Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021 • Hacker News Board

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#71

Post by mbg721 » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #68

andrekandre wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we should offer economically viable solutions rather than pointing fingers while i agree with you, i cant think of anything off the top of my head...any ideas?

The current government is heavily favouring the export of primary and finite resources. If people from other countries really want Brazilian economy to get off the ground, they should want Brazil to export processed and manufactured goods, or other sectors. Treating Brazil like a big farm is doing neither Brazil nor the environment any favours. The "We should't criticise Brazil, let them do what we also did before" i…

If Brazil is a big farm, is Argentina a big ranch? Or is there less of a difference than I'm perceiving?

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#72

Post by lvass » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #48

specialp wrote: post #31

The United States once had one of the largest forests on Earth. The Eastern Forest covered almost everywhere east of the Mississippi. 2,560,000 km2 of forest. Now it is largely gone. Replaced with farmland and sprawl. So it is hard to criticize. Even areas that are now heavily forested like Vermont were clear cut almost entirely by the turn of the century. The Amazon should be preserved, but to do that the world is g…

> So it is hard to criticize. Even areas that are now heavily forested like Vermont were clear cut almost entirely by the turn of the century. As someone born in Brazil, I don't see why it's hard. Please criticise away. My country should be learning from the mistakes of others, not repeating them in order to favour some higher political caste. To quote flaviojuvenal below, "Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 20…

>mistakes

Yeah, that's a very hard sell, when your country is in such a shameful state, your economy is hanging by a thread that's agriculture, and without it your currency would be so messed up you'd be unlikely to be able to pay for the device you're typing that on. When you pledge for your own country that's suffering from hunger to reduce agriculture, you're part of the problem.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#73

Post by coffeeblack » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #67

coffeeblack wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same goes for Europe. We love to point the finger at Brazil and other developing countries, while profiting for centuries from deforestation of our own territory. Maybe we should simply plant 18 new trees per second in the West?

Yes. Use eminent domain to crawl back the suburbia. Pay people what is the value of newly forested land. Then provide them some living place few square meters is proven to be enough by examples in East Asia.

Could you explain why you want to grow trees on the 1% of land that has housing on it, instead of on the 99% of land that hasn’t?

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#74

Post by fdsafdsfdsa » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

cute_boi wrote: post #65

fdsafdsfdsa wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fully aware of that, which is why I said "domestically FED and raised". >Also, the feeding animal 10KG to get 1KG looks rather wasteful? Depends heavily on what animal product you are producing. Obviously we won't be eating beef all the time. It also depends on what kind of farmland you have available, and what uses those crops have. Where I am (Wales, UK), the combination of the farmer' lobby and the "Welsh cult…

Domestically fed and raised doesn't work in real world. There are so many people to feed.

Pretty clearly you would have to radically re-think how much animal produce you would get to eat. Also - countries like The Netherlands have a strong tradition of backyard chickens to suppliment a household's diet.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#75

Post by is_true » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:22 PM UTC

ratww wrote: post #48

specialp wrote: post #31

The United States once had one of the largest forests on Earth. The Eastern Forest covered almost everywhere east of the Mississippi. 2,560,000 km2 of forest. Now it is largely gone. Replaced with farmland and sprawl. So it is hard to criticize. Even areas that are now heavily forested like Vermont were clear cut almost entirely by the turn of the century. The Amazon should be preserved, but to do that the world is g…

> So it is hard to criticize. Even areas that are now heavily forested like Vermont were clear cut almost entirely by the turn of the century. As someone born in Brazil, I don't see why it's hard. Please criticise away. My country should be learning from the mistakes of others, not repeating them in order to favour some higher political caste. To quote flaviojuvenal below, "Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 20…

Think of it this way:

The countries pointing fingers at Brazil all did the same to become more developed and to make their population richer, they just want to stop Brazil from doing the same so they can keep the prices of commodities they sell higher.

They cheated but now don't want you to do the same in order to keep other countries in check, I mean, Europe is burning more and more coal, they are just a bunch of hypocrites.

Fun fact: That "newspaper*" that published the article is from Argentina, which is destroying the "Chaco" region as we speak and burning large areas of wetlands to increase the area for growing cattle, a market in which it's competing with Brazil.

