
Brazil to open 860K acres of protected Amazon rainforest to logging, mining, etc - SimplyUseless
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/illegal-logging-national-forest-of-jamanxim-brazil-amazon-br-163-protests-deforestation-gisele-a7842796.html
======
ufo
The article didn't talk about the political context: the current president is
facing corruption charges and a threat of impeachment and is buying support
from congress by opening the government coffers (or what remains of it) and
ceding to various lobbying groups.

------
the_absurdist
Take a commercial flight where you have a chance to look down on the
rainforest in Brazil or Peru.

You'll be absolutely astonished and sickened at how much is already gone.

~~~
senorjazz
The same for Europe, although it was all cut down longer ago. The same of
parts of the US.

The trees and land are a resource for these countries with vast numbers living
in poverty. Telling them they cannot use these resources just isn't going to
work.

If we non-Amazon countries want them to stop deforestation, we have to dig
into our pockets. But we we don't. Ecuador tried it, requesting funds for not
drilling for oil. They were offered next to nothing, so the drilling is going
ahead, which means roads and roads mean deforestation.

I speak for someone from the UK. We cut down our forests for the industrial
revolution. We reached and passed peak oil in the north sea for the (supposed)
benefit of the country as a whole. How can we expect other countries to not
use (abuse) their resources the same?

~~~
sytelus
The model where rich countries keeping paying to poor countries in exchange of
not cutting down their own forests is unworkable. If people there are looking
for genuine progress then they have to build schools, bridges, cities and so
on. You won't be able to say that hey you guys live like how you used 1000
years ago and here's few dollars.

However the bigger issue I think are the few evil people in those countries
who look at its natural resources and see dollars instead. They just want to
log, mine as much as they can, export it all out and basically make free
money. Their business strategy is simple: buy off government personals,
acquire natural resources that was supposed to belong to people and sell it
off to other countries in the world. You are not going to be able to prevent
this either.

One effective way to discourage this is put a worldwide ban of exported wood
from Amazon. If major countries can come together on this then this could
actually work.

~~~
FussyZeus
> One effective way to discourage this is put a worldwide ban of exported wood
> from Amazon. If major countries can come together on this then this could
> actually work.

Tell that to the ivory poachers. All a ban accomplishes is turning an industry
that has demand underground, meaning they can now operate off the books,
illegally, not pay proper wages, operate completely without regulation and if
they run into competition, instead of working side one another they often kill
each other.

Prohibition has literally never worked for literally anything.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _Prohibition has literally never worked for literally anything._

But, sanctions have.

------
noddy1
sadly capitalism seems to be an incredibly effective and efficient way to
completely destroy the rainforests.

there does not seem to be any solution.

~~~
microcolonel
Capitalism saved the forests in North America, Brazil has a lot of state power
and the corruption that comes with it. If the people of Brazil value the
rainforest at all, it is a lower priority than whatever they are dealing with
in their day to day life.

In North America, there is more forest cover than there was 200 years ago,
thanks to private ownership and maintenance of woodlands.

Because of how productive these private woodlands are, there's largely no
reason to cut down old growth forest.

~~~
maxerickson
There's barely any old growth forest left to cut in the US.

~~~
vortico
I'm not sure why you're downvoted because you're correct. But I suppose
microcolonel's point is that capitalism has converted them to private forests
for harvest.

I should note that growing forests consume 10-11 times more CO2 than old
growth forests, and the US is excellent at keeping growth rates as high as
possible or a given tract of land.

~~~
autokad
when a forest grows, it consumes c02, when it dies, it returns it. its zero
net.

~~~
nanomonkey
Not necessarily, if one make bio-char from the wood the carbon is stable for
~10k years, even if buried in the soil (terra pretax). This can be done
successfully during the gasification process for producing heat, syngas and
electricity. Also any items made from the wood that do not rot will not
release their CO2 for the lifetime of the product.

------
fithisux
It never made countries richer. Only poorer. In this case, it will make the
planet poorer.

------
spodek
What responsibility does a typical reader of HN have?

