In theory, I don't have a problem with Brazil creating farmland from forested area. We did it.
I also don't have a problem with the rest of the world saying "whoa, stop deforestation, the world needs the rain forests". My heart lies within this wedge of the pie chart.
I wouldn't be surprised if Brazil treats the rain forests like a commodity and negotiates with other nations to not cut them down for subsidization of lost revenue.
It's Brazil's world as well and I get they need the benefit of the rain forests just like anyone else. I just see an economic opportunity for Brazil for stopping deforestation.
Last edited by Leeman4Gilmour; 08-26-2019 at 01:55 PM.
Reason: My ignorance was rightly corrected.
"Scientists at Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research calculated that there were 35 percent more fires so far this year than in the average of the last eight years."
That's significant, and can't just be attributed to the burning of fields for crop preparation. The article says just that.
“Brazil has turned certain states like Mato Grosso into Iowa,” said Mr. Hanson, referring to the Brazilian state on the southern edge of the Amazon region. “You’ve got rain forest, and then there’s just an ocean of soybean.”
Mato Grosso is like the plains in the US. This is the corn and soybean belt for Brazil. It's farmland that butts up to the southern areas of the Amazon rain forest. It is this area where the concern is.
“Fires are not a natural phenomenon in these forests,” said Mark Cochrane, an expert on wildfire and ecology at the University of Maryland. “All of the fires in this region are caused by people.”
Mr. Cochrane noted that while a large majority of the fires were on land that had already been cleared, many others were detected burning with particular intensity. He said these were likely deforestation fires, not just fires for clearing previously deforested land.
“When you slash an area, pile it up, let it dry and then burn it, it burns very intensely, and that’s also what puts off a lot of that smoke,” said Mr. Cochrane."
The farmers, in an attempt to make more money, are clearing rain forest and burning it.
"“Most of this is land use that have replaced rain forest,” said Matthew Hansen, who is a co-leader of the Global Land Analysis and Discovery laboratory at the University of Maryland."
The incursion into the rain forest to make more farm lands continues and this is exactly why these fires are burning. The farmers are cutting down huge swaths of forest, piling it up to dry, then burning it. This is what we are seeing in the satellite data. This is exactly what the article says.
"Scientists at Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research calculated that there were 35 percent more fires so far this year than in the average of the last eight years."
That's significant, and can't just be attributed to the burning of fields for crop preparation. The article says just that.
“Brazil has turned certain states like Mato Grosso into Iowa,” said Mr. Hanson, referring to the Brazilian state on the southern edge of the Amazon region. “You’ve got rain forest, and then there’s just an ocean of soybean.”
Mato Grosso is like the plains in the US. This is the corn and soybean belt for Brazil. It's farmland that butts up to the southern areas of the Amazon rain forest. It is this area where the concern is.
“Fires are not a natural phenomenon in these forests,” said Mark Cochrane, an expert on wildfire and ecology at the University of Maryland. “All of the fires in this region are caused by people.”
Mr. Cochrane noted that while a large majority of the fires were on land that had already been cleared, many others were detected burning with particular intensity. He said these were likely deforestation fires, not just fires for clearing previously deforested land.
“When you slash an area, pile it up, let it dry and then burn it, it burns very intensely, and that’s also what puts off a lot of that smoke,” said Mr. Cochrane."
The farmers, in an attempt to make more money, are clearing rain forest and burning it.
"“Most of this is land use that have replaced rain forest,” said Matthew Hansen, who is a co-leader of the Global Land Analysis and Discovery laboratory at the University of Maryland."
The incursion into the rain forest to make more farm lands continues and this is exactly why these fires are burning. The farmers are cutting down huge swaths of forest, piling it up to dry, then burning it. This is what we are seeing in the satellite data. This is exactly what the article says.
Like i said behind a pay wall. So ya reading is hard. But hey at least we are now paying attention and have our boogie man to blame for things that have been happening for decades.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 08-26-2019 at 08:29 AM.
Like i said behind a pay wall. So ya reading is hard.
But you said this is where you got your information from? So you got your information from this article, but didn't read it because it was behind a paywall? So if you didn't read the article, how could you use it as the basis for your argument?
Also, dirty little secret, I didn't have to pay for the article.
But you said this is where you got your information from? So you got your information from this article, but didn't read it because it was behind a paywall? So if you didn't read the article, how could you use it as the basis for your argument?
