
Brazil has the power to save the Amazon rainforest, or destroy it - vincvinc
https://www.economist.com/node/21768176
======
ivanhoe
On one hand it's horrible that Brazil and other 3rd world countries don't stop
the jungle destruction, but on the other they're just doing what Europe has
already done to it's own forests, so what gives us the right to moralize...
very sad situation... my view is that really the West is the one that can stop
it, by investing and insisting on green industries, and not doing any business
with those that endanger rain forests. It's all about the money in the end, so
if Brazil (and people in power) can make a lot more money from preserving
rainforest than from cutting them, then lots of people in power will be
incentivized to protect them. Otherwise, as any politicians, they'll try to
please their voters and sponsors first.

~~~
vhogemann
It's not about poor people trying to make a living. It's about rich people
trying to get even more rich.

Wood, Soybeans and Cattle. The agricultural industry is behind this.

~~~
dubeux
^ This! Perfect. The glorious agrobusiness keeps boasting how great they are
to Brazilian economy. Well, for more of the usual (huge inequity,
deforestation, the largest use of agrotoxics in the world and everything on
the package - terrible education, almost exclusively extractive economy, a
militar police that ranks among the most lethal in the world...), yes, that's
the way.

------
adrianN
The rest of the world has the power to force Brazil to save the Amazon. Stop
importing soy and beef from Brazil, tie tariffs directly to satellite-based
measurements of rainforest area.

~~~
sprafa
Or you could pay Brasil to stop destroying it. That’s something the current
president, as insidious as he might be, is correct about. Why does Brasil have
to suffer alone for the world’s lungs? If the world benefits the world should
pay.

~~~
wrong_variable
Even brazilian breath oxygen.

What "suffering" has the rest of the world done to brazil ?

~~~
zekrioca
I will give you one example: 338 years of forced slavery.

~~~
meristem
Colonialism/Mercantilism by: Portugal, England, U.S.

------
forinti
The Amazon still has a long way to go. At the moment, the Cerrado (tropical
savanna) region is probably in more danger.

In the Mato Grosso Region, it is cut down in order to make way for soy. In
Goias, there are plans to build dams in areas of preservation.

This is the region where my favorite animal lives: the maned wolf.

These places are also quite dry and the Amazon produces the humidity they
need. Without the Amazon, the Southeast will become a lot drier. So Brazilians
themselves ought worry about it.

~~~
ufo
The amazon does not have a long way to go. There is still much of it left but
scientists believe that at some point between 20% and 30% deforastation there
could be a turning point with irreversible changes to rainfall patterns that
would turn most of the amazon rainforrest into a savanna.

------
harwoodleon
Seems to me that if the Amazon collapses we all lose. Why not sanction Brazil?
Or at least put together an international coalition / treaty to buy the Amazon
and other rainforests and protect them?

Stopping buying from Brazil won’t halt the internal markets purchasing of beef
and soy, which as I am aware makes up the majority of the land usage.

~~~
jackvezkovic
I find it incredible how people are eager to protect the environment in other
people's countries before taking a deep look in-house. Suggesting to buy a
strategically important area of Brazil under the umbrella of saving the world
is just purely naive or hypocrite. China and US are the main contributors to
global warming. Not even the Amazon as it currently stands can keep up with
that. Shouldn't we apply sanctions to both of these countries then? Or form a
coalition to buy Wyoming (the state with the highest CO2 emissions per capita)
e.g., since it is in the interest of the world? If the Amazon rainforest does
not belong to Brazil, then why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska
belong to the US?

Just to clarify, I am not pro bringing down the Amazon rainforest, only
raising the flag on the tendency to outsource responsibility when it comes to
the environment.

~~~
adrianN
I'm reasonably sure that there is a large overlap of people who are in favor
of buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it and people who want drastic
measures to reduce GHG emissions in their own countries and a carbon tax with
tariffs on imports from countries that don't have an equivalent system.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
"Buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it" shows how little you
foreigners understand of our country. It's a huge amount of land that is
mostly unoccupied. There are serious concerns that smaller rogue countries
will pop up in certain parts of it led by local militias. If we want Brazil to
remain as one country then the first thing needed to do is to actually be
present in a lot of this territory, and that won't happen if the majority of
it can't be economically exploited in any way, especially in a country like
Brazil where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and
north regions, are extremely poor. Like any issue related to global warming,
it's a little more complicated than people think.

