
Why Is the Amazon Rain Forest Disappearing? - rblion
https://time.com/amazon-rainforest-disappearing/
======
justinmk
If the world cares about it then the world should pay for it. Not sanctions,
nor sanctimony. Buy the land.

It would be expensive, but that just reflects the value to the people you're
buying it from. And it's an actual, concrete action that can be taken, instead
of the vague global warming solutions that just tweak domestic parameters and
send tax money to the black hole of the state budget.

~~~
Mobius01
This argument is entirely pointless. You’re proposing to purchase land -
crucial natural resource - from a sovereign nation(s). I can’t begin to
imagine what a fair price would be, if there is such a thing. 300 trillion
dollars? Who would pay? The rich nation taxpayers? Would the population of
these benefactors countries be happy with increased taxation for no direct
impact in their lives? Private investors? What would they recoup their
investment from,, “responsible” exploration of the land they are ostensibly
saving? Not to mention the political and cultural implications of attempting
to buy a resource from a nation, after the purchasers have used up their own
for economical and geopolitical gain. I ask for forgiveness if the tone of
this message is overly cynical, but we are past the point of thought exercises
over the fate of this planet.

If a solution to preserve the Amazon is to be found, that will involve helping
Brazil rise above the cesspool of corruption that its been steeped in for the
past decades. Assistance with education and economic incentives for
alternatives to heavy reliance on beef and grain exports. Heavy tariffs or
outright ban of these products on the international markets. Punish the large
agricultural and cattle business that are decimating the forest for gain, give
the people alternatives for subsistence. Until that happens, little will
change.

~~~
chaostheory
It’s not a pointless argument if voters agree. Nations don’t necessarily have
to buy the land, but regular payments to Brazil to give them a reason to
maintain the rain forest as opposed to burning it is a reasonable proposal.
It’s better than just complaining about it.

~~~
tdsamardzhiev
No, it's pointless. Sinking more money into the black hole that is Brazil's
corrupt government? What's next? How about regular payments to US and Russia
so they have a reason to maintain their nuclear weapons instead of just using
them?

~~~
chaostheory
I think we did do that for a time when Russia was unstable, post USSR, to
prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

Also we can keep Brazil honest via satellite imaging. More burning? No more
money

------
newsat13
Unless we as a society return to a simpler lifestyle of living, I see this as
an unsolvable problem. For example, everyone in the US is trumpeting climate
change and what not. And yet just walk into any starbucks and any supermarket
and restaurant - none of that stuff is really recyclable. People generate tons
of trash by using home delivery packages via amazon and non-recyclable food
containers. Cars everywhere and completely unmaintained public transport.
People really aren't willing to make a change but will go on about paris
agreement and hate on trump. Their actions and life style say otherwise. What
is then wrong with people in other countries wanting a similar life style?

~~~
fromthestart
>Unless we as a society return to a simpler lifestyle of living, I see this as
an unsolvable problem.

There's no reason to presume that it isn't possible to retain our current
standard of living while also solving the problem through technological
innovation - we've arguably had the solution for decades in the form of
nuclear, and we're inching closer every day with developments in non-nuclear
renewables and outside of the energy space with innovation in farming (outdoor
and indoor/vertical, GMO) and material design.

Despite the doom and gloom, talk along the lines of 12 years before
irreversible runaway into catastrophe is really a worst case estimate. Chances
are we will have plenty of time to develop technology to slow climate change
and adapt to its effects in the coming decades, particularly given that it is
a rising concern among citizens the world over.

Honestly, given how much of our infrastructure is dependent on fossil fuels
and environmentally unfriendly materials, it simply isn't _practical_ to make
the kind of radical transition you're advocating for - our entire food chain,
for example relies on modern plastics and ICEs for delivery/storage. The waste
you describe from e.g. Starbucks and packaging is probably a small percentage
of the waste that our modern civilization is structured upon, even if you
convinced everyone to drastically lower their standard of living overnight.
Balancing risk with cost, this is a transition that cannot happen overnight
anyway.

~~~
newsat13
Agree with you in general.

> it simply isn't practical to make the kind of radical transition you're
> advocating for

The above line is exactly my point. We think changing ourselves is
impractical. But we want the rest of the world to abide by our views of
"green" and "sustainable living".

------
Merrill
If you look at the State of Amazonas, Brazil on Google maps satellite view, it
appears to be largely untouched. Rondonia and Matto Grosso are the states most
affected by deforestation. Other large parts of the Amazon rain forest in
other states of Brazil and in Peru, Colombia and Venezuela are also intact.
Don't take Time's word for it - go look yourself.

~~~
mac01021
The claim in the article is that the deforestation is approaching 20% of the
original forest and that, once that number reaches 20-25%, the water cycle
will be disrupted in a way that will transform the majority of the remaining
forest into savanna.

This is not a claim that I can confirm or refute using google maps.

