
Why Everything They're Saying About the Amazon Is Wrong - moonraker
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/#306c758d5bde
======
temp-dude-87844
These kinds of outrage episodes spread in part because their message seems
plausible, and they tap into the anxieties of the young and the guilt of the
elites and the middle-aged. They originate from viral posts that stir up
emotions while questioning the lack of media coverage in mainstream media ---
long a popular tactic used by the right, but in recent years adopted by loud
voices on seemingly the far left.

Without digging into every case, it's hard to nail down whether these are
organic, authentic attempts by would-be influencers or true believers to bring
attention to an issue, or whether they're planted stories designed to simply
stoke pre-existing anxieties further. Someone should try to track this down.
Nonetheless, media outlets will eventually cover the issue and the resulting
social media outrage, and occasionally perpetuate false or misleading
information, or highly biased viewpoints noting that bias in the process. A
few publications debunking this after the fact is unlikely to reverse the
spread of misinformation.

------
rcconf
I know it’s easy to crap on people believing whatever is shared on social
media and then laugh about how everyone got it wrong..

But I just don’t like this article. I don’t see how a 7% increase in forest
fires in the Amazon is nothing to care about and something about the tone of
the article doesn’t sit well with me.

It’s somehow trying to convince me that deforestation is going down, this is
an overreaction and it’s hurting farmers.

I don’t know about that... i’ll just side with I want to remain living on this
planet and I want my children to as well, more power to environmental viral
hits, even if they got the facts.. a bit wrong.

~~~
legacynl
I agree. The whole breakdown of this article is this:

\- Celebrities used wrong pictures in combination with amazon forest fires \-
Amazon is not the lungs of the earth because Dan Nepstad (who is he?) says so
(even tho you would find it hard to find any biologist that thinks trees DON'T
produce oxygen.) \- There were forest fires in the amazon in the past \- And
there is only a small puny 7% increase anyway (is this small? is this big? )
(how many 7% increase-years can we have before the whole forest is gone?) \-
Soy plantations and (cow) pastures ALSO produce oxygen so it doesn't even
matter anyway (although in light of global warming its ofc more about carbon
storage and production, but the writer conveniently forgets about this part)
\- Coutinho makes the argument that since there has been next to no outrage in
previous years, there is no reason for outrage now (or it's unfair towards
bolsonaro? I don't know what point Coutinho is trying to make here )

The writer of the article molds all these claims into a conclusion that
doesn't follow logically from the actual statements. At best this writer is
clueless, at worst he is personally benefited by spreading this falsehood.

It's a whole lot of fingerpointing and whataboutism. EVEN IF both sides were
evenly wrong, there is one side that's trying to save the rainforest without
personal gain, while the other side doesnt give a shit and happens to make
money of it. Just based on this, who'd you think be more inclined to lie?

------
onyva
Environment protection tips from Forbes and WSJ. Great. Same goes for their
“tech” coverage that’s pushed here on a regular basis for some reason.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
This is a pretty conceited view. The article makes some decent points and
cites at least one expert. I was particularly interested in how the author
argued that criticisms against Brazilian government from Europe ring of
neocolonialism.

------
dangom
"The reaction from foreign media, global celebrities, and NGOs in Brazil stems
from a romantic anti-capitalism common among urban elites."

No, it stems from looking at the sky and seeing it's black at 3pm because of
smoke coming from 2000 miles way. There is nothing romantic to it. People,
especially newer generations, have come to realize that capitalism _as is_ is
unsustainable. It doesn't matter if the increase in deforestation is 25, 15 or
only 7%. This number shouldn't be increasing at all.

There is a vast number of species (plants and animals) whose population is
severely endangered, and we cannot foresee what the impact will be should we
continue to destroy them. We too care about the economy, but we don't see why
large state agribusiness profits have to be prioritized in detriment of the
environment. There's a multitude of ways to improve soy production without
land expansion - it just so happens that burning wood is much cheaper and
until recently nobody was watching.

~~~
gota
Rest of the post aside, in case anyone is wondering the "blackened skies two
thousand miles away" bit is literal truth. We literally saw darker skies in a
way that is impossible to take for regular city pollution.

I recall ash falling from the sky due to a small volcanic eruption from
really, really far away when I was a child. Seeing the sky gray and feeling
the air "stickier" reminded me of that, I had completely forgotten

