4 ms·

I do think there is something hypocritical in us pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. In Europe, most forests have been destroyed in the

by mpol 7y ago

I do think there is something hypocritical in us pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. In Europe, most forests have been destroyed in the past centuries, all for economic gain. If we are so concerned, why not rebuild those forests. Apparently we are not that concerned, we still make the same choice for economic gain, just like Brazil does.

johnisgood 7y ago
> pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. That is rich, considering Brazil is the world’s leading exporter of both beef and poultry, exporting to more than 150 countries. Brazilian beef is the main reason for the massive deforestation in the Amazon. > A 2004 World Bank paper and a 2009 Greenpeace report found that the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon, supported by the international beef and leather trades, was responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[3][2] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the largest single driver of deforestation in the world.[4] According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 70% of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#Causes_of_deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra... People who eat meat imported from Brazil blames Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest? Even if you do not eat meat imported from Brazil, you should "blame" the consumers who do. If there would be no demand for it, there would be no financial incentives for all this destruction.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The EU is not a huge importer of beef, since we produce quite a bit ourselves (net exporters). Hong Kong alone imported 2.5x more beef from Brazil than the whole of the EU in 2018 (some of it for resale).
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    I know. Sorry, I should have clarified that I was not necessarily referring to Europeans, but any people who blame Brazil AND buy Brazilian beef. I do not think we even have Brazilian beef around where I live, in Eastern Europe.
  - amelius 7y ago
    But isn't the EU downsizing production of meat, and importing more over the years? (Which would be a double problem, since you now have the issue of transportation).
    - icebraining 7y ago
      At least regarding beef, no; imports have remain steady, while exports have increased. From the "Beef & Veal Market Situation" EC report: https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/9/28/fe1dd519b19bb90850e282e3c54d188c-full.png https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/9/28/fe1dd519b19bb90850...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
riffraff 7y ago
> If we are so concerned, why not rebuild those forests. it's been reported plenty of times that europe keeps getting more forests e.g.[0] > Between 1990 and 2015, the area covered by forests and woodlands increased by 90,000 square kilometres - an area roughly the size of Portugal. The problem with european forests is mostly, AFAIU, the fact that the few remaining old growth ones are still being cut, such as in Poland. [0] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/#targetText=Many%20of%20Europe's%20forests%20are,1%2C500%20soccer%20pitches%20every%20day https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environ....
- mantas 7y ago
  Even those sad cases of cutting down old growth forest won't be replaced by agriculture or industry - new trees will be planted. Hopefully they'll allow native trees to-grow instead of planting imported trees. I couldn't find details if they're doing clear cut or selective and giving time for remaining trees to multiple.
- makomk 7y ago
  The other problem is that non-native pests and diseases keep killing off trees. For example, the article mentions mountain ash as a species that's endangered. They're suffering from a nasty fungus that came here from Asia - the Asian species of ash have evolved to defend themselves from it, but the European ones have no defences and can't survive infection.
SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
Most deforestation in Europe was pre-industrial. Europe is actually doing a pretty great job of reforestation - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04...
- agumonkey 7y ago
  Good point, yet I'd love to seem a bit more vegetation planted. I'm only worried about how to make it proper (so not to disrupt the current ecosystem nor create too many cobra effects)
  - timc3 7y ago
    Get rid of humans in a large enough area. Given enough time I am sure it would be back to however its going to be. Otherwise you probably want a forester looking after it.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    We seem to have learnt at least something from those monocrop areas of forestry that were the norm in the early 20th century. There's a number of schemes now trying to recreate some of Europe's mainly long-lost temperate rain forest. Of course it's far harder to put back than not lose in the first place...
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Has Brazil fully industrialized? With a per capita GDP of less than ten thousand dollars and a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US) I'd say not yet. The west is trying to kick the ladder out from behind them.
  - conception 7y ago
    The thesis that you cannot develop sustainably however is a fallacy. It is not one or the other - and more importantly it cannot be any more.
ratww 7y ago
I know you say this in good faith, but as a Brazilian I find this comment very condescending and unproductive. If Brazil wants to become as rich as Europe it needs to focus on things that made Europe what it is right now: industry, services, technological innovation. The Amazon deforestation is only beneficial to agriculture. Focusing on it is basically sending us back to the 19th century. EDIT: I also made another comment pointing out how minor the effects of stopping the deforestation altogether would be in our economy: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=21101628 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=21101628