~~~
malandrew
Deforestation of 20-25% or more is not uncommon at smaller scales and I know
of no such example where such an area transformed to savanna.

~~~
kingbirdy
Do you know of any examples where the forest that was de-forested 25% was the
Amazon or another tropical rainforest? Obviously if a pine barren is
deforested 25% it won't turn in to savannah.

------
alistproducer2
I find it hard to take news outlets seriously on this subject when they keep
the kid gloves on concerning the current president of Brazil. The reticence to
call his "victory" what it really was: a coup. The intercept [0] laid out the
fact that his opponent, who was slated to win in a landslide, was jailed and
convicted by a judge who was working in concert with the prosecutor to ensure
a conviction. If the aim was to do real journalism and speak truth to power,
then outlets would call if like it is and convey zero legitimacy to the
current administration.

[0]: [https://theintercept.com/series/secret-brazil-
archive/](https://theintercept.com/series/secret-brazil-archive/)

~~~
29athrowaway
It was not a coup.

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

~~~
gchamonlive
Judge colludes with prossecution

Judge sends political adversary to prison

Judge now minister in current administration, arguably in power due to his
imprisoning the aforementioned political adversary

~~~
hu3
That Judge was operating at the lowest tier of the Judiciary when he sentenced
Lula.

The sentence was appealed many times all the way up to the Supreme Court and
along the way, other Judges not only agreed that Lula is a criminal but also
increased his initial sentence.

~~~
gchamonlive
Questioning the sentence and the judges and prossecution involved is totally
NOT the same as defending the prossecuted. I don't get how many people jump to
this conclusion.

It is virtually impossible to defend Lula. There is enough proof out there to
back this.

No. What I am questioning the the timeline of events, that fit too
conveniently for the current president and the judge, that is now a minister.

I hope this clarifies your confusion.

~~~
hu3
Or perhaps the president appointed the judge as Minister of Justice in
recognition for putting in jail many of the most powerful politics and
businessman in Brazil.

Makes perfect sense, that judge is a national hero.

------
wefarrell
We need an economic framework that makes it more profitable to keep the forest
intact than to burn it down and plant soybeans.

It's hypocritical to point the finger at Brazil for exploiting their natural
resources when developed countries got rich by doing the same. If we want to
prioritize biodiversity and oxygen generation then we should pay the Amazonian
countries for it.

------
abhisuri97
Really tangential...but major props to the time mag web dev team for making an
unobtrusive reading experience that has graphics and animations that are
helpful for driving home key points of the story.

------
jtchang
The US did the same thing with a lot of our natural resources in the past
century. it does seem somewhat hypocritical to not let other countries do what
we have previously done. What we did was wrong but it also allowed the US to
grow to what it is today.

~~~
zanny
Two wrongs don't make a right. No, it is not owed due to the rising nations of
the world to let them continue to devastate the climate in the way first world
powers have.

And continue to.

Its easier to point fingers than take responsibility of course. Hence why very
little actually gets done to combat climate change. Brazil burns the Amazon,
Americans throw out of a ton of plastic a year each, and humanity cooks itself
complicit in its own destruction.

------
toptal
Wait a second, there was just a report put out by NASA that stated the world
is become more green, specifically citing the Amazon Rain Forest as an area
that’s more green than it was 20 years ago.

Something seems completely wrong here.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-
says...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-
is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/)

~~~
theferalrobot
Also a report from NASA that the fires in the Amazon were only slightly higher
than normal - less than the levels seen in 2010.

[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145498/uptick-in-
am...](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145498/uptick-in-amazon-fire-
activity-in-2019)

~~~
toptal
Right, something seems very off with this journalism here.

------
basicplus2
Yes the Amazon rainforrest is nearly gone and it should have been protected
better but also all other countries forrests should have been protected, for
example where there were massive forrests across europe that were destroyed
centuries ago for building things like towns, cathedrals and castles and for
firewood.. these should be at least in some significant part re-grown.

~~~
_iyig
"Two decades after its fall, the border between East and West Germany would
become Europe's biggest nature reserve: an 858-mile "ecological treasure
trove", no longer the Iron Curtain but the Green Belt, and home to more than
600 rare and endangered species of birds, mammals, plants and insects."

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

~~~
Merrill
The area around Chernobyl is another example. If you get rid of people, the
ecosystem recovers pretty rapidly.

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

~~~
jbarham
And the Korean DMZ:
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/13/wildlife...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/apr/13/wildlife-
thriving-korean-demilitarised-zone)

------
amriksohata
All for meat farming

