth 7y ago

There's a lot of hyperbole surrounding this issue. 1) It is dry season in the region, and wildfires are a normal occurrence. 2) Wildfires are up compared to the same month last year, but still below the historical average. 3) Brazil already has strict environment protection laws which trump even property rights. In the Amazon region, for example, 80% of the area of any property must be preserved with native vegetation. No developed country even comes close. The reason there is so much hyperbole about the situation in Brazil is both political and economic. Economically, the current administration has cut funding to questionable NGOs, which used to take the money and do nothing productive, or even worse, engage in biopiracy. This has sparked strong reactions from those used to receive Brazilian taxpayer money. European politicians fake outrage, but their positions can be explained by the recent Mercosur-EU agreement, which has generated a strong reaction by local producers, used to European protectionism. See France, for example. Macron is simultaneously criticized by both the left and the right, and is trying a political win with local producers and greens, even appealing to a photo of an Amazon wildfire taken 20 years ago by a photographer who died in 2003 to put blame in the current Brazilian administration [2]. Politically, this is only generating such a big reaction because of who's in charge of government in Brazil. The media worldwide tends strongly to the left, and any opportunity to criticize a right-wing administration is not wasted. I'm not saying any government should be above criticism, but things have to be done rationally. 1) If one refers to wildfire monitoring data [3], it can be easily seen that the worst years were in the 2002-2007 range, at levels twice as bad as the recent years. The country was then under a left-wing administration, and the current media and political reactions were nowhere to be seen. 2) Bolivia has much more lax environment protection laws, and is currently facing a way larger wildfire problem, probably the largest in its history. You hardly see anything about it in the media, except sometimes as a footnote in a story about Brazil. No European president is threatening their sovereignty; no one says their president is the destroyer of the Earth. 3) The previous (impeached) Brazilian administration cut environmental protection funds in 2015 from R$ 6b to R$ 1b. There was no outrage. Yet somehow otherwise reasonable people think the Amazon was destroyed in 7 months by the current administration. [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra... [2] https://factcheck.afp.com/prayforamazonas-thousands-people-are-sharing-old-pictures-posts-about-amazon-rainforest-fires https://factcheck.afp.com/prayforamazonas-thousands-people-a... [3] http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal/estatistica_paises http://queimadas.dgi.inpe.br/queimadas/portal/estatistica_pa...

argo_ 7y ago

things in Brazil are getting really weird.. most ministers and politicians started to use alt-right vaporwave meme aesthetics on their social media profiles, even though this is a clearly neonazi joke

lbrito 7y ago

I'm from Brazil. For the rest of HN which might not know: the president has long dismissed environmental issues as idle "communist" talk (in his own words: "Construction projects get delayed because someone finds a petrified poo of an indigenous person"[1]. His Minister of the Environment, Ricardo Salles, has a history[2] of environment-related crimes. He is basically a lobbyist for mining and logging corporations. The Amazon fires are just the most jarring example of how the administration doesn't care about the environment, but they are far from the only or even the greatest environmental issue right now in Brazil. [1] https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2019/08/cocozinho-petrificado-de-indio-barra-licenciamento-de-obras-diz-bolsonaro.shtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/mercado/2019/08/cocozinho-petr... [2] https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2018/12/19/justica-de-sp-condena-futuro-ministro-do-meio-ambiente-por-improbidade-administrativa.ghtml https://g1.globo.com/sp/sao-paulo/noticia/2018/12/19/justica...

lbrito 7y ago

It is interesting to see the global shock about the fires. For us in Brazil, it is hardly a shock coming from this administration. Here are some facts the president that should shed a light on how he and his office views environmental issues. If anyone is interested I can gather some links to detail any of them. * The Minister of the Environment was condemned for crimes against the environment in 2017. * Brazil has a Ministry of the Environment. President Bolsonaro unsuccessfully tried to extinguish that ministry once he assumed office. * President Bolsonaro transferred the Brazilian Forest Serivce to the Ministry of Agriculture (!!). It previously was under the Ministry of the Environment. * Ricardo Salles (Minister of the Environment) decided to review _all_ the national reserves in Brazil so they can get resized or extinguished. * A standard procedure when officers find illegal logging sites is to destroy their logging equipment (chainsaws etc). President Bolsonaro personally asked his minister of the Environment to instruct officers not to do that. * Environmental protection agencies now announce beforehand where the inspections are going to be. * President Bolsonaro received a fine for illegal fishing a few years ago. A few months after assuming office, he fired the officer (just a regular low-level environment officer, same level as municipal police) that fined him.

