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

Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 295 posts

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#251

Post by whimsicalism »

giantg2 wrote: post #248
whimsicalism wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S112.html I wasn't trying to distinguish between land and building, mostly just that they are about recording and specifically animal operations. I'm almost certain Utah is not the only state that specifically has laws around recording and specifically for animal operations that go beyond just generic trespass, but I don't have time right now to dive in.

Ok, thanks for the link. Based on that information it seems generic tresspass and the agricultural interference laws carry similar penalties depending on the circumstances. Both are either class A or class B misdemeanors.

but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#252

Post by brabel »

arcticfox wrote: post #42
brabel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, because crossing a border completely changes the flavour of the meat.

I’m no expert, but the beef cows I saw in Brazil were a noticeably different breed than the ones I see in the US.

I was talking about the distinction between the neighbouring countries of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#253

Post by whywhywhywhy »

whimsicalism wrote: post #188
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're gonna chop and burn it down either way, it'll either be for cattle or if you make eating meat illegal they'll chop and burn it for something else like palm oil. Like it's obvious the people who own and control that land don't care about it anywhere near as much as you do so if you want them to stop chopping it down essentially you're gonna need to start paying them not to. Just seems naive to think stopping s…

If you take away one of the profitable reasons to chop down the Amazon, it’ll reduce people doing it at the margin - that is simply facts. > Poor people from eating meat Yeah and a carbon tax will stop poor people from using as much gas, etc. - if we want to solve climate change we cannot just insulate all poor people from externality pricing.

There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.

Don’t understand why people want to play whack a mole to get to the end goal all while making everyone’s lives worse, esp on the lower income levels who can’t afford organic meat.

When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.

I mean this is about the trees right?

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#254

Post by whimsicalism »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #253
whimsicalism wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you take away one of the profitable reasons to chop down the Amazon, it’ll reduce people doing it at the margin - that is simply facts. > Poor people from eating meat Yeah and a carbon tax will stop poor people from using as much gas, etc. - if we want to solve climate change we cannot just insulate all poor people from externality pricing.

There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down. Don’t understand why people want to play whack a mole to get to the end goal all while making everyone’s lives worse, esp on the lower income levels who can’t afford organic meat. When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause…

> When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.

REDD+ programs (which is what you are describing) are massive failures at preventing deforestation or carbon decreases.

> There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.

No, there are costs and profits and if you decrease the profits and increase the costs it changes peoples behavior at the margin. The Amazon rainforest isn't the one thing that is exempt from basic economics.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#255

Post by giantg2 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #251
giantg2 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, thanks for the link. Based on that information it seems generic tresspass and the agricultural interference laws carry similar penalties depending on the circumstances. Both are either class A or class B misdemeanors.

but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording

"but penalties stack :)"

Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT?

"not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass"

True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#256

Post by carlosjobim »

adolph wrote: post #230
carlosjobim wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is more natural because creatures in nature do it. Together with mating, hunting is one of the foundations of life itself for the predator or omnivore class of animals. All the behaviours that we have in common with other mammals are natural and eternal. They can never be legislated away, even though many have tried and they have died. Including kings trying to ban hunting certain game for commoners and having the…

"Creatures in nature" also "farm" and have symbiotic and/or co-evolutionary relationships with other species. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-f...

That's an uninteresting reach, isn't it?

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#257

Post by carlosjobim »

masfuerte wrote: post #125
carlosjobim wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That should be the last concern of any decent human being. If they outlaw breathing, will you stop? Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.

There weren't any plants, let alone animals, a billion years ago.

Microbes where hunting and fucking by that time.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#258

Post by mrguyorama »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #51
jdietrich wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think there are too many people, remember that you are people.

Why is it always impossible to have an adult discussion on this issue? (An interesting question for academics, I think) Obviously we are all people. The question is do we keep chasing an ever increasing population or do we accept that it cannot keep growing and should in fact probably decrease? Most developed countries have birth rates below replacement rate so this is already happening. We need to accept it and adap…

>The question is do we keep chasing an ever increasing population

We aren't.

Every bit of evidence is that Human population is on the path to stabilizing. Developing countries plateau, and all that "India and china are going to outreproduce us!" rhetoric was stupidity; people extrapolating an S curve as if it were an infinite exponential curve.

All you have to do is give women an education and legal access to birth control and it turns out most humans do not want 50 kids. Women happily manage population control, with no moral problems.

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#259

Post by mrguyorama »

willcipriano wrote: post #14
Qem wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greening != Recovery > China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops. If the green of pristine forests is replaced by the…

Read the first one. The second has a lot of spin that is obvious once you have the context from the first article. The entire planet is greener. Everywhere. The planting did little. > Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect One of those Inconvenient Truths.

>One of those Inconvenient Truths.

But it's not at all an """Incovenient""" truth. The fact that plants use CO2 to grow, and that more CO2 can result in more ruffage growing is uncontroversial.

It also does nothing to offset the actual problems with increasing CO2 levels!

Re: Tracking Illicit Brazilian Beef from the Amazon to Your Burger

#260

Post by tlb »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #72
_3u10 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly, the US and Europe are free to reforest but choose not to for some unexplained reason. Brazilian beef is frankly way less deforested than anything from the U.S. or Europe. The three most forested countries in the world are Russia, Canada and Brazil in that order. In all honesty I’m perfectly fine with the bans / boycotts it keeps farmers here poor and beef cheap.

Russia is barely in the top 50 if you are talking as a percentage of land mass that is forest. (Russia 49, Canada 73, and Brazil 27... US is 89) Finland, Sweden and Japan are the top 3 fully industiralized nations for forested land as a percentage of land mass. https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/AG.LND.FRST.ZS/r...

Your source gives quite different numbers:

  Russia 49.78%
  Canada 38.70%
  Brazil 59.42%
  US     33.87%
Post reply on HN