The Amazon Is Not the Earth’s Lungs

Post by minikites » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:21 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #25

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

> This type of articles is the last thing we need right now We always need the truth. If your agenda can't handle the truth, it's maybe not that great to begin with.

Post by CodeWriter23 » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

keawade wrote: post #10

_f9cu wrote: post #7

Please refrain promoting deforestation

The article does not promote deforestation. > Losing the Amazon, beyond representing a planetary historic tragedy beyond measure, would also make meeting the ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement all but impossible. It discusses a misconception that has been propogated lately. > The Amazon is a vast, ineffable, vital, living wonder. It does not, however, supply the planet with 20 percent of its oxygen. > As…

Post by BeefySwain » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:24 PM UTC

input_sh wrote: post #28

ajmurmann wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I've read most of the agricultural production in Brazil goes directly or indirectly towards beef and biofuel. So cutting down on beef consumption seems like a great step. I personally have cut down my meat consumption dramatically, but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? If I stop eating beef, but nobody else does, nothing is won. If the US cuts down on beef consumption, other…

> ...but how can we move that further as not only a society, but a species? The answer is simple, the execution is hard and will piss a lot of people off: start treating red meat as a luxury item, and slowly introduce taxes on top of its price, like we do for alcohol and tobacco. Nothing drastic of course, just a few cents extra every half a year or so to make people reconsider their eating habits again and again. Bu…

Post by throwaway5752 » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:26 PM UTC

leetcrew wrote: post #41

throwaway5752 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might make you feel good to write that, but there are much bigger lies being told. For example, tons of people believe that CO2 released by human activity does not cause global warming, and tons of people are promoting that idea. Arguing over just how much photosynthesis the Amazon is responsible for seems like a stupid article in light of that. Perhaps we can be selective over what we argue about and what we pay…

> It might make you feel good to write that, but there are much bigger lies being told. if you held the opposite position in this debate, you would probably call this "whataboutism".

Post by SlowRobotAhead » Tue, Sep 10, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #39

vfc1 wrote: post #20

It might be that burning down every living tree would not make a dent in the oxygen supply, but having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually). This type of articles is the last thing we need right now, it all piles up on the narrative that the consequences of climate change are really not that bad and there is no real urgency in doing any…

> having the earth temperature go up 5 degrees would kill most phytoplankton, and that would end the oxygen supply (eventually) The global average temperature has been higher than that in the past, and there was plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere.