37 ms·

But 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

But 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 ago
  They were certainly better at it than the current administration.
  - pelasaco 6y ago
    Not 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
- farias0 6y ago
  I don't get your point. Bolsonaro is the fourth Brazilian president since 2008. And yes, environment weren't the top priority at any point, but there were actual efforts to lower deforestation, and the last URL you linked illustrates.
  - pelasaco 6y ago
    Well look to the table. The numbers look the same regardless of the president in place.
    - farias0 6y ago
      You mean the table on Wikipedia? Because the numbers lowered substantially after 2005.
      - pelasaco 6y ago
        For sure I mean the table on Wikipedia. If you look 2013 and 2015, there were as well upside variations. Bolsonaro started his term on 1. January, 2019. To somehow attribute anything to him in this regards, you should wait at least 50% of his term. Unless the focus isn't in his work as president but on him as person.
gdubs 6y ago
A universal basic income wouldn’t be a terrible idea.
rmsaksida 6y ago
Indeed, there is no easy answer. I think the majority of that money, if it existed, should be used for building infrastructure and financing public healthcare and education. I.e. it could replace some of the sources for the government budget, or add to it. Obviously there would be strict controls for suspending the funds if deforestation continued. If the government budget became even slightly dependent on such a fund, it'd be in the interest of every administration to make sure it kept coming. From the government's perspective, beef and soya are important exports so the funding would have to be comparable to that.

diegoholiveira 6y ago

> The past administrations were happy about fighting illegal deforestation. In theory, yes. In practice, not so much.

bananamerica 6y ago
They were certainly better at it than the current administration.
- pelasaco 6y ago
  Not 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

farias0 6y ago
I don't get your point. Bolsonaro is the fourth Brazilian president since 2008. And yes, environment weren't the top priority at any point, but there were actual efforts to lower deforestation, and the last URL you linked illustrates.
- pelasaco 6y ago
  Well look to the table. The numbers look the same regardless of the president in place.
  - farias0 6y ago
    You mean the table on Wikipedia? Because the numbers lowered substantially after 2005.
    - pelasaco 6y ago
      For sure I mean the table on Wikipedia. If you look 2013 and 2015, there were as well upside variations. Bolsonaro started his term on 1. January, 2019. To somehow attribute anything to him in this regards, you should wait at least 50% of his term. Unless the focus isn't in his work as president but on him as person.

gdubs 6y ago

A universal basic income wouldn’t be a terrible idea.

rmsaksida 6y ago

Indeed, there is no easy answer. I think the majority of that money, if it existed, should be used for building infrastructure and financing public healthcare and education. I.e. it could replace some of the sources for the government budget, or add to it. Obviously there would be strict controls for suspending the funds if deforestation continued. If the government budget became even slightly dependent on such a fund, it'd be in the interest of every administration to make sure it kept coming. From the government's perspective, beef and soya are important exports so the funding would have to be comparable to that.