6 ms·

This is a great point. An important aspect of this is that most of the Amazon's deforestation is land owners developing their land and adding to the agricultura

This is a great point. An important aspect of this is that most of the Amazon's deforestation is land owners developing their land and adding to the agricultural sectors of South America. If we want to stop them, we need to stop the excessive consumption of these goods. This doesn't just mean stopping over eating, it means changing what you eat and paying more for goods sourced locally. Unfortunately, that means from countries with higher labor costs and higher taxes because of higher subsidies. It's a hard sell for most consumers. How do we accomplish that?

ajmurmann 7y ago
From what I've read most of the agricultural production in Brazil goes directly or indirectly towards beef and biofuel. So cutting down on beef consumption seems like a great step. I personally have cut down my meat consumption dramatically, but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? If I stop eating beef, but nobody else does, nothing is won. If the US cuts down on beef consumption, other countries will be happy to buy the now cheaper beef. Collective action problems are a problem...
- sp332 7y ago
  America banned beef imports from Brazil a couple of years ago. Leather could still come from Brazilian cattle though.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Stupid idea: tax meat and use the money to purchase tracts of farmland in the Amazon and such places, preventing them from being explored. That would reduce the drop in prices, by increasing the cost of productive land.
- input_sh 7y ago
  > ...but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? The answer is simple, the execution is hard and will piss a lot of people off: start treating red meat as a luxury item, and slowly introduce taxes on top of its price, like we do for alcohol and tobacco. Nothing drastic of course, just a few cents extra every half a year or so to make people reconsider their eating habits again and again. But if we're talking about the US specifically, that's not even necessary. Just removing subsidies that are already handed out to the meat industry will achieve the same result.
  - BeefySwain 7y ago
    Do we have time to do it "just a few cents extra every half a year or so"? From what I read, that would have worked if we started in the 80's or so.
    - input_sh 7y ago
      I personally believe that there's no way we'll undo the damage. Unless some drastic change happens in a way we govern ourselves really quickly, the best we could hope for is to minimize the negative effects of our actions. As such, any positive action is better than none.
  - Carioca 7y ago
    There are other measures that could help, like actually policing the region and promoting economic alternatives for local population. Sadly, the currently Brazilian government decided to stop both of them
    - icebraining 7y ago
      I dislike the Brazilian government, but the rest of the world shouldn't wash their hands of the problem either. If the Amazon is important to the whole world, the whole world should be giving that government a damn good deal to convince it to prevent deforestation. As an European, I was quite disgusted by the reactions of the "EU leaders".
      - Carioca 7y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree, but Bolsonaro has made it so that every step in that direction is extraordinarily difficult. There is a fund (Amazon Fund) that both provided material resources to IBAMA[1] and financed sustainable economic practices. Earlier this year, the government fired the board of directors of that fund and ended its transparency efforts. The money mostly came from the Norwegian and German governments, to the tune of about US$1.2 billion total[2]. Now both countries have stopped donating to the fund[3]. When Macron offered US$ 22m to help with the fires, Bolsonaro responded by first accusing him of being a “colonialist”[4]. He then proceeds to call Macron's wife ugly because WHY NOT?[5]. His finance minister, who was supposed to be one of the more moderate forces in this government, repeats the insult in a conference[6] This was all “free money”, only strings attached was oversight of its usage 1: Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, one of two federal agencies in charge of conservation 2: http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/donations/ http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/donations/ 3: 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... 4: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/world/americas/brazil-amazon-aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/world/americas/brazil-ama... 5: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/macron-rebukes-bolsonaro-over-extraordinarily-rude-comments-about-wife https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/macron-rebukes... 6: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2019/09/brazils-economy-minister-insults-wife-of-frances-president.shtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2019...
- sampo 7y ago
  The main export destinations of Brazilian beef are Hong Kong, China, Egypt, Russia, Iran and Chile. https://www.datamyne.com/blog/markets/brazilian-beef-exports-sharp-cuts-top-markets/ https://www.datamyne.com/blog/markets/brazilian-beef-exports...
- jdashg 7y ago
  "If the US cuts down on beef consumption, other countries will be happy to buy the now cheaper beef." This only results in no change if there's an infinite demand for beef at the current market price. If the US reduces beef intake, world beef intake clearly goes down.
otikik 7y ago
If we increased the cost of transportation from far away producers, it seems that we kill two birds with one shot. I'm not an economist and I don't know what ramifications this would have, and not exactly what form this "increase in cost" would take.
nwah1 7y ago
A lot of the deforestation is caused not by landowners who are engaged in agriculture, but as a result of land speculators letting good land sit idle, and forcing impoverished homesteaders into the rainforest where they engage in clearcutting out of desperation. There is likely an "environmental kuznets curve" where developing countries cause an environmental burden as they develop up until a certain point, after which further gains in general wealth begin to improve the environment. It is only when people are wealthy that they start to be willing to do things like reduce pollution. Wealth in general is the key to solving our environmental issues. It encourages sustainable fertility rates, and makes people rich enough so that they don't have to resort to desperate measures like using fire for clear-cutting.

