7 ms·
The only fair way to curb the deforestation of the Amazon is to make the economic incentive of not cutting it down greater than the incentive of cutting it down
by rmsaksida 6y ago
The only fair way to curb the deforestation of the Amazon is to make the economic incentive of not cutting it down greater than the incentive of cutting it down. In other words, Brazil needs to be compensated for not utilizing its natural resources. The majority of Western countries exhausted their natural resources (including forests) for economic gain and have no right to point fingers at Brazil, especially when they buy meat and soya from Brazil. It's important to note that Brazil has more preserved nature and a smaller carbon footprint than most - all? - countries that criticize it. I'm all for preserving the Amazon but the entitlement and double standards that surface in discussions about this subject are ridiculous.
- morceauxdebois 6y agoShould the US compensate China so they don't exterminate the Uigurs, they got to cleanse a whole continent of indigenous people.
- farias0 6y agoAre they interested in keeping the Ulgurs alive?
- pelasaco 6y agoThe interesting discussion would be about the indigenous people (Native people so to speak) in Germany and France claiming back land exactly as we Germans try to enforce in Brazil and US.
- delecti 6y agoThere are German and French indigenous? Do you have any more info? I'm super curious to learn more, but I'm not sure what search to start with.
- pelasaco 6y agoWell Indigenous are nothing else than Native people. Or how do you define Indigenous? You could start with a dictionary ;) From Oxford Dictionary: originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native. "the indigenous peoples of Siberia" Beside it you have for sure groups like Sorbs and Danes[2] References: [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples [2]: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4954ce03c.html https://www.refworld.org/docid/4954ce03c.html [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans#:~:text=The%20migration%2Dperiod%20peoples%20who,the%20formation%20of%20the%20Germans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans#:~:text=The%20migratio....
- delecti 6y agoI suppose my confusion comes because I'm not really aware of any significant demographic shift in either of those countries in the past couple thousand years, so I wouldn't have thought the distinction of "indigenous" vs "non-indigenous" to be super relevant. I would also typically consider the connotations of "indigenous" to imply some degree of colonization, meaning that unless there's a group of people I'm not aware of, an "indigenous German" is just a "German".
- pelasaco 6y agoToday you have native Germans and German citizens. Like the same as Brazilian citizens and Native people, i guess? To Imagine the same scenario that we Germans want to enforce in Brazil like "Give the Forest back to the Indigenous People" or "Let them live as their ancestors lived originally" but with people from Thuringia, Bavaria or Saxony claiming land to live how their ancestors lived back in the days is either bizarre or hypocritical. Reference: https://www.dw.com/en/indigenous-land-demarcation-sparks-divisions-in-brazil/a-40024186 https://www.dw.com/en/indigenous-land-demarcation-sparks-div...
- farias0 6y agoBut I think the discussion is not only about how much money, but who gets it. The government? Will they give it to local farmers? The past administrations were happy about fighting illegal deforestation. In this case they still could leverage foreign aid using the argument you mentioned, yeah. But the current one is removing as many regulations as they can get away with so those farmers can go nuts, and they don't seem like they want to negotiate.
- diegoholiveira 6y ago> The past administrations were happy about fighting illegal deforestation. In theory, yes. In practice, not so much.
- bananamerica 6y agoThey were certainly better at it than the current administration.
- pelasaco 6y agoNot really, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra... "Loss Rates".
- pelasaco 6y ago> The past administrations were happy about fighting illegal deforestation. No way. You are trying to recreate the history. The last administrations were the worse in term of numbers. Look the Table on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra..., "Anual Forest Loss".. look around 1999 and 2008. Here some articles describing the scenarios back in the days: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN13420813 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN13420813 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-11888875 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-11888875
- 6y ago
- theklub 6y agoNorway tried, Brazil doesn't care....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... I believe Farc did more to protect the Amazon.
- diegoholiveira 6y ago> I believe Farc did more to protect the Amazon. Of course, they need the forest to hide themselves and they illegal activities like kidnapping and cocaine production.
- pelasaco 6y agothat was clearly more a way to try to set an agenda than really help Brazil. Just read the text linked in the thread. The regrowth is there, are Germany and Norway helping again?
- gnramires 6y agoNorway stopped the funding due to the unilateral dismantling of the board that oversees the (effective) spending of the funds. That was obviously essential for the donations to occur.
- badconvincer 6y agoThis is the only good argument. The US and Europe have destroyed all their old growth for progress and only Norway seems to be doing the right thing to right the sins of their fathers. Brazil is finally in the wrong for not taking this offer.
- clydethefrog 6y agoYou know which South Eeast Asian country still has a lot of forest? Laos. Because the USA dropped more bombs on that little underdeveloped country than whole WW2 and is now littered with unexploded bombs. Sometimes I wonder if the blue helmets shouldn't just do the same to the Amazon for the safety of the nations, in the "move fast and break things" spirit that used to be vogue.
- pelasaco 6y agoNa, the Americans dropped a lot of bombs in Germany and we are still here, building and rebuilding cities on top of the bombs.
