Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#121

Post by scottLobster »

DFHippie wrote: post #113
scottLobster wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why the fix must be economic, not moral. LED light bulbs and wind power in the Midwest aren't successes because everyone decided to pitch in, take their place on the line and give it all for Captain Planet, they're successes because they fulfill the fundamental promise of efficiency: do more with less. They save people money. And if you doubt the efficacy of said approach, just look at Texas renewable number…

> It's a concept most environmentalists I encounter look upon as the dark side of the force, like if they used economics and human selfishness towards a positive end it would somehow take away their environmentalist virtue. Guess it's hard to be a martyr when you take away the sacrifice. Doesn't help that they usually look down on the individuals in question, and can't seem to understand why "pay more and do less so…

No, they probably wouldn't think that. But that's how it comes off in many cases. Not all, but many. See the parent comment relating environmentalism to the romantic martyrdom of those concentration camp prisoners who offered comfort to others and gave up their last piece of bread. And its argument that Americans who refuse to stop flying/driving/using plastic for their job are somehow "emotionally" the same as Bolsonaro's politically motivated denialism.

You need look no further than any Hacker News discussion of climate change to see tons of comments of how people should stop eating beef, stop eating all meat, stop driving so much, stop flying, pay more for clean energy, pay more in taxes, even stop having children (at which I will never cease to /facepalm), all with the theme of "There is no way you have any valid argument against any of this, so if you refuse to make these sacrifice you're part of the problem."

I'm all for environmental regulation, I'd even be in favor of a carbon tax, but modern environmentalism has a huge messaging problem that makes both nearly impossible in the US outside of deep blue zones. It's way too moralistic and way too unwilling to adapt(ironic, given its cause). Maybe if environmentalists turned down the volume on climate change and talked more about good jobs, clean air, clean water, they'd make more headway. Find common ground and go with that, because in a functioning democracy we all move forward together (given a large majority) or not at all. And in my opinion anyone who truly cares about solving climate change should prioritize progress over virtue.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#122

Post by toyg »

davesmith1983 wrote: post #119
toyg wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was trying to be objective and politically neutral about a successful politician. No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-do…

> No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-down on it while completely ignoring the bits of my post that are inconvenient to your…

Farage is as controversial as any of the recent populist leaders, otherwise we wouldn't have the rivers of ink his outbursts command. Trying to paint one as less controversial than the other is just an attempt at making him more acceptable.

> You didn't point me at anything objective.

Want more? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11465505/Nigel-Far...

Refusing to accept that Farage's campaigns are fundamentally based on discrimination, is just denying reality.

> Well UKIP's manifesto of 2015 is a 76 page document

Yeah, and no UKIP supporter would likely be able to describe any of it, except the bits on discriminating foreigners and closing borders. Because, frankly, that's pretty much the only thing they care about. Farage's latest outfit, the brexit party, smashes together old marxists and capitalist cronies, in single-minded pursuit of discrimination.

> They don't mention who they are whistling at and what terms they are using to do that

Because it becomes tedious to do that after a while. The targets of dog-whistling are almost inevitably minorities, because they are the ones who cannot be attacked directly without falling openly into discriminatory language - commonly known as "racist".

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#123

Post by thefounder »

davesmith1983 wrote: post #42
thefounder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the difference is that people used to condemn the author when it got caught lying which doesn't seem to be the case anymore. People no longer pay politically when they lie. It all transformed into a world-wide propaganda machine where people think in war/dictatorship terms(we against them).

Most people accept that politicians lie. Saying that a politician lies is like saying "The Pope is Catholic" or "Water is wet". What people care about is whether the politicians will instigate policies that are beneficial to them. Bolsonaro ran with one of his main issues being law and order. In Brazil the crime rates are quite shocking (IIRC the murder rate is huge like 100s a day). It doesn't matter if he lies abou…

Lying is now blatant, endemic and unapologetic. It's really more propaganda than just lying. Let's hope the sane people will tax these politicians otherwise we risk new Nazi systems.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#124

Post by SpikeDad »

Well if we had native resources that had been protected for years and suddenly we had a President that had little concern for environmental issues we'd probably also be increasing the destruction of it in order for his political supporters to increase their profits.