~~~
adrianN
Personally, I think preserving the rain forest is more important than Brazil
remaining a single country.

~~~
throwaway189921
Personally, I think reducing CO2 emissions is more important than USA or China
remaining single countries. Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure,
for example in the form of trade sanctions.

~~~
emn13
That's a delusional stance to take. You want the US and china to reduce GHG's?
That's great! You want Brazil to stop deforestation? Also great! You insist on
using the same kind of pressure to achieve both goals? Uhh... that's absurd,
and just won't work.

Pressuring Brazil via trade might work; especially since it's simply not in
Brazil's own (medium to long term) economic interests to deforest.

Pressuring the US and china via trade will simply not work. Who is going to do
that pressuring, exactly? The EU is busy trying to stave off collapse and
infighting, most of africa has more pressing matters than picking fights with
superpowers, Russia and other fossil fuel exporters have strong interests is
keeping GHG emissions high at least for a while... so... india, maybe? Yeah,
right.

Avoiding deforestation is a good idea regardless of what others do with
respects to GHG emissions. Hurting yourself and others because life isn't fair
enough is ridiculously short sighted. And you know, maybe you could think of
other ways to coax china and the US to reduce GHG emissions. At least china
isn't run by self-delusional maniacs, so maybe you can get them on board, and
then maybe you can pressure the US _with_ china. Or maybe the US miraculously
cures its own partisan infighting and decides to be rational and less self
destructive, and can help with china. But waiting for their leadership to do
anything while whining that life is unfair sounds like a pretty bad idea right
about now.

------
dfamorato
There are some relevant information that must be taken in consideration.

Brazil has about 66.3% of its overall land in a “reserved/protected” state,
which is protected by law.

Source: [https://agroecologia.org.br/2019/01/14/censo-agropecuario-
de...](https://agroecologia.org.br/2019/01/14/censo-agropecuario-desautoriza-
pesquisa-da-embrapa-sobre-a-preservacao-da-vegetacao-nativa-nos-imoveis-
rurais/)

This is over 631 million hectares of land destined for preservation,
Equivalent to 48 European countries COMBINED.

Amazon is not just IN BRAZIL, but spans over 9 nations.

No, I am not saying that’s a “green light” for full on deforestation nor I am
saying that Brazil is doing a the most fantastic job preserving it.

What I am saying is that Brazil IS doing something to preserve the Amazon AND
other forest land such as “Serra do Mar” and that a coalition of
funds/resources could help improve enforcement of the law in these Protected
areas. This much more “attainable” or acceptable by the current Brazilian
government, which is currently very nationalist and patriotic. (President is
retired Army captain, very right wing)

Brazil would not part/sell with a piece of its national sovereign territory to
anyone, even if it’s for a “greater good”, just as US would not sell the
Tongass forest in Alaska or the Humboldt-Toiyabe in California/Nevada “for
greater good”

Every country has it’s share in controlling carbon emissions and global
warming. No country should “outsource” their share of responsibility by
enforcing environmental protection standards they are not willing to withhold
themselves.

TL;DR: Brazil has some protections in place, could use some help, would not
sell the Amazon because it’s part/territory of Brazil and 8 other countries.