- throwaway894345 6y agoThere's lots to criticize about other Western countries and how they've managed their own resources (and especially for any outsourcing of environmental harm to which they contribute), but we don't need to be dishonest by arguing that they've depleted their own resources. North America has some of the most abundant forests, oil fields, and coal deposits in the world, and that without accepting payment to compensate for not consuming them. Similarly, Europe has many resources of its own. And (especially in Europe) most of the consumption of natural resources in these countries predated our modern understanding of environment. If the US demanded a check from Brazil in order to halt the creation of some oil pipeline or coal mine, they would rightly be laughed out of the room--the US shouldn't contribute to worsening environmental issues because it's every country's moral responsibility to create a sustainable future. > especially when they buy meat and soya from Brazil. I'm a big fan of economic solutions to economically-derived environmental problems. I want as many countries as possible to have a carbon tax, and I want those countries to have a border adjustment so China or whomever can't out-compete other countries by polluting (externalizing the cost of production to the environment). Maybe the analog here is a border adjustment for Brazil and other countries that aren't managing their environment to some accepted standard, so that other Western countries aren't contributing to Brazilian deforestation (and other environmental issues).
- rmsaksida 6y ago> North America has some of the most abundant forests, oil fields, and coal deposits in the world, and that without accepting payment to compensate for not consuming them How much economic benefit would those resources offer if consumed? In the case of forests, is the land covered by them fit for pasture or crops? Is that an apt comparison with the Amazon? Also, how much does North America need the money they'd get out of consuming those resources? > Similarly, Europe has many resources of its own Is that so? How much of Europe is covered by native forests? In Brazil it's roughly 50% of the country. And that's native rain forest, not artificial reforestation. Is Europe willing to relocate people out of territories they've occupied for generations to restore the original forests? > most of the consumption of natural resources in these countries predated our modern understanding of environment Yes, but the fact is Western countries are wealthy and the resources they consumed throughout their history surely played a part in the wealth they've accumulated. Why shouldn't Brazil have that chance? To clarify, I do not think it's reasonable to cut down the forest - but it's very easy and convenient for European countries to point fingers when they've gotten rich off their own resources and other countries' resources via colonialism. > If the US demanded a check from Brazil in order to halt the creation of some oil pipeline or coal mine, they would rightly be laughed out of the room If the US were a poor country and the oil pipeline would represent a big economic gain for them, I honestly don't think that would be unreasonable. You can't expect poor countries to sit on their hands if it's a game changing opportunity. > Maybe the analog here is a border adjustment for Brazil and other countries that aren't managing their environment to some accepted standard, so that other Western countries aren't contributing to Brazilian deforestation I would fully support that. I don't think we'll see any improvements to the situation until other countries maneuver to make deforestation an economic issue.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoWhy not instead just have foreign govts buy and own the Amazon, instead of ranchers? Let the govts of the world, especially the Paris Climate Accords signatories, collectively own the Amazon and put it all into a nature preserve that can’t be mowed down and turned into farmland? It would still be under Brazilian jurisdiction and law, of course, and the Brazilian govt would likely be contracted to run such a preserve. But the property rights would be owned by an international group of govts who do not allow destruction of the forests on their property.
- thepangolino 6y agoWhat you propose makes way too much sense and would offer an actual solution.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoHaha, maybe I'm wrong, people are downvoting me but without explaining why, so maybe there's some reason this isn't technically or legally possible I'm unaware of, who knows.
- rmsaksida 6y agoI didn't downvote you, but I imagine the main issue is sovereignty. It sure would feel awkward to sell out large patches of land to foreign countries - it's hard to argue Brazil's sovereignty would be intact after doing something like that.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoMakes sense, though that seems like a relatively easily solvable technical/legal problem. Perhaps instead of foreign govts buying Amazon land directly, set up a non-profit land trust or other entity under the Paris Climate Accords that is funded by signatories, and use that to purchase the Amazon lands. Set up the governance in such a way that it doesn't compromise Brazil's sovereignty. Etc. I'm sure some clever lawyers could figure out an acceptable structure for such a thing.
- hcarvalhoalves 6y agoPer-capita CO2 emissions to put things in perspective: United States 17.5 Australia 16.75 Canada 14.67 Russian Fed. 12.18 South Korea 11.78 Norway 11.71 Finland 11.53 Greenland 11.07 Netherlands 10.96 ... China 6.18 Mexico 3.91 *Brazil* 2.15 India 1.64 There's a nice viz here: https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2#:~:text=More%20populous%20countries%20with%20some,and%20Canada%20at%2015.6%20tonnes https://ourworldindata.org/per-capita-co2#:~:text=More%20pop...
- pelasaco 6y agoEven though I agree with the original argument, this Table doesn't support what is being said. In Fact China and India because of Billions of people, are kind of Outliers in this discussion. Is there a way to normalize this data? This article however was kind of interesting https://www.ft.com/content/e1c7d5e7-61da-4c20-a99b-b89826e5994d https://www.ft.com/content/e1c7d5e7-61da-4c20-a99b-b89826e59... including the video "How to price the Nature"
- moefh 6y agoI'm confused about what other normalization is needed. China and India have (combined) 1/3 of the world population. Why shouldn't they be responsible for 1/3 of the world emitted CO2?
- pelasaco 6y agoAs I understood from the post, the user tried to use the relation Population x CO2 emission to support that Brazil "has more preserved nature and a smaller carbon footprint than most other countries".. but to have China, Mexico and India as the top 3 cleanest countries in the World doesn't really make sense, no?
- moefh 6y agoThat list is not complete -- US is not the first, and India is not the last in the World. A better picture can be seen in the link in that comment. I think that list is meant to show that a lot of the rich industrialized countries emit much more per capita than developing countries, and even China (which is usually heavily criticized for high emissions).