What can a reader do?

~~~
microcolonel
Brazil is failing for roughly the same reasons as most of the rest of South
America: excesses of state power, which are too attractive for business to
pass up.

The economy is depressed by excessive policy, the people have bigger problems
than the destruction of the Amazon. In addition, because the government owns
the woodland, there's basically no reason to replant or maintain, which means
that if you want lumber you have to go into old growth forest.

~~~
agumonkey
I wish someone knowledgeable about forestry could explain why replanting is
not done. What are the costs and subtleties, beside political friction I mean.
Or maybe it's only political.

~~~
non-prophet
Replanting is only done when economically viable and future "land use" is for
regeneration of the harvested species. This is done is Pacific Northwest of
the US for Douglas Fir. Replanting isn't used in US Northern Hardwood
production as the stands are cut to retain trees that reproduce and in another
15-30 year period another variable retention harvest is performed [1]. Modern
forestry leverages ecological theory such as disturbance regimes to mimic
changes and diversify the timber stands for risk management and ecological
factors [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_retention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_retention)

[2]
[https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lt...](https://andrewsforest.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/lter/pubs/pdf/pub3272.pdf)

------
deusum
While an important issue, the article states that it is still in the proposal
phase.

~~~
pdkl95
The problem is that while there is a lot of variability at the project level,
the _H. sapiens_ as a species is clearly still moving in a very self-
destructive direction. Chomsky recently called it "Racing To The
Precipice"[1]. The fact that a massive deforestation project was considered as
a proposal shows that the derivative is still negative.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY#t=135](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK0R_06zOOY#t=135)

------
grwthckrmstr
As an average HN reader, I'm trying to understand the environmental
consequences of these actions by the Brazilian government to Brazil and the
World. Can someone ELI5?

------
chatman
The forces which threw out Dilma Roussef are behind this over
commercialization. Dilma would never have let this happen.

~~~
sumedh
So are you saying all the corruption charges against Dilma are fabricated?

------
jokoon
I predict that in the future, brazil will be invaded to stop logging so that
those trees can keep making oxygen.

I wonder, doesn't most oxygen come from those trees? I've read the expression
"lung of the planet". Essentially it seems it's a matter of survival.

Although increased CO2 concentration might also accelerate the growth of
trees, so I don't really know.

~~~
diego_moita
> I predict that in the future, brazil will be invaded to stop logging so that
> those trees can keep making oxygen.

As a Brazilian I say that this is just plain stupid in 3 different levels:

1) World diplomacy is or should be ruled by the principle of Westphalian
Sovereignty: the idea that each nation is free to conduct its internal affairs
as it pleases.

2) Brazil is the 5th largest country in the world, one of the 10 largest
economies and the 8th biggest population. Who has the resources to spare and
fight a war with Brazil?

3) During the 90's the main argument by farmers and loggers for deforesting
the Amazon was exactly arguments like yours. Back then this bullshit you say
was called "internacionalização da Amazônia" and those parasites argument was:
"we need to occupy the Amazon before the gringos do it". So, basically, when
you say this bullshit you are supplying arguments to the enemy.

Please, stop this bullshit. It is dangerous. It makes the fight of Brazilian
environmentalists even harder.

~~~
jokoon
I agree with you, but air has no borders.

And I'm not arguing for war.

------
randyrand
This is great news!

------
gigatexal
Wow. A failing state pimps it’s resources. This is terrible.

------
louithethrid
There will be the usual walk through the park of unusable vectors to solve
this.

The only thing that could stop this is direct action - meaning, editing
organisms to resist humanity. Making trees fireproof, equipping animals with
diseases. The only wulf to hold back man, is another man.

~~~
castle-bravo
Have you read Margaret Atwood's MaddAddam trilogy? It's one of my all-time
favourite works of science fiction.

Human beings have the (rarely used) capacity to improve the quality and
usability of our surroundings. If at some point in the future, we should
collectively decide to rehabilitate this planet of ours, mutant poisonous
kudzu and HIV-reservoir mosquitoes will not make the work any easier.