Even thought the article is from another source, the BA Times belong to a company aligned with the Argentinian government which supports Lula in Brazil.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#76

Post by skilled » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:23 PM UTC

It's not unheard of that in Africa many groups/tribes form together to fight back against poachers. Is there anything like this happening in the Amazon rainforest?

And if no, then why not? Do people think a politician with his fancy suit is going to step his foot into the swamp to try and meet halfway?

These assholes are literally destroying the world and the human race is none the wiser....

I sometimes wonder what would happen if rather than trying to evolve on a technological level, humanity evolved to protect and harmonize this world.

Holy shit it's not even funny the level of ignorance that permeates topics of destroying the Earth.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#77

Post by Ekaros » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

coffeeblack wrote: post #73

Ekaros wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Use eminent domain to crawl back the suburbia. Pay people what is the value of newly forested land. Then provide them some living place few square meters is proven to be enough by examples in East Asia.

Could you explain why you want to grow trees on the 1% of land that has housing on it, instead of on the 99% of land that hasn’t?

Because every bit helps and everyone should be ready to make some minor sacrifices for the planet. After all they are asking others to die from hunger.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#78

Post by EGreg » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

andrekandre wrote: post #61

EGreg wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do governments not start an international reforestation / ecological fund and pay some of their GDP into it so that it would make economic sense for Brazil, Australia and others to preserve their forests, kelp, reefs etc. These carbon credit half measures are pitiful. Western governments pay part of their GDP for NATO, but defending against ecological collapse might be higher priority. Governments tax citizens by…

> Why do governments not start an international reforestation / ecological fund and pay some of their GDP into it they are busy pouring their gdp into competing with one another...unfortunately,our current economic system is based on endless growth and competition instead of equity and cooperation; i doubt anything will happen until its too late...

Exactly. Competition instead of collaboration means that organizations can’t meaningfully get together and solve large externalities before it’s too late. Same with wars.

We need to get our governments to work together and get things done, as they did with the Toronto Protocol but over and over. The United Nations can work to implement software-like release cycles of more and more mechanisms that facilitate cooperation between countries, even as they bicker.

Sadly, I do not think such solutions will be implemented top-down, and the bottom-up ones may take too long. But we can try !!!

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#79

Post by ratww » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

hu3 wrote: post #70

ratww wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone born in Brazil, I'm tired of this condescending bullshit. There are several economically viable solutions, but Brazilian government should be interested in pursuing them, rather than only pursuing things that only benefits the current friends of the government (such as deforestation). US/EU/etc forcing Brazil to get its shit together would be BETTER for the population. We don't need the deforestation to pr…

> There are several economically viable solutions... Such as? The sheer scale of what Brazil feeds to the rest of the world would hardly accommodate for "several economically viable solutions". 2020 paper about the issue: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2003270117 You can't simply tell a third-world country to halt a major part of their economy.

I answered somewhere else.

Brazil being a major exporter of only primary sector goods isn't doing the population of the country any favours.

> If people from other countries really want Brazilian economy to get off the ground, they should want Brazil to export processed and manufactured goods, or other sectors.

> Treating Brazil like a big farm is doing neither Brazil nor the environment any favours.

> The "We should't criticise Brazil" is not only hypocritical, it's also counter-intuitive.

It's not about halting a major part of its economy. It's about not fucking up the rest of the economy only to accommodate a sector that isn't doing that much good for the greater part of the population.

China/EU/US actually love the cheap meat. The "let's not criticise" is as self-serving as it gets.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#80

Post by throwaway6734 » Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 2:24 PM UTC

coffeeblack wrote: post #50

specialp wrote: post #31

The United States once had one of the largest forests on Earth. The Eastern Forest covered almost everywhere east of the Mississippi. 2,560,000 km2 of forest. Now it is largely gone. Replaced with farmland and sprawl. So it is hard to criticize. Even areas that are now heavily forested like Vermont were clear cut almost entirely by the turn of the century. The Amazon should be preserved, but to do that the world is g…

Same goes for Europe. We love to point the finger at Brazil and other developing countries, while profiting for centuries from deforestation of our own territory. Maybe we should simply plant 18 new trees per second in the West?

The modern situation is different though. All those trees were used to bootstrap the current level of technological progress that Brazil doesn't need to do.

Ideally wealthier countries would purchase/subsidize these areas so they don't need to be logged