> That doesn't improve Brazil, does it? I happen to believe that it does. In the worst case, we get to keep the forest. > Sovereignty means that nobody outsi

> That doesn't improve Brazil, does it? I happen to believe that it does. In the worst case, we get to keep the forest. > Sovereignty means that nobody outside of Brazil gets a say without offering something major in return. First world countries used to give us money for keeping the forest but the current government (prior to 2019, "the annual donations to the Amazon Fund have amounted to nearly $1.3 billion" [1]). We could get back to that. However I also happen to believe that, at best, the deforestation part is not important for Brazil's economy at all. Several others have mentioned [2][3] (and I agree with them) that the deforestation part is actually damaging to the economy and to the livelihood of law-following Brazilians, and is borne out of illegal activity. The current government could just start following the (Brazilian) law and the issue would disappear. Ah, but police is expensive, you say. Well, they could have used the 1.3 billion from EU/US. Maybe a new government will be able to get that back, one can only hope. [1] https://gizmodo.com/big-donors-are-pulling-out-of-brazils-amazon-fund-and-t-1837305577 https://gizmodo.com/big-donors-are-pulling-out-of-brazils-am... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32154495 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32154495 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32152630 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32152630