3 ms·
Why 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 signatori
by SkyMarshal 6y ago
Why 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.