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.
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.
Unless it gets 100x bigger, this is a drop in the ocean, though. A lot more money could be made by exploiting that land.
Also we can keep Brazil honest via satellite imaging. More burning? No more money
Given the history of Brazil, you meant governments I guess.
B) I’m not sure that offering aid is “aggressive” vs economic sanctions or IMF loans
My comments are more critical of developed nations rather than Brazil.
amazon_area = 5.5e6 # km^2
fraction_brazilian = 0.6 # 60%
price_per_acre = 1000
acres_per_sq_km = 247.105
brazil_amazon_price = amazon_area * fraction_brazilian *
acres_per_sq_km * price_per_acre
brazil_amazon_price / 20e6
20 million is one offer, yes only a modest one, by only a single nation in the EU to help with the immediate crisis of controlling the raging fires. I only pointed it out because you and others wrote that it was unrealistic for any nation to even think about making payments. Obviously, all the developed nations complaining about what's happening in Brazil should pay up and it would amount to a lot more than just 20 million. It should be a number that is much higher than ranchers' and industrial farmers' missed economic opportunity.
Again, my comments are mainly critical of nations who are condemning Brazil about what's happening to the Rain Forest, while ignoring the fact that many everyday people in a developing nation need money to meet basic needs.
Also I am not saying that nations should buy the Amazon, but just make aid payments that are greater than the missed economic opportunity of destroying it for farmland. i.e. it's going to be less than the amount you calculated
You’d need to buy it and split it off as a country and be prepared to defend it as such and pray that the locals are willing to be absorbed by your new government. The cost of that is several magnitudes larger than merely buying land.
This is exactly what it means to "buy property," by the way: nobody else can use it and the government enforces that if necessary using men with guns. So what I'm suggesting is only a slight refinement of the normal and expected arrangement when buying property.
It seems what you're talking about is leasing the land, which is entirely different. Also unlikely considering how much industry it would displace in their economy (which is the reason this is a problem in the first place).
That kind of deal would have ridiculous rates for the opportunity cost, won't stop illegal deforestation or crimes through plausible deniability, and we'll still end up with an expensive military and political presence to oversee everything. Also many other countries will start to ransom environmental support for a paycheck.
I see nothing but negatives with this strategy. We can't just pay countries to change their behavior that easily.
The only thing that will happen is the locals will become resentful of the foreigners who are preventing them from using their own land, someone will rise to power riding on that resentment, they'll use the money to raise an army, and then they'll kick out the foreigners and renege on the deal.
there is no such things as "buying property" between nations with out transferring sovereignty. Look at the louisiana purchase, purchase of alaska, etc for examples of doing it correctly in a long term sustainable way.
look at hong kong for examples of doing it wrong: the chinese "bought" hong kong from the british 100+ years ago but guess what? the hong kong people don't care.
I'm not sure about that.
> there is no such things as "buying property" between nations with out transferring sovereignty
Not with that attitude.
Tariffs have a lot of side effects. They are very messy, politically. They create winners and losers in both countries.
It's just Brazilian farmland, I don't see why it will be expensive. It looks like the conservative cost of a productive acre of farmland in Brazil can cost up to 1500 USD an acre, so taking the 2.124 million miles^2 area of the Amazon basin we get a very conservative 2.03T USD to purchase every acre of the Amazon basin at generous upper-end of Brazilian agricultural prices regardless of productivity.
The real problem is... how could you trust Bolsonaro's government or the criminals they've enabled and emboldened to respect your property rights?
In the same way the US Midwest is still not sovereign French territory after the US bought it, whoever bought the Amazon would take the role in defending it as their own turf. Which would mean garrisoning armed forces to protect the borders.
It would definitionally have to be a secession of the territory from Brazil, and it would probably just be cheaper to assassinate the government of Brazil and replace it with a puppet dictatorship beholden to foreign interests, which is something the US is extremely good at.
No it's not. It fucked up all of those. The puppet gov lasted at best a few terms, the general sentiment in the affected countries worsened, etc. And then their puppet collapsed and the people got a nice military coup then a brutal junta for years (decade(s)).
Although I’d rather prefer that well-run countries (like Canada for instance) take poorly-run countries (like India or Brazil) into a form of “stewardship” of sorts. This would essentially involve first invading and annexing those countries and turning them into “protectorates” of sorts — but it would differ from old colonialism in the sense that the “steward” nation would not be exploiting the country it’s taken into its stewardship, but only ensuring that they’re run smoothly, fairly, and justly.
If only it were that simple and some human beings weren't inherently bad people.
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.
> 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".
This is not a claim that I can confirm or refute using google maps.