gldalmaso 7y ago
* Bolsonaro fired the director of INPE after calling deforestation data lies. * Bolsonaro refused to answer about environmental policy when asked about it by Germany and Norway who contribute millions to the Amazon Fund, he subsequently told Brazil doesn't need that money and told Norway to send the money to Germany to help them reforest. * One of his first actions in office was this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/02/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-amazon-rainforest-protections https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/02/brazil-jair-bo...
- lbrito 7y ago
  >he subsequently told Brazil doesn't need that money and told Norway to send the money to Germany to help them reforest. Another answer of Bolsonaro's to Norway was pointing the finger at that country's supposed whale hunting. Unfortunately for him, the video he used to attack Norway was actually from the Faroe islandsm, which are Danish: https://www.france24.com/en/20190819-bolsonaro-takes-on-norway-for-whaling-but-bungles-it https://www.france24.com/en/20190819-bolsonaro-takes-on-norw...

mcsalgado 7y ago

I see a lot of bullshit being posted here. Bolsonaro himself actively encouraged the deforestation, during his campaign and during all of his current administration until now. "The fires are fueled not only by a rise in global temperatures but also by Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro. The fiery, anti-environment populist has encouraged settlements in the Amazon region, sacked the head of the government agency that monitors deforestation from space, and just this week blamed NGOs for setting the fires to make him look bad." https://www.wired.com/story/humans-more-than-drought-are-fueling-the-amazons-flames/ https://www.wired.com/story/humans-more-than-drought-are-fue...

ntnxw 7y ago

According to the NASA the fires of this year are in the average so what exactly are they trying to achieve? Is this simply populism? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra... >As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.

goda90 7y ago
Deforestation via slash and burn has been going on for years, but the rainforest isn't growing back at anywhere near the same rate(basically it's not growing back at all). Even if it is populism, what is wrong with finally taking action to curb that?
bbmario 7y ago
The reason Finland is doing this is the same why you are being down-voted for posting scientific data: political agenda. Science mostly doesn't matter, only when it fits your favorite narrative.
monkeymagic1982 7y ago
Europeans don't let science get in the way of groupthink or fucking over poorer countries for their own profit
- alkonaut 7y ago
  It’s obviously a reaction to recent fire “alarms” in media but the statistics doesn’t say that this is somehow natural or normal. It’s simply been just as bad for many years.
  - jansan 7y ago
    Then why is everyone blaming the current president?
sambal 7y ago

dragosmocrii 7y ago

I don't understand the reasoning behind this suggestion. Is it that the government in Brasil does not want to put off the fires because they see this as a great opportunity to clear more land for raising more cattle?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
thomasfortes 7y ago
Yes, this and a few other things, just now (as of half an hour ago) the president authorized the armed forces to help with the fires, and it just happened because there's a lot of pressure, internal and from outside, but the actual president also wants to eliminate indigenous people and their land to allow illegal mining and illegal wood cutters to thrive. As I said, there's a lot more to this, for example, farmers started the burning (we're calling it "day of the fire") because of shit that the president said. Also he blamed NGOs for the fires, when asked if he had any proof he said "Is there need for proof?". He's a short sighted moron doing what short sighted morons do, it's a sad state of affairs here.
- LTNBFU 7y ago
  Hang in there man, these right-wing authoritarians really suck balls.
lbrito 7y ago
Yes. Not just cattle but logging and mining. The Minister of the Environment is basically a lobbyist for such companies.

aznpwnzor 7y ago

The world needs to pay Brazil for management of the Amazon. If the Amazon is truly (and it is) this important to the planet, then they should be paid to not destroy it to earn a living.

_tulpa 7y ago
Jesus Christ... So Brazil gets to dictate some sort of hostage/cold-war scenario and you're suggesting that this is a good solution?
tehwebguy 7y ago
That is exactly what is being proposed, but the inverse.
thomasfortes 7y ago
Our government is short sighted so even if you all chipped something, our current president would rather have it burned to the ground to allow illegal mining, wood cutters and cattle raising on the burned ground. http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/home/ http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/home/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-amazon-fund-donation-dispute-brazil-deforestation-jair-bolsonaro https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/16/norway-halts-a...
Wowfunhappy 7y ago
I don't necessarily disagree, but this feels like a diplomatic nightmare. It would encourage the rest of the world to threaten to burn their resources too, in order to extract payment. Perhaps we should be paying the rest of the world too, but what if there's a disagreement about how much a resource is worth? And remember, this is all money that could be invested in solar panels, or carbon capture, or countless other things.
- mjevans 7y ago
  Clearly the UN should be funded and buy this to set aside as a global reserve.

hugh4life 7y ago

If these fires are being set intentionally, shouldn't it be possible to pinpoint exactly where these fires are occurring and monitor who is reclaiming the land for other purposes... and then sanction them?

jefft255 7y ago
Harder than you might think! People in my lab have worked on a system that monitor deforestation in Indonesia with satellite data https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2019.1579390 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2019.15... and it’s not a simple problem. You need to work tightly with local authorities, and they are often complicit in these deforestations.

mcfartin 7y ago

Wonder if any of the Amazon indeginous tribes had some ancient knowledge of handling fires. I bet there were some doozies back in the day lack of technology and tribal wars must have sparked some maybe there is some good strategy they came up with or did they just let them burn?

enterx 7y ago

free market they said. it's going to fun they said.