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

171–180 of 224 posts

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#171

Post by ratww »

ajot wrote: post #163
juve1996 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brazil will face the same consequences as everyone else. They can be mad that other countries got rich in the past, or they can put their big boy pants on and preserve something that is just as critical to them (probably more so critical to them) as everyone else in the world.

Sure, but you can face the consequences with a higher development, or face them while also suffering from widespread poverty or malnourishment.

Nah. It’s gonna be either both together or none at all.

Like another poster mentioned, when Brazil was growing, deforestation was shrinking.

The meme that the Amazon has to be destroyed for the country to grow is quite new. Please stop spreading it. I got people there.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#172

Post by Pmop »

I live close and know people who livelihoods depends on that forest. Believe it or not, it's not the farmers or loggers fault. Their livelihoods depends on that forest. Farmers depend on the rain cycle. Loggers depend on the forest staying healthy, so new trees grow so they can keep their business going. Illegal logging does happen but it isn't their fault exclusively either.

The root cause is illegal occupation and settlement of land. People invade other people's land, often federal land, they cut down all of the trees, they burn it down, so they can clear it to set up makeshift camps. They then split and sell the land. Once there are people living on it, it's pretty much a lost cause due to how loosely enforced private ownership of land is, specially federal land. Also, it's a lucrative business, and involves corruption in all levels. People affected by it, like loggers who lose their property and livelihoods can hardly do anything, since the invaders will often get violent and the State wont do anything.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#173

Post by cauefcr »

orbital223 wrote: post #168
Sporktacular wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should we also not point fingers? Deforestation fell dramatically under Lula while inequality fell and the economy grew quickly. What "we" did in the past means environmental protection should be subsidised by the west, but our history doesn't let Brazil's government off the hook.

Both deforestation and inequality fall when the economy does better and rise in times of economic crisis. The economic improvement "under" Lula was mostly due to international factors (the boon in the price of commodities) which is why it collapsed under Dilma (Lula's protegé). Instead of using the economic surplus that fell into his lap to invest in infrastructure and industrialization, Lula used it to fund the larg…

Well, just you wait for the 100 year Bolsonaro bullshit censoring of his government corruption https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2021-08-08/cem-anos-de-prot... to be lifted, and such number is likely to be updated, and also, Lula did not get convicted.

Edit: trickle down economics has no basis in reality either.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#174

Post by ratww »

throwaway6734 wrote: post #80
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?

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

Yep. Brazil doesn’t need to go trough another industrial revolution. Germany is happy to sell machines to Brazil.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#175

Post by kennywinker »

9dev wrote: post #169
kennywinker wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What incorruptible body could take control of the amazon on behalf of humanity? How would we chose its leaders? Who decides what is protected and what isn’t?

No body is incorruptible. But less corrupt would certainly be a step forward, no? I would suggest something like a global conservation fund responsible for guarding critical "infrastructure" of our planet. At some point, we will need to take action to prevent earth from becoming inhospitable, and this requires steering. Merely admitting defeat to greedy human nature doesn't seem to lead anywhere.

What troops do we send if Brazilians cut down trees after we tell them it’s protected? Do we have to back coups to put in place a government that respects the global conservation fund if one rejects it?

You’re just describing imperialism one step removed.

Saying we need structural change, but not more top down control, isn’t throwing my hands up and admitting defeat to greedy human nature.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#177

Post by frozenlettuce »

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.

I'm Brazilian and I have a blast watching Property Brothers. "Oh, and I placed brazilian hardwood for the whole living room floor" - that is fancy in Canada, but here I would be arrested if I did that. Guess that I should lower my head even more for not being self-hating enough.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#178

Post by gassiss »

rglullis wrote: post #83
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…

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)…

Brazil is a rich country though. It's considered 2nd world due to violence, income/wealth inequality and sanitation problems, which are mainly political and not due to lack of money

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#179

Post by anigbrowl »

Pmop wrote: post #172

I live close and know people who livelihoods depends on that forest. Believe it or not, it's not the farmers or loggers fault. Their livelihoods depends on that forest. Farmers depend on the rain cycle. Loggers depend on the forest staying healthy, so new trees grow so they can keep their business going. Illegal logging does happen but it isn't their fault exclusively either. The root cause is illegal occupation and…

that seems like a situation where one should fight fire with fire.

Re: Brazilian Amazon lost 18 trees per second in 2021

#180

Post by Aerroon »

ratww wrote: post #52
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Imagine outsiders telling you that half your country is untouchable. I wonder if some future carbon credit system could pay them for the carbon sequestration that the Brazilian Amazon provides.

> 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. We can handle people telling us those things.

Would you? Because this would absolutely escalate from words to actions. I could foresee this leading to quotas that if they're not met carry economic sanctions with them. That doesn't improve Brazil, does it?

Sovereignty means that nobody outside of Brazil gets a say without offering something major in return.

Post reply on HN