ajmurmann 7y ago

From what I've read most of the agricultural production in Brazil goes directly or indirectly towards beef and biofuel. So cutting down on beef consumption seems like a great step. I personally have cut down my meat consumption dramatically, but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? If I stop eating beef, but nobody else does, nothing is won. If the US cuts down on beef consumption, other countries will be happy to buy the now cheaper beef. Collective action problems are a problem...

sp332 7y ago
America banned beef imports from Brazil a couple of years ago. Leather could still come from Brazilian cattle though.
icebraining 7y ago
Stupid idea: tax meat and use the money to purchase tracts of farmland in the Amazon and such places, preventing them from being explored. That would reduce the drop in prices, by increasing the cost of productive land.
input_sh 7y ago
> ...but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? The answer is simple, the execution is hard and will piss a lot of people off: start treating red meat as a luxury item, and slowly introduce taxes on top of its price, like we do for alcohol and tobacco. Nothing drastic of course, just a few cents extra every half a year or so to make people reconsider their eating habits again and again. But if we're talking about the US specifically, that's not even necessary. Just removing subsidies that are already handed out to the meat industry will achieve the same result.
- BeefySwain 7y ago
  Do we have time to do it "just a few cents extra every half a year or so"? From what I read, that would have worked if we started in the 80's or so.
  - input_sh 7y ago
    I personally believe that there's no way we'll undo the damage. Unless some drastic change happens in a way we govern ourselves really quickly, the best we could hope for is to minimize the negative effects of our actions. As such, any positive action is better than none.
- Carioca 7y ago
  There are other measures that could help, like actually policing the region and promoting economic alternatives for local population. Sadly, the currently Brazilian government decided to stop both of them
  - icebraining 7y ago
    I dislike the Brazilian government, but the rest of the world shouldn't wash their hands of the problem either. If the Amazon is important to the whole world, the whole world should be giving that government a damn good deal to convince it to prevent deforestation. As an European, I was quite disgusted by the reactions of the "EU leaders".
    - Carioca 7y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree, but Bolsonaro has made it so that every step in that direction is extraordinarily difficult. There is a fund (Amazon Fund) that both provided material resources to IBAMA[1] and financed sustainable economic practices. Earlier this year, the government fired the board of directors of that fund and ended its transparency efforts. The money mostly came from the Norwegian and German governments, to the tune of about US$1.2 billion total[2]. Now both countries have stopped donating to the fund[3]. When Macron offered US$ 22m to help with the fires, Bolsonaro responded by first accusing him of being a “colonialist”[4]. He then proceeds to call Macron's wife ugly because WHY NOT?[5]. His finance minister, who was supposed to be one of the more moderate forces in this government, repeats the insult in a conference[6] This was all “free money”, only strings attached was oversight of its usage 1: Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources, one of two federal agencies in charge of conservation 2: http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/donations/ http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/donations/ 3: 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... 4: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/world/americas/brazil-amazon-aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/27/world/americas/brazil-ama... 5: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/macron-rebukes-bolsonaro-over-extraordinarily-rude-comments-about-wife https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/26/macron-rebukes... 6: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2019/09/brazils-economy-minister-insults-wife-of-frances-president.shtml https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/business/2019...
sampo 7y ago
The main export destinations of Brazilian beef are Hong Kong, China, Egypt, Russia, Iran and Chile. https://www.datamyne.com/blog/markets/brazilian-beef-exports-sharp-cuts-top-markets/ https://www.datamyne.com/blog/markets/brazilian-beef-exports...
jdashg 7y ago
"If the US cuts down on beef consumption, other countries will be happy to buy the now cheaper beef." This only results in no change if there's an infinite demand for beef at the current market price. If the US reduces beef intake, world beef intake clearly goes down.

otikik 7y ago

If we increased the cost of transportation from far away producers, it seems that we kill two birds with one shot. I'm not an economist and I don't know what ramifications this would have, and not exactly what form this "increase in cost" would take.

nwah1 7y ago

A lot of the deforestation is caused not by landowners who are engaged in agriculture, but as a result of land speculators letting good land sit idle, and forcing impoverished homesteaders into the rainforest where they engage in clearcutting out of desperation. There is likely an "environmental kuznets curve" where developing countries cause an environmental burden as they develop up until a certain point, after which further gains in general wealth begin to improve the environment. It is only when people are wealthy that they start to be willing to do things like reduce pollution. Wealth in general is the key to solving our environmental issues. It encourages sustainable fertility rates, and makes people rich enough so that they don't have to resort to desperate measures like using fire for clear-cutting.