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

Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

batimes.com.ar

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 224 posts

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#81

Post by dataflow »

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…

The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910, says Wikipedia. We didn't know nearly as much back then about the problems it would cause. So I'm not sure it's hard to criticize this when seeing it in 2022.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#82

Post by vixen99 »

zerop wrote: post #22

As consumers of Wooden furniture and so much new housing construction happening around the work, we all are to be blamed too. We need to invent alternate to wooden furniture.

So if it isn't plastic made from fossil fuels, what do you suggest?

Apparently the global human mass excluding humans themselves who comprise 0.01% of the global biomass but including our constructions in concrete, asphalt, aggregates, bricks, plastic & glass exceeded the global biomass back in 2020. The same report claims that this anthropogenic mass doubles every 20 years. I wonder what the thermal capacity of all this is let alone other manifest concerns.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-3010-5

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#83

Post by rglullis »

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…

The point is that every rich country first became rich, then started worrying about the environment.

It is hypocritical from rich countries to ask Brazil to stop deforestation if that means halting its economic development. If the rich countries really believe that preserving the environment is more important than the economy, then they need to either (a) pay underdeveloped countries to preserve their forests or (b) sacrifice their own economy and spend their own resources to re-grow their forest land. Ideally both.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#84

Post by jdasdf »

is_true wrote: post #75
ratww wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hy…

No post body was provided.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#85

Post by melling »

dataflow wrote: post #81
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…

The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910, says Wikipedia. We didn't know nearly as much back then about the problems it would cause. So I'm not sure it's hard to criticize this when seeing it in 2022.

So, now that we know should we replace some portion of the trees?

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#86

Post by [deleted] »

is_true wrote: post #75
ratww wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hy…

[deleted]

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#88

Post by dataflow »

melling wrote: post #85
dataflow wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910, says Wikipedia. We didn't know nearly as much back then about the problems it would cause. So I'm not sure it's hard to criticize this when seeing it in 2022.

So, now that we know should we replace some portion of the trees?

Sure, I don't have a horse in this race.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#89

Post by specialp »

dataflow wrote: post #81
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…

The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910, says Wikipedia. We didn't know nearly as much back then about the problems it would cause. So I'm not sure it's hard to criticize this when seeing it in 2022.

The USA could easily decide they would like to restore 50% of the forest by reclaiming farmland and exurbs and planting back trees. In 50 years it could be a large wild forest. Perhaps not old growth like before. So what is stopping this? It would cost a huge amount of money and drive food costs up dramatically. So even though it was not really as appreciated then to keep forests, it still is empty talk because nobody will pay to reverse those decisions as benefits are being reaped from it. So yes the USA is still not in a position to criticize without doing anything themselves or paying to preserve the Brazilian forests.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#90

Post by ratww »

lvass wrote: post #72
ratww wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What does it have to do with anything?

Import oriented agriculture/livestock is not really serving the local economy or making the country grow. Like other poster said, "Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 2000s while reducing Amazon deforestation".

People used to eat meat in Brazil every day, now even some middle class people had to reduce due to prices. The same goes for gas. That's because the economy changed heavily to favour primary sector exports at the detriment of every other activity.

Agriculture and Livestock were benefited at the detriment of every other sector.

EDIT: I wouldn't be able to even dream about buying the device I'm currently using if I were still working as a software engineer in Brazil, dude! I had to immigrate, as have about >60% of the co-workers I had in the last 10-ish years. The economical bullshit you're currently defending was shit even for people in well paying positions. However I was lucky, as my parents were immigrants themselves and I have foreign citizenship due to that. Some people weren't as lucky!

Post reply on HN