4 ms·

My understanding is Amazon deforestation is to accommodate other land uses, in this case presumably cattle. The cattle maybe be used for beef and leather, but

My understanding is Amazon deforestation is to accommodate other land uses, in this case presumably cattle. The cattle maybe be used for beef and leather, but whatever the end use the forest impact is the same and focused on a shortsighted incentive.

nielsbot 5y ago
They state the number one driver of Amazon deforestation is cattle ranching.
- framecowbird 5y ago
  It isn't quite true that cattle is the biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon. The number one driver is soy. However, landowners will typically deforest and then place cattle on land for five years, before converting to soy to circumvent regulation. This creates the impression that cattle was the driver, when it was in fact soy. That said, a lot of the soy does feed cattle too!
  - gffrd 5y ago
    Reading this surprised me … How much is soy worth per acre? I assume the demand/payoff must be sizable to justify the cost of converting forest to agricultural land?
    - framecowbird 5y ago
      Soy is exported at about 380 USD per ton, and yield is something like 3 tons per hectare. I'm not sure how much the farmer doing the deforestation gets though. But deforesting the Amazon is sadly very cheap. Much cheaper than it should be given the value of the Amazon. It's a disastrous market failure.
jimmaswell 5y ago
A viewpoint I've never seen addressed - if the people of this country have unmet economic needs they can only meet by using some land from the Amazon, is it really more important to preserve it as a landmark than for the land to go to use? I'm all for conservation but there must be some reason everyone down there wants some of this land as opposed to going elsewhere.
- hulitu 5y ago
  Some people "have unmet economic needs" and some people have greed. Now, my economic needs are: a nice island just for me in the pacific, one house in Beverly Hills, a couple of sport cars, a private jet. The best way to achieve my economic needs is to destroy some ecosystem and raise cattle or trees plantages.
- framecowbird 5y ago
  A lot of the people doing deforestation in the Amazon are incredibly poor, and deforestation is the only option to them to increase their standard of living. However, to say we are preserving the Amazon as a "landmark" is not quite right. Globally speaking the best use for the Amazon is as a carbon sink and biodiversity hotspot. What should be happening is that the global community should be paying for this benefit: a big capital flow from the whole world to Brazil. But they are not, they are just free-riding.
  - hulitu 5y ago
    And a lot of those poor people have specialised machines to cut the forest. Always blame the poor. It works so well.
- slymon99 5y ago
  > is it really more important to preserve it as a landmark than for the land to go to use The Amazon has 10% of the worlds biodiversity, I wouldn't exactly call it a landmark, this isn't historic preservation - and the land is already "in use". Also I'm not sure that "the people of the country" are buying and farming cattle on large chunks of the Amazon, I'd assume the economic gains are highly concentrated amongst a few companies (this is conjecture). Either way, lowering demand for cattle raised in the Amazon would be one way to make this less common.
  - framecowbird 5y ago
    Very true that it's focused on just a few companies. Mostly JBS: they are massive. However while these companies take the lion's share of the profit it is poor people who are doing the deforestation to improve their standard of living, often hired by those companies via various intermediaries to hide their links to deforestation.

nielsbot 5y ago

They state the number one driver of Amazon deforestation is cattle ranching.

framecowbird 5y ago
It isn't quite true that cattle is the biggest driver of deforestation in the Amazon. The number one driver is soy. However, landowners will typically deforest and then place cattle on land for five years, before converting to soy to circumvent regulation. This creates the impression that cattle was the driver, when it was in fact soy. That said, a lot of the soy does feed cattle too!
- gffrd 5y ago
  Reading this surprised me … How much is soy worth per acre? I assume the demand/payoff must be sizable to justify the cost of converting forest to agricultural land?
  - framecowbird 5y ago
    Soy is exported at about 380 USD per ton, and yield is something like 3 tons per hectare. I'm not sure how much the farmer doing the deforestation gets though. But deforesting the Amazon is sadly very cheap. Much cheaper than it should be given the value of the Amazon. It's a disastrous market failure.

jimmaswell 5y ago

A viewpoint I've never seen addressed - if the people of this country have unmet economic needs they can only meet by using some land from the Amazon, is it really more important to preserve it as a landmark than for the land to go to use? I'm all for conservation but there must be some reason everyone down there wants some of this land as opposed to going elsewhere.

hulitu 5y ago
Some people "have unmet economic needs" and some people have greed. Now, my economic needs are: a nice island just for me in the pacific, one house in Beverly Hills, a couple of sport cars, a private jet. The best way to achieve my economic needs is to destroy some ecosystem and raise cattle or trees plantages.
framecowbird 5y ago
A lot of the people doing deforestation in the Amazon are incredibly poor, and deforestation is the only option to them to increase their standard of living. However, to say we are preserving the Amazon as a "landmark" is not quite right. Globally speaking the best use for the Amazon is as a carbon sink and biodiversity hotspot. What should be happening is that the global community should be paying for this benefit: a big capital flow from the whole world to Brazil. But they are not, they are just free-riding.
- hulitu 5y ago
  And a lot of those poor people have specialised machines to cut the forest. Always blame the poor. It works so well.
slymon99 5y ago
> is it really more important to preserve it as a landmark than for the land to go to use The Amazon has 10% of the worlds biodiversity, I wouldn't exactly call it a landmark, this isn't historic preservation - and the land is already "in use". Also I'm not sure that "the people of the country" are buying and farming cattle on large chunks of the Amazon, I'd assume the economic gains are highly concentrated amongst a few companies (this is conjecture). Either way, lowering demand for cattle raised in the Amazon would be one way to make this less common.
- framecowbird 5y ago
  Very true that it's focused on just a few companies. Mostly JBS: they are massive. However while these companies take the lion's share of the profit it is poor people who are doing the deforestation to improve their standard of living, often hired by those companies via various intermediaries to hide their links to deforestation.