by mpol 7y ago

johnisgood 7y ago

> pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. That is rich, considering Brazil is the world’s leading exporter of both beef and poultry, exporting to more than 150 countries. Brazilian beef is the main reason for the massive deforestation in the Amazon. > A 2004 World Bank paper and a 2009 Greenpeace report found that the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon, supported by the international beef and leather trades, was responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[3][2] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the largest single driver of deforestation in the world.[4] According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 70% of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#Causes_of_deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra... People who eat meat imported from Brazil blames Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest? Even if you do not eat meat imported from Brazil, you should "blame" the consumers who do. If there would be no demand for it, there would be no financial incentives for all this destruction.

icebraining 7y ago
The EU is not a huge importer of beef, since we produce quite a bit ourselves (net exporters). Hong Kong alone imported 2.5x more beef from Brazil than the whole of the EU in 2018 (some of it for resale).
- johnisgood 7y ago
  I know. Sorry, I should have clarified that I was not necessarily referring to Europeans, but any people who blame Brazil AND buy Brazilian beef. I do not think we even have Brazilian beef around where I live, in Eastern Europe.
- amelius 7y ago
  But isn't the EU downsizing production of meat, and importing more over the years? (Which would be a double problem, since you now have the issue of transportation).
  - icebraining 7y ago
    At least regarding beef, no; imports have remain steady, while exports have increased. From the "Beef & Veal Market Situation" EC report: https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/9/28/fe1dd519b19bb90850e282e3c54d188c-full.png https://cdn1.imggmi.com/uploads/2019/9/28/fe1dd519b19bb90850...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

riffraff 7y ago

> If we are so concerned, why not rebuild those forests. it's been reported plenty of times that europe keeps getting more forests e.g.[0] > Between 1990 and 2015, the area covered by forests and woodlands increased by 90,000 square kilometres - an area roughly the size of Portugal. The problem with european forests is mostly, AFAIU, the fact that the few remaining old growth ones are still being cut, such as in Poland. [0] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environment/#targetText=Many%20of%20Europe's%20forests%20are,1%2C500%20soccer%20pitches%20every%20day https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/forest-europe-environ....

mantas 7y ago
Even those sad cases of cutting down old growth forest won't be replaced by agriculture or industry - new trees will be planted. Hopefully they'll allow native trees to-grow instead of planting imported trees. I couldn't find details if they're doing clear cut or selective and giving time for remaining trees to multiple.
makomk 7y ago
The other problem is that non-native pests and diseases keep killing off trees. For example, the article mentions mountain ash as a species that's endangered. They're suffering from a nasty fungus that came here from Asia - the Asian species of ash have evolved to defend themselves from it, but the European ones have no defences and can't survive infection.

SuddsMcDuff 7y ago

Most deforestation in Europe was pre-industrial. Europe is actually doing a pretty great job of reforestation - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04...

agumonkey 7y ago
Good point, yet I'd love to seem a bit more vegetation planted. I'm only worried about how to make it proper (so not to disrupt the current ecosystem nor create too many cobra effects)
- timc3 7y ago
  Get rid of humans in a large enough area. Given enough time I am sure it would be back to however its going to be. Otherwise you probably want a forester looking after it.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  We seem to have learnt at least something from those monocrop areas of forestry that were the norm in the early 20th century. There's a number of schemes now trying to recreate some of Europe's mainly long-lost temperate rain forest. Of course it's far harder to put back than not lose in the first place...
fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Has Brazil fully industrialized? With a per capita GDP of less than ten thousand dollars and a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US) I'd say not yet. The west is trying to kick the ladder out from behind them.
- conception 7y ago
  The thesis that you cannot develop sustainably however is a fallacy. It is not one or the other - and more importantly it cannot be any more.

ratww 7y ago

I know you say this in good faith, but as a Brazilian I find this comment very condescending and unproductive. If Brazil wants to become as rich as Europe it needs to focus on things that made Europe what it is right now: industry, services, technological innovation. The Amazon deforestation is only beneficial to agriculture. Focusing on it is basically sending us back to the 19th century. EDIT: I also made another comment pointing out how minor the effects of stopping the deforestation altogether would be in our economy: https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=21101628 https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=21101628