Hacker News Reader

Comment by jackvezkovic | Hacker News Reader

I find it incredible how people are eager to protect the environment in other people's countries before taking a deep look in-house. Suggesting to buy a strategically important area of Brazil under the umbrella of saving the world is just purely naive or hypocrite. China and US are the main contributors to global warming. Not even the Amazon as it currently stands can keep up with that. Shouldn't we apply sanctions to both of these countries then? Or form a coalition to buy Wyoming (the state with the highest CO2 emissions per capita) e.g., since it is in the interest of the world? If the Amazon rainforest does not belong to Brazil, then why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska belong to the US?

Just to clarify, I am not pro bringing down the Amazon rainforest, only raising the flag on the tendency to outsource responsibility when it comes to the environment.

View on HN

I'm reasonably sure that there is a large overlap of people who are in favor of buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it and people who want drastic measures to reduce GHG emissions in their own countries and a carbon tax with tariffs on imports from countries that don't have an equivalent system.

"Buying the Amazon from Brazil and protecting it" shows how little you foreigners understand of our country. It's a huge amount of land that is mostly unoccupied. There are serious concerns that smaller rogue countries will pop up in certain parts of it led by local militias. If we want Brazil to remain as one country then the first thing needed to do is to actually be present in a lot of this territory, and that won't happen if the majority of it can't be economically exploited in any way, especially in a country like Brazil where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and north regions, are extremely poor. Like any issue related to global warming, it's a little more complicated than people think.

Personally, I think preserving the rain forest is more important than Brazil remaining a single country.

Right, but the Brazilian government will most likely act in a way as to preserve itself as a single country.

Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure, for example in the form of trade sanctions.

So you'd also be okay with trade sanctions on the US over their CO2 output? Or does this only go one way, where poor countries have to do the best for the world while your country can do whatever they want?

Yes I would be okay with trade sanctions based on GHG emissions. That's how you would implement a carbon tax, you need tariffs for countries that don't want to join the tax system.

Personally, I think reducing CO2 emissions is more important than USA or China remaining single countries. Which is why I'm in favor of external pressure, for example in the form of trade sanctions.

I agree, but I don't think that the USA or China will fall apart if they're forced to build wind turbines, solar panels, and perhaps the occasional nuclear reactor.

That's a delusional stance to take. You want the US and china to reduce GHG's? That's great! You want Brazil to stop deforestation? Also great! You insist on using the same kind of pressure to achieve both goals? Uhh... that's absurd, and just won't work.

Pressuring Brazil via trade might work; especially since it's simply not in Brazil's own (medium to long term) economic interests to deforest.

Pressuring the US and china via trade will simply not work. Who is going to do that pressuring, exactly? The EU is busy trying to stave off collapse and infighting, most of africa has more pressing matters than picking fights with superpowers, Russia and other fossil fuel exporters have strong interests is keeping GHG emissions high at least for a while... so... india, maybe? Yeah, right.

Avoiding deforestation is a good idea regardless of what others do with respects to GHG emissions. Hurting yourself and others because life isn't fair enough is ridiculously short sighted. And you know, maybe you could think of other ways to coax china and the US to reduce GHG emissions. At least china isn't run by self-delusional maniacs, so maybe you can get them on board, and then maybe you can pressure the US with china. Or maybe the US miraculously cures its own partisan infighting and decides to be rational and less self destructive, and can help with china. But waiting for their leadership to do anything while whining that life is unfair sounds like a pretty bad idea right about now.

The best way to preserve the rainforest is to collapse the US, China and the EU so there is no one to buy from Brazil.

Not practical but a solution...

"If we want Brazil to remain as one country "

Why would we want that? "We" want the rainforest, habitat to so many wildlife, to remain intact, as undisturbed as possible. So if the protected rainforest is then part of brazil or a hypothetical WWF or greenpeace state doesn't really matter to me, as long as the rainforest remains protected.

And yes, the main problem seems to be the poverty of the local population. When you are poor and starving, you cannot really care about enviroment. But as far as I know, all the industrialscale rainforest cutting and soy farming did not really changed something about the poverty, or did it?

>Why would we want that?

Because Brazil wants Brazil to remain one country. That kind of a thing takes precedence over essentially any environmental issues for them. You can disregard it, but you will then not understand why Brazil won't play ball.

So Brazil is a single mind then?

All the indigenous people want to be so much part of Brazil? (Or were ever asked, if they want to be part of it in the first place?)

I kind of doubt that.

So naivlely asking, why should the corrupt oligarchies in the cities, should have any rights about the rainforest in the first place, when all they care about is to squeeze as much money out of it as possible?

Because teritorial integrity is the sacred cow of modern politics and everybody too scared, what else might happen, if this dogma is to be questioned? Probably yes. So serious international pressure on brazil about really protecting the rainforest, is right now probably the way to go. (Which of course, does not exclude pressure on other sinners)

But it probably does not hurt, if people think about loudly about other consequences, of what might happen if the brazilian government continues to not give a damn, as there are really many supporters of the amazonas rainforest around the globe.

>Because teritorial integrity is the sacred cow of modern politics and everybody too scared, what else might happen, if this dogma is to be questioned?

Compromising another country's territorial integrity can very easily lead to a justified war.

"Justice" is made up by people. For centuries is was justified to conquer and change borders by force. Then suddenly there was a stop ... but all the old borders made by force should remain. That might get questioned again on a broader base, if the borders on a land does not match up with what people think and feel what is right.