Full disclosure: Brazilian by birth, American by choice

~~~
fennecfoxen
There may be some protections in place, but President Jair Bolsonaro just
forced scientist Ricardo Galvão to resign from the National Space Research
Agency for having the audacity to report an 88% annual increase in
deforestation in satellite data. The President called the numbers a lie.

One can understand how this attitude undermines the integrity of the reserve.

------
vfc1
The fall of the rainforest in 100 years or so is a certainty at this point, as
well as the temperature rising over 2 degrees.

There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in
time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable
measures to prevent that.

If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot, and
those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks by
populists.

There is no way, it all happens slowly, much slower than the electoral cycle,
the politicians in charge are usually seeking personal glory and long
mandates, these measures would mean political suicide.

12 years is the time we have to prevent the rise of 2 degrees, its not
hapening its as good as done.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> There is no way that world politicians and governments are going to move in
> time to prevent this, because it would take unpopular and easily attackable
> measures to prevent that.

I increasingly view demands for coordination as counterproductive. There will
_never_ be full consensus about _anything_.

Meanwhile, if e.g. California imposed a carbon tax on its own, would it
destroy them? No, people wouldn't stop living in California just because it
became more economical to install solar panels or buy a Nissan Leaf rather
than a Toyota. And a market of even that size that went hard for fossil fuel
alternatives would both show others that it can be done and create an economic
advantage for itself by getting ahead of the curve and causing the companies
implementing what must be the future for everyone as businesses inside their
jurisdiction.

> If some government tries to heavily tax beef, there is going to be a riot,
> and those politicians would be putting a target on their backs for attacks
> by populists.

The answer is to make it revenue neutral and distribute the money as a cash
dividend to the population. Then people whinge about the tax and love the
credit and it cancels out across the population -- exactly cancels out,
because that's what revenue neutral means. But you still get the consumer
preference for things that don't destroy the world.

------
fractallyte
And the last piece of Hambacher Forest in Germany is also facing eradication,
by a mining company. The German government is silent on the matter:
[https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48931062](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-48931062)

It's time to stop fighting these wars on their respective front lines, and
aggressively pursue the responsible ministers, executives and shareholders.

------
gdubs
Our economy doesn’t factor in the negative externalities, the damage to the
environment done for the sake of making a profit.

If we did factor in those costs, if we put a value on the Amazon as the lungs
of the world, then it would be more profitable to preserve it than to destroy
it.

A carbon tax is a bipartisan solution to this problem. Factor in the negative
externalities, and pay a dividend to places that provide a global,
environmental service by protecting their forests.

------
codeisawesome
I was wondering - what would happen if Beef and Soybeans were import-taxed in
the US at an absurd rate, say 300%? Then, all cattle farming will have to
occur in the US, thus needing no deforestation to grow meat.

~~~
tchaffee
China is one of the biggest consumers of soy grown in Brazil.

------
boyadjian
The only problem for the Amazon rainforest is high birth rates in Brazil and
in the rest of the world. If high birth rates continue, then there will be no
more rainforest, I can assure you.

~~~
zorked
Brazil's fertility rate is somewhere between France and Germany.

~~~
lucb1e
This. I must admit that I had similar thoughts to u/boyadjian about the
world's population. A few months ago I read the book Factfulness, which turned
my world view upside down.

Particularly on the point of fertility, the best we can do is help the final
billion people that currently live in extreme poverty. This causes the
transition from large families and high mortality rate to 2-child families
with low mortality, independent of religion or anything else. We are almost
there, except for that last 13%.

The population explosion we have seen in the last century is due to the
transition, where people got large families and suddenly none of the children
died before they could get children of their own. The projection from the UN
is that the population increase will stop around the year 2100 and top off at
about 12 billion. That's a lot of people, but there is no reasonable
alternative: nobody will stand for killing even one billion people, let alone
the multiple billions that would make a significant difference in humanity's
footprint. For perspective, to kill one billion, you would have to kill
_everyone_ currently alive in both north and south America. We can't let
Africa starve to death (most of them aren't starving to death anymore anyway),
so withholding vaccines or development aid won't prevent those four extra
billion people from coming into the world, either.

We need to continue to support countries to make the transition as fast as
possible. Even if it is a big risk to try and live with 12 billion people on
this planet, that is the only way forward that people will support, and so it
is our only option.

By the way, if anyone else would like a copy of Factfulness, I think the book
is hugely important to read for _everyone_. If you think the price is too
steep, I would be happy to pay 50% of your copy. (I would say 100%, but people
abuse stuff that is free, and it's not expensive anyway.) I can also share a
preview of the book to help you decide whether you should buy a copy or not.