First of all, judge Moro is a national hero, and recent polls still show him as the most admired public figure in the country. Leading operation Car Wash, he was responsible to (finally!) jail many of the most powerful politics and businessman in Brasil, due to disgusting corruption and shameless kickback schemes. All his convictions were backed by mountains and mountains of evidence, and upheld in at least 3 different upper courts, including our Supreme Court. There were more than 100 convictions from politics from the entire political spectrum by Judge Moro, from right to left.
Operation Car Wash has already recovered more than 8 Billion in assets stolen from public companies.
"His opponent" that you mentioned is President Lula, today recognized as the leader of a criminal organization that stole literally billions from Brazil. He currently serves a sentence from receiving a penthouse as bribe (there are even pictures of him inside the apartment, and the owner of the building company that built it testified about the whole scheme).
Trust me, jailing him was not easy, giving the enormous support he had due to him (or his political party) being in power from 2003-2016 (btw, during this time they also managed to destroy our economy - we'll end this decade as the worst in economical terms of the last 120 years).
The are other 8 criminal lawsuits against former president Lula, and he has already been convicted (by a different Judge) in another one about "the ranch in Atibaia", which he also denied being his, even tough prosecution proved it was actually received by him as bribe: the place had paddle boats with the names of his grandsons, the master bedroom had all his wife's medicines on the counter top and even dinner tables had their names engraved, there were even regular e-mails from the manager of the ranch to the president updating him with the most detailed events... there's a 20 page PDF by our FBI with pictures of all the evidence.
About the alleged collusion between Judge Moro and the prosecution, you just need to read the Intercept messages by yourself to see that absolutely nothing wrong happened there. It's normal for the Judge to talk with the prosecution in a criminal case, as he needs to collect opinions before his rulings.
What happened in Brazil is that a "crazy judge" and some "crazy prosecutors" decided to change the "status quo" and finally put an end to the shameless multi-billion stealing that was going on for the last decade, lead by former president Lula and his political associates. If you think these Judges and Prosecutors would achieve those results without a lot of backing from the public opinion, you must only be naive. Some of those messages show exactly that: Judge and Prosecutor talking about how shadowy manouvers to discredit the operation needed to be brought to light so the public could protest and react and prevent them. Extra credit to them for doing that and going the extra mile, all within the law.
After President Bolsonaro was elected, he invited Judge Moro to talk, and he accepted to leave the Judiciary Branch to serve as Minister of Justice, and he'll probably be appointed to be a Supreme Court Justice when the next position opens (Bolsonaro will be able to appoint 2 seats during his term, during to retirements). Props to Bolsonaro for doing that.
After all these messages came out between Moro and Prosecution were published (all criminally obtained by a Hacker, I must point out), Judge Moro put it best: "parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus".
Lula, who will soon answer for even more corruption charges, was judged by 3 tiers of Brazil's law system, including their "Supreme Court".
Just ask yourselves: why would the owner of Odebrecht, a company that had a revenue of 45 billion USD in 2018, confess under oath that his company had corrupt deals with Lula's party when Lula was the party leader?
The Intercept is only releasing small disconnected parts of the recordings that can be milked for clicks. They never released in full and don't plan to. Moro already asked The Intercept to release the conversations in full, in vain it seems.
Judge sends political adversary to prison
Judge now minister in current administration, arguably in power due to his imprisoning the aforementioned political adversary
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.
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.
Makes perfect sense, that judge is a national hero.
Clearly our political views don't align but next time try arguing with facts instead of moving goal posts.
As for my sleep, it's better than ever now that I know the largest criminal organization ever in Brazil no longer controls the country.
edit: corrected WhatsApp to Telegram.
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.
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.
Something seems completely wrong here.
It says nothing about the Amazon, which is being cut down and burned down by people. You can see the Amazon as the big tan/light green blob in northern South America in the image in the article. There is just about no net greening. Greening is delta in LAI. You can burn down a rain forest and have a bunch of grass in it's place and there will be no net greening, but on the net it will release a ton of CO2 and destroy the environment.
That said, I do wonder if replacing rainforest with soybeans counts as no change in leaf area.
I guess most people in Western Democracies are more worried about what everyone else is doing while our own politician ruin everything.
Agree with your point entirely but also want to mention that the motivation behind not re-growing is land-clearing for reasons not stated i.e. farmland, transport infrastructure, housing. The use of wood for building materials and even firewood is carbon neutral if appropriately managed, it's those specific motivations to keep the land cleared that have led to an overall draw-down of forest cover. You can't restore cover without addressing the motivations for clearing it, and use of wood for building/heat is a bit of a red herring in that sense.