Amazon deforestation accelerating to unrecoverable 'tipping point'
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
It's a big problem, but without some input from trade partners globally and/or other support, I'm not sure what the solution really is. Also, not just in Brazil, but other areas with grasslands that have seen desertification, countering that is very important. It may be necessary to support global efforts to increase diverse planting to portions of agricultural lands to at least try to preserve them. Grazing and crop rotations as well.
Efforts for more diverse use of agriculture as well. More barley and buckwheat, less soy and corn. Less monoculture in the crops, seed varieties of crops we already grow to increase diversity in agriculture. Of course, moving away from Monsonto controlled models, which should mean reverting policy on patents regarding genetic markers and traits.
Right now, too much of the food supply is from mega farms with no diversity and lots of chemical pesticides and resistant strains of crops that are killing off bee populations. I'm not so much against GMO crops as a practice, but definitely need some genetic diversity in the practice. We have the ability to feed the world, we need to start concentrating on doing it better.
Otherwise we'll see the continued destruction for at least another 30-40 years until there's a global demographic peak.
We're also going to see the destruction of the Canadian Boreal forest as temperatures rise makes such land viable for industrial farming.
Right now the main issue is that last year they only received 15 million in donations. Not nearly enough to stop the problem.
Most countries just don't have a rainforest although it's in interest of most to maintain the existing ones.
Plus, climate change is also about variability. Much of this land could see wild extremes of weather, sounds risky for agriculture.
I recently read that, most of the deforested regions are used for low-density cattle (0.5 cow / hectare), which gets transformed into beef, mainly for export.
No. And I surely agree with you that the explanations are probably broad generalizations. I have no idea how those that do it earn money in any specific case, but deforestation is really happening across the globe and definitely in Amazon forests too.
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/maps/amazon_deforesta...
Here is one description:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Deforestat...
"This pattern follows one of the most common deforestation trajectories in the Amazon. Legal and illegal roads penetrate a remote part of the forest, and small farmers migrate to the area. They claim land along the road and clear some of it for crops. Within a few years, heavy rains and erosion deplete the soil, and crop yields fall. Farmers then convert the degraded land to cattle pasture, and clear more forest for crops. Eventually the small land holders, having cleared much of their land, sell it or abandon it to large cattle holders, who consolidate the plots into large areas of pasture."
As the name of the area depicted is stated in this case: "The state of Rondônia in western Brazil — once home to 208,000 square kilometers of forest (about 51.4 million acres), an area slightly smaller than the state of Kansas — has become one of the most deforested parts of the Amazon" you can do your own research starting from there.
Also:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
"The Amazon rainforest is the world’s largest, but in the last 40 years at least 20% of it has been destroyed. The Amazon basin covers nine countries in South America, with 60% of it in Brazil, and for a decade local photographer Rodrigo Baleia has documented the beauty and destruction of the region from above"
As to another comment on going vegan, it's just not an option for me... that doesn't mean I don't want more responsible means of farming.
Less people on planet Earth consuming like there is no tommorow
In one model if the Amazon were deforested the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains declines by half. There are global impacts for all of this.
As we continue to pass point of no return scenarios, will there be an increasing collective of people that flip to believing there is no hope, and adopting a congruent lifestyle?
Could an increasing collective of people sharing this narrative, that we've entered the palliative era of humanity, be the last factor for our ultimate failure as we navigate this tricky problem of scaling our species for a planet?
Does the process of giving up, on the individual level, accelerate a 'bank run' scenario on the planet?
I devote a small minority of my constant focus to remaining calm and trying to not give in, and I am increasingly fatigued and tempted to join the much easier position that it's already too late. But I don't want to see who I turn into once I adopt that position.
I think the real question is: can equivalent money to logging/beef be made from tropical forests? If we can come up with an answer to that, maybe we can revert this trend.
If we'd make it not economically useful to burn it down, because agricultural products were less profitable, that would work, probably.
So a simple economic solution to the problem is to stop buying so much beef and the deforestation would reduce drastically. Why would they continue to chop the forest down if they have no economic incentive to do so?
The excessive consumption of animal products in the west is the main reason why this "3 football fields" a minute thing is going on.
Generally, when people ask for an economic solution, they’re looking for a proposal to change behavioral incentives, rather than proclamation of the desirability of someone’s pet cause (as noble as it may be).
By reducing the amount of meat consumed in the west, there would be no reason to keep chopping down the forest, it's expensive.
In the west we would need a meat tax like it has been proposed in several countries, this alone we would reduce demand for beef and reduce the rate that the forest is getting chopped.
Only if it hurts on people's pockets will anything change, if it doesn't and it goes down for long enough, and the climate keep changing like it has it's going to end up as it as always ended when multiple groups of people are competing for resources: war.
Another one is "stop buying things you don't really need".
But yeah, good luck convincing people to get behind that.
All 3 have been curbed quite dramatically with a combination of regulation, graduated penalties and education. Yes there are gaps in enforcement, and these behaviors haven't been completely eradicated of course -- but dramatically curbed, nonetheless.
There's no reason the same can't happen with the current (wildly excessive) habit of read meat consumption.
Both of these are controversial subjects at best.
Have you seen the TV show Utopia? Basically a group of people decide it's in the humanity's best interest to wipe out 90% of the population with viruses. Rather grim, but understandable in a way.
While in the domain of Sci-Fi, the solution I liked better was the idea from "Forever peace" by John Haldeman, where human evolution is propelled to the next step by increasing mutual empathy through technology. The Internet might be a small step in that direction.
The faster we get people out of poverty, girls educated, and reduce child mortality, the faster we stop population growth.
While military action is not feasible and in this case counterproductive, aggressive sanctions might help. Sanctioning these nations back into stone age if they don't change their course...
Right now, there is no accepted means to stop this from happening.
What is a “tipping point” in this context? The article doesn’t say.
How does the overall size of a forest affect its ability to re-expand? Wouldn’t this happen at the edges once those are no longer maintained, regardless of the overall size?
Does “unrecoverable” mean “via natural processes”? Wouldn’t it be possible for human intervention to reforest?
Thx.