Oh wait... Sigh.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#125

Post by davesmith1983 »

toyg wrote: post #122
davesmith1983 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-down on it while completely ignoring the bits of my post that are inconvenient to your…

Farage is as controversial as any of the recent populist leaders, otherwise we wouldn't have the rivers of ink his outbursts command. Trying to paint one as less controversial than the other is just an attempt at making him more acceptable. > You didn't point me at anything objective. Want more? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11465505/Nigel-Far... Refusing to accept that Farage's campaigns are fundamentall…

> Yeah, and no UKIP supporter would likely be able to describe any of it, except the bits on discriminating foreigners and closing borders. Because, frankly, that's pretty much the only thing they care about. Farage's latest outfit, the brexit party, smashes together old marxists and capitalist cronies, in single-minded pursuit of discrimination.

Well you've just changed the goalposts again. After being quite clearly confronted with evidence that doesn't support your assertions (a summary of a manifesto with a clear set of policies) you change the goalposts to the UKIP supporter being thick or bigoted.

Have you actually talked to many UKIP supporters? I've spoken to UKIP when they knocked on the door and they seemed like pretty normal people.

> Because it becomes tedious to do that after a while. The targets of dog-whistling are almost inevitably minorities, because they are the ones who cannot be attacked directly without falling openly into discriminatory language - commonly known as "racist".

Right so you have plenty of energy to throw endless accusations around, accuse me of all sorts because I don't agree with you but when asked for specifics it is too tedious. Okay with that I think I will leave you to it. Bye.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#126

Post by emn13 »

new2628 wrote: post #30
Waterluvian wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of the costs of democracy. We could always just take power away from all the uneducated who rely on emotion-based decision making. And then somehow punish the educated who do the same despite being equipped with the tools to parse the facts. I'm sure this would work out horribly.

Making an educated/uneducated dichotomy is part of the problem, the educated have also made plenty of horrible decisions, not paying any price for it, and lecturing the rest all the same. Nassim Taleb's framework seems to be more interesting here: there are those with and those without skin in the game.

So what you're saying is general enough not to be disprovable.

But there are two conclusions you might draw from that: (A) that intelligence and education aren't helpful, or (B) that those making horrible decisions were being selfish.

Given the trumpian sentiment of "not paying my taxes makes me smart", and perhaps the fact that other people were even smart enough not to say something like that (but still to act on the idea), I'm thinking you need to consider (B) as a serious component here.

That would suggest that intelligence and education might still be useful - but only when dishonesty and selfishness is not a dominating risk. I suppose there are measures one might take to at least reduce those risks, since obviously completely eradicating those is unrealistic.

For instance, if the educated are good at serving themselves but pullign the wool over the electorate's eyes, then perhaps more audits would help. A culture of much harsher penalties for selfish leaders, even where the selfishness isn't illegal, might help. But perhaps also the electorate itself should be smarter too - and that's not entirely impossible in principle too; e.g. you could imagine a pyramid scheme of elections, not too different from the electoral college today - just with more levels (not just two), and with explicit decoupling of the elector from their vote (so no more "republican" electors or "democrat" electors - they too are free agents), and with the explicit aim of voting for people who you think you can most trust - intellectually, morally, and as a planner - instead of those you most agree with (since with multiple levels, that's kind of hopeless anyhow).

...So I'm not really serious with that last suggestion, but I do think we need to be exploring options. A disillusioned electorate mixed with manipulative, egotistical, untrustworthy politicians, spiced with lavish lobbying, no funding transparency, and media so full of noise the signal is hard to find - that's a recipe for serious food poisoning. It may seriously simply help to switch electoral systems every once and a while, even if there's no single best system - simply to shake loose the manipulative habits that settle in after a while.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#127

Post by DFHippie »

harshreality wrote: post #51

Leaders do not operate in an environment where they can tell the truth and do things based on facts on the ground.[1] Leaders have one real job, that is to reward (through jobs/money/political clout) people who help them. If they don't think telling the truth about deforestation or global warming will help their sycophants, they will tell lies. [1] CGP Grey's Rules for Rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR…