So again, why is the amazonian rainforest the property of the brazilian government? Did they plant it? Did they bought it from the people who used to live there? I don't think so. In the end, it comes down to power. Your government might be stronger than the natives living there, but like I said, more people care about the rainforest now, than the people who lived there.

> So again, why is the amazonian rainforest the property of the brazilian government? Did they plant it? Did they bought it from the people who used to live there? I don't think so.

They fought for and defended their territory just as other sovereign countries.

Quote from some levels above:

> Why do the natural oil reserves in Texas or Alaska belong to the US?

Well, apparently there actually are wars for oil. And there are actually quite some people who would make war for the rainforest. But since environment is their motivation, they prefer different methods.

I wouldn't say it's unoccupied. It is occupied with precious rain forest.

... that happens to be a man-made curated garden of sorts [1].

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/pristine-untou...

>...where a fair number of the population, especially in the northeast and northern regions, are extremely poor...

People in Recife[0] are poor? O.k., maybe a single city isn't fair. How about Pernambuco[1]? Something like 31% of the entire population of Brasil is below the poverty line[2] and I somehow doubt that that specific one-third of the population only lives throughout the north and northeast.

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recife

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pernambuco

[2] - https://archive.fo/sBTbE

Would buying without making it a foreign territory possible ? A UN protected reserve or similar.

International funding for extensive policing would go a long way.

CO2 isn’t the only reason to want to prevent deforestation. Also, yes, we should be encouraging mass reforestation everywhere and buying Wyoming to do that sounds like a good idea (though there may be more cost-effective options, I’m only saying “good” not “best”).

That was the argument made by Bolsonaro. I know he's using it as an hypocritical reason to carry his own absurd acts. It's a race to the bottom, but that's true.. other countries cannot accuse him unless they're clean.

I take it Bolsonaro is a Brazilian government official. This is not how "taking a deep look in-house" works: if we argue that we should look in the mirror before looking at them, they can't use that argument to wish away any changes required in Brazil to keep the Amazon in a reasonable state. They should take a deep look in-house as well. And if they wish us to help with that (development aid from wealthy countries), they are welcome to ask, since it benefits us all.

Two answers:

(1) Low-hanging fruit. Brazil has a huge CO2 sink today. It doesn't need to change infrastructure or teach its public new habits or almost anything in order to preserve it. We can preserve and even improve this CO2 sink with a single decision to ban its destruction. Other countries such as the U.S. has very few such big-ticket items -- it has a million small-ticket items, many of which require social engineering (reduce consumption, stop traveling) or big infrastructure changes (electric cars, public transit, gas tax, nuclear and renewable power, bans on various power-inefficient things).

(2) Global warming is global. One country can destroy the environment for the entire planet. It's our responsibility to act everywhere. Environmentalism doesn't need borders. One could also argue that Brazil doesn't have the moral right to destroy a natural resource like this (nor does any other country).

Your comment smells of whataboutism. How dare we impinge on another country's sovereignty when our own garden desperately needs tending? The answer in all such cases is, of course: You can do both.

It's not whataboutism. It's a matter of principles. International pressure to "buy" a part of another country under the flag of environmental protection is not a reasonable option. It is a quite extreme measure. Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. For me, it all sounds like outsourcing environmental responsibility. Just put in perspective the cost/payoff of this proposal. This arrogance in the argument that the Amazon is not from Brazil and shouldn't be trusted with them is bad for the environmental discussion that needs to happen. Can't we really not think of better solutions?

>Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed.

Eu não posso entender: Your proposed solution is that Brasil should carry-on doing whatever it wants with the Amazon Rain Forest and other countries should address their own CO^2 emissions, correct?

What is the argument, then, when you consider that Brasil will surpass those very same countries in CO^2 emissions when it no longer has a sink to counteract the effects of its own emissions?

Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want," whilst largely ignoring the fact that Brasil would - based on your proposition - be the resultant Sampson to the environment as a direct byproduct of that very premise.

Why can't it be both that the "world's lungs", as the Amazon Rainforest is oft coined, not be devastated and other countries fix their emissions?

This "muh sovruntee" mentality is precisely why we're stagnating (or even regressing) any progress on the positive feedback loop that we're currently sliding into. For example (if I understand correctly), it's why the states backed out of the Paris Agreements[0].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

>Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want,"

Yes, because that's exactly how western fibrous became rich. Now that you're rich you want to bar this path for other countries.

I hope you understand that when you suggest intentional pressure to divide a country you're essentially asking for war.

>I hope you understand that when you suggest intentional pressure to divide a country you're essentially asking for war.

Where is this assumption coming from that I am suggesting international pressure to divide a country? To stop deforestation of Amazon Rainforest? Sure. However, there's a vast berth between that and dividing a country and the former doesn't automatically equate to the latter, yeah?

It is actually quite simple to understand. Don't be arrogant in proposing to "buy" a part of another country, because "they don't know how to take care of it". This is the kind of mindset that is counterproductive for the environmental debate. The Amazon belongs to Brazil, the same way that the Swiss Alps belong to the Swiss people, the oil reserves in Texas belong to the Americans, the plastic filled rivers that go to the ocean belong to China etc. There are no simple solutions - low hanging fruits - to the environmental problem. You could easily argue that we could just forbid the US of extracting oil from Texas to help save the planet. But that doesn't seem reasonable either, does it?

Once again, that doesn't mean Brazil should just burn the whole thing to the ground. But the way this will be accomplished is not through hypocrite, neo-imperialistic BS politics. But rather through economically sound negotiations, international agreements, multilateral commitments, that are advantageous for the parties involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com