Also, dirty little secret, I didn't have to pay for the article.
I could see the part i quoted and then clarified clearly it's behind a pay wall. Which should go without saying I couldn't read the rest. Would you like a big juicy screenshot? Also New York Times is generally not considered fake news which was also what i was responding too...but maybe you just proved otherwise?
Edit: Also i just now noticed I could view it on mobile and not on my desktop.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie Telford The chief of staff to the prime minister of Canada
“Line up all kinds of people to write op-eds.”
Last edited by MelBridgeman; 08-26-2019 at 08:35 AM.
In theory, I don't have a problem with Brazil creating farmland from forested area. We did it.
I also don't have a problem with the rest of the world saying "whoa, stop deforestation, the world needs the rain forests". My heart lies within this wedge of the pie chart.
I wouldn't be surprised if Brazil treats the rain forests like a commodity and negotiates with other nations to not cut them down for subsidization of lost revenue.
It's Brazil's world as well and I get they need the benefit of the rain forests just like anyone else. I just see an economic opportunity for Brazil for stopping deforestation.
I believe that this is a perfectly acceptable solution.
In theory, I don't have a problem with Brazil creating farmland from forested area. We did it.
I also don't have a problem with the rest of the world saying "whoa, stop deforestation, the world needs the rain forests". My heart lies within this wedge of the pie chart.
I wouldn't be surprised if Brazil treats the rain forests like a commodity and negotiates with other nations to not cut them down for subsidization of lost revenue.
It's Brazil's world as well and I get they need the benefit of the rain forests just like anyone else. I just see an economic opportunity for Brazil for stopping deforestation.
This is not true for the majority of the farming regions of Canada.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TheIronMaiden For This Useful Post:
Good article, gives some perspective. Comments from Dan Nepstad, a lead author of the most recent IPCC report, as well as one of the world’s lead experts on the Amazon forest in particular.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
Good article, gives some perspective. Comments from Dan Nepstad, a lead author of the most recent IPCC report, as well as one of the world’s lead experts on the Amazon forest in particular.
"“It’s bull####,” he said. “There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash"
My instagram has been AWASH in the "Amazon is the lungs of the Earth."
There are so many great documentaries that explain all this too, but sadly the general public will continue to think this.
The general public is either lacking or completely incapable of critical thought, instead looking to actors and musicians for guidance. It's ####ing wild.
Good article, gives some perspective. Comments from Dan Nepstad, a lead author of the most recent IPCC report, as well as one of the world’s lead experts on the Amazon forest in particular.
Money shot for me was, “One of the grand challenges facing newsrooms covering complicated emergent, enduring issues like tropical deforestation,” said journalist Revkin, “is finding ways to engage readers without histrionics. The alternative is ever more whiplash journalism — which is the recipe for reader disengagement.” Right on the money and extremely important in keeping our democracy functioning.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
It seems most politicians are basing policies around "Economy!" (AKA burying our heads in the sand) or "Environment!" (AKA fluff that sounds good and makes people feel good but actually does nothing to solve the problems at hand).
Andrew Yang released his climate plan, and it actually seems like a start in the right direction:
It seems most politicians are basing policies around "Economy!" (AKA burying our heads in the sand) or "Environment!" (AKA fluff that sounds good and makes people feel good but actually does nothing to solve the problems at hand).
Andrew Yang released his climate plan, and it actually seems like a start in the right direction:
This is the first climate plan that includes what I think is the mos essential piece to avoid destroying your economy while you transition
Quote:
Create a border carbon adjustment to protect American goods that would:
Charge a fee on imports from countries that don’t impose a similar carbon fee, or some type of carbon tax.
Provide a rebate on exports to countries that don’t impose a similar carbon fee, or some type of carbon tax.
Without this you just move your emmissions out of country
Imagine if the new deal was attempted today, it would have been destroyed by lobbyists and media.
Sadly there is little hope for any political solution to climate change, it will only be dealt with when there is massive harm, destruction and at that point, we are already far too far gone for us to have what we have today.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
Out of the mouth of babes (as in children you sickos).
I'm sorry, but that was truly awful. Why is it that if someone says that climate change isn't real, they are called stupid, but this girl can spout off outrageous alarmism and she gets applauded? Serious question: is there anything that she could say about the dangers of climate change that would be regarded as too extreme and not be cheered? The science is "crystal clear" yeah, okay...
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