This cynicism is pernicious. There are plenty of people, on both ends of the political spectrum, who seek public office in order to do things which they view as for the greater good. On the right it is things like criminalizing abortion. On the left it is things like preventing catastrophic climate change. They may barter votes or bend their positions in the name of incrementalism or long-term strategy, but it is the rare politician that is 100% corrupt, seeking office so as to sell their authority for personal gain. Believing this, that all politicians are purely corrupt, and arguing that others should believe it, is to facilitate corruption, not fight it.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#128

Post by NeedMoreTea »

scottLobster wrote: post #105
spodek wrote: post #75

I see remarkable similarity in Bolsonaro's response on a national scale to nearly every American's response when choosing between making money and the environment. Suggest to an American to fly less and over 99% will say, "But my job. . ." as humans fly more than ever. Not to dwell on flying, we could talk of miles driven, plastic discarded, air conditioning empty rooms, eating more beef than ever. The scale is diffe…

Which is why the fix must be economic, not moral. LED light bulbs and wind power in the Midwest aren't successes because everyone decided to pitch in, take their place on the line and give it all for Captain Planet, they're successes because they fulfill the fundamental promise of efficiency: do more with less. They save people money. And if you doubt the efficacy of said approach, just look at Texas renewable number…

I'm not sure environmentalists doubt the economics, or your blanket dismissal. More the huge delay in waiting for the economics to maybe win out. Hence calling for subsidies to the alternative, not as we currently do, subsidise the (formerly) profitable incumbents.

I suppose I reluctantly wear the environmentalist label as that's how some see me. It's not how I would see myself.

A fix is removing all subsidy from fossil fuels and instead subsidising renewables along with increased insulation and combined community heat and power schemes. Except I don't see that as environmentalism, just common sense, whether considering an individual family and house, or a town or national scale.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#129

Post by polotics »

toyg wrote: post #122
davesmith1983 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, you were not -- you were (and still are) trying to pass your biases (Farage "patriotic" and unfairly portraited while being "uncontroversial") as objective, by attacking straw men in how public debate arrives at objective conclusions about him. I pointed you at one of many examples of why that is not the case, and you doubled-down on it while completely ignoring the bits of my post that are inconvenient to your…

Farage is as controversial as any of the recent populist leaders, otherwise we wouldn't have the rivers of ink his outbursts command. Trying to paint one as less controversial than the other is just an attempt at making him more acceptable. > You didn't point me at anything objective. Want more? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11465505/Nigel-Far... Refusing to accept that Farage's campaigns are fundamentall…

@Toyg, you write: "otherwise we wouldn't have the rivers of ink his outbursts command". Is this argument not backwards? Seeing an outsider, who will most likely remain so, get shot down with lots of ink, fits a pattern of repression does it not? Is no one in your country feeling also repressed? This was davesmith1983's point I believe. There is co-dependency between TINA (there is no alternative) technocracies and populists: both use the other as a scarecrow. May I suggest you both ramp up on political economics? eg. Yanis Varoufakis is most readable / YouTube watchable.

Re: Amazon deforestation: Brazil's Bolsonaro dismisses data as 'lies'

#130

Post by myko »

triangleman wrote: post #120
myko wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LED light bulbs I live in the midwest and my friends still complain that the government forced them to switch to the new bulbs. There's a lot of weird anxiety about doing things to help the environment from a lot of folks that makes them not want to do even things that benefit themselves.

It's perfectly reasonable to complain about the government banning incandescent bulbs. For a drop in the bucket of energy savings, they took away a choice that many people preferred in favor of mainly fluorescent bulbs which are an environmental hazard. Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick. It's a great example of poor environmental policy and you dismiss crit…

> For a drop in the bucket of energy savings

Incandescent bulbs last months, LEDs last years and use 5x less energy.

> Thank God for decent LED lights in the last few years or the irony would still be pretty thick.

Do you think we would be better off using incandescents?

I think the main thrust of your point is that you don't think the government should be able to tell folks they can't use crappy bulbs. I think without government intervention LEDs wouldn't be where they are today, which is partly due to that weird anxiety I mentioned, and that's unfortunate.

Post reply on HN