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

131–140 of 224 posts

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#131

Post by Sporktacular »

linuxftw wrote: post #36

They're just doing what other continents did hundreds or thousands of years ago. If you want to save the forests, make them economically more valuable than converting them into other uses. If there's 100M iphones in the world that retail for around $1000 each, that's $100B dollars. We could have invested that money into building some kind of park that welcomes visitors. No, instead we chose as a society to take prett…

They have a value that greater than just their economic value!

The environment created us, we created economics. It's an artificial concept that will never capture the true value of nature.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#132

Post by flaviojuvenal »

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…

Note this is probably a false dilemma. According to Brazilian federal police, the recent deforestation surge is caused by illegal logging, not agriculture or cattle raising. Source in Portuguese: https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/nacional/pf-grilagem-e-madeira-...

Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 2000s while reducing Amazon deforestation.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#135

Post by ratww »

boeingUH60 wrote: post #100
ratww wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine outsiders telling you that half your country is untouchable As a Brazilian, I would be completely ok with that. We can handle people telling us those things.

>As a Brazilian, I would be completely ok with that. Well, that's your view, and you have the right to have it. But, it's likely that the majority doesn't agree. Besides, if you ask me, outsiders that tell a country to not cut down their forests for economic/monetary purposes should pay for that privilege. That's not to talk of the arrogance of outsiders telling someone what to do.

Brazil is a "grown up" country. We can handle criticism. We don't need people being condescending to us about what others can or can't say to us. Let us brazilians defend ourselves, please?

Another reason I'm fine with criticism is because the people saying "let Brazil deforest, we also did it" are the ones being favoured by Brazil fucking up the country. Europeans/Americans/Chinese are enjoying cheap Brazilian primary sector imports to the detriment of the rest of the Brazilian population.

I also completely disagree that in 2022 Brazil will turn into a developed country by being a colony.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#136

Post by [deleted] »

stonepresto wrote: post #58

There seem to be two lines of thinking: 1. Who are we (US, Canada, China - heavily developed nations) to criticize? 2. Bolsonaro is bad mkay I think the root of the problem in both situations is people in power both in the government and out of it who do not seek sustainability and often are susceptible to corruption or influence. In both situations, the profits did not go to your average human.

[deleted]

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#137

Post by Sporktacular »

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.

Yes, we can and do every time we tell country that its drug production is bad for the rest of the world.

There is no moral reason not to intercede here, if suitable compensation and incentives are provided.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#139

Post by linuxftw »

Sporktacular wrote: post #131
linuxftw wrote: post #36

They're just doing what other continents did hundreds or thousands of years ago. If you want to save the forests, make them economically more valuable than converting them into other uses. If there's 100M iphones in the world that retail for around $1000 each, that's $100B dollars. We could have invested that money into building some kind of park that welcomes visitors. No, instead we chose as a society to take prett…

They have a value that greater than just their economic value! The environment created us, we created economics. It's an artificial concept that will never capture the true value of nature.

> They have a value that greater than just their economic value!

Then investing at the economic value would be profitable, and people should clearly do this.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#140

Post by ratww »

flaviojuvenal wrote: post #132
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…

Note this is probably a false dilemma. According to Brazilian federal police, the recent deforestation surge is caused by illegal logging, not agriculture or cattle raising. Source in Portuguese: https://www.cnnbrasil.com.br/nacional/pf-grilagem-e-madeira-... Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 2000s while reducing Amazon deforestation.

That's a very important post.

> Brazil had no trouble to grow in 90s and 2000s while reducing Amazon deforestation.

Thanks for putting it into words in a way I couldn't.

Post reply on HN