Why the Amazon Is on Fire
citylab.com
citylab.com
Expecting poor people to voluntarily give up on the opportunity to make money because you are threatened about your children's future but can't even be arsed to reduce your own consumption of beef is wishful thinking at best.
> people living in the amazon basin
are the ones producing all the beef or rather some big land lords?
I concur with the taxation but not paying the money to some other country - rather invest in alternatives.
It might helpful to introspect on why you'd rather have the money spent on one side of an imaginary line the ground rather than another.
But if the income they're receiving is coming from a tax on beef, wouldn't they want to produce more?
Wouldn’t this incentivise beef production? They would be indirectly paid for beef. Or am I reading this wrong?
It's obvious which one we need to focus on. Stop it with the beef already. We need data driven approach. We really really don't need hysteria based approach where something (like beef) is declared sinful.
(see https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...)
> Much of the deforestation binge is being driven by farming pressure: The Amazon basin is the largest exporter of beef in the world, with about 200 million heads of cattle. And all those cows need a lot of space to spread out.
Did you not read before telling us we need a "data-driven approach"?
Methane emissions from beef cattle account for about 2% of GHG potential. Tropical deforestation contributes to about 10% of our climate impact, most of which is driven by beef farming. There are also significant non-climate impacts of deforestation in terms of biodiversity.
Beef is a big deal. It's not the biggest deal, but it's one of many things we need to address. Electricity generation and transport are being rapidly decarbonized thanks to new technology, but there's no technological replacement for old-growth rainforest. We can generate electricity with PV panels, we can run a car or a ship on batteries, but we don't have any sustainable option for things like jet aviation and beef; for the foreseeable future, the only option is to drastically reduce our consumption.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/bee...
So you cannot see or understand the system by looking at an individual. System that divides people into making rational individual decisions (called free market economy) without any real way to conspire co-operation is always going to result in something that is irrational for everyone as a whole. Everyone has to "defect" and for every person you convince against their self-interest to "co-operate" there will be 10 more "defecting". If you want best possible overall result you need entirely different system like centrally planned economy which for example walmart and amazon already uses.
If you attempt to fix the system instead changing it entirely you will just end up making it worse because of regulatory capture. The fault I described cannot be fixed because it would be contradictory to the very foundation, so instead of actually fixing anything it will make the system even more unfair and perverted.
I've spent years of my life trying to change things but it is defeatists like you that are part of the problem - spreading "we're fucked anyway" memes is corrosive because it induces the exact attitude and behaviour you say will happen.
Let me be clear, if the world dies we die with it and you die too - got it? So please get off your butt, stop trying to look so worldly-wise, and do something. I know, I know, it takes more effort than posting on HN. Tricky, that.
Why not, but there are so many factors contributing to climate change that it's "suspicious" when people target one specific thing. It's quite difficult to be heard. Why should I renounce to eat beef, while other people have the right to have 3 kids, or to drive a SUV, or to fly to the other side of the world.
If it was possible, it would be best to integrate the cost of externalities in what we consume, so that everyone can choose to sacrifice what they value less. But maybe if we really had to pay for externalities, they wouldn't much that we could still afford.
It is going to be really difficult to convince people to consume less meat, increase tax on meat etc.
Not saying we shouldn't try, but it is a tough problem to take on.
"In the Amazon region, fires are rare for much of the year because wet weather prevents them from starting and spreading. However, in July and August, activity typically increases due to the arrival of the dry season. Many people use fire to maintain farmland and pastures or to clear land for other purposes. Typically, activity peaks in early September and mostly stops by November.
As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates from the Global Fire Emissions Database, a research project that compiles and analyzes NASA data."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...
This comes under two main forms, one is to make room for soy crops, used mostly for cattle feed and not for direct human consumption, the other is for creating pasture land.
The west, as well as China, encourage the Amazon fires by favorable trade agreements with Brasil, which incentivize the deforestation.
The largest markets for Brazil beef are, in order, Hong Kong, China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chile, and Venezuela. I don't think this qualifies as "Western Countries". A very small amount, relative to those consumers, goes to the EU.
Close to none goes to the United States or Canada -- a minuscule novelty amount -- both of which are entirely self sufficient with beef, poultry, etc, and are net exporters.
There is a point where "blame the West" just isn't constructive as a go to.
I know that the US is self-sufficient in meat, both in terms of raising the cattle and the soy and corn crops that feed it.
Actually, a large portion of the US is dedicated to meat production, both in pasture land and feed crops - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
Which is insane if you ask me, a horrendous waste of resources.
And this is something hardly mentioned in the news at all, by whatever reason.
The trade wars with China have made things a bit worst recently, as there is more demand for brasilian soy.
The main responsibility for me lies with the consumers of the final product (meat), because they are driving the demand.
But OK it's not just the west after all, it's mostly the west and China, but really any nation that is importing cattle feed from Brasil is sponsoring the deforestation, it's a global thing.
The West likes beef. The West overwhelmingly makes and feeds internally, having nothing to do with the Amazon rainforests. Will you now argue that the West is to blame because it doesn't make enough for itself and China?
If you argued that palm oil production was a factor you'd have some basis, but you are entirely and completely off base with these claims about beef.
Do you have any doubt that a lot of the products produced directly or indirectly as a result of the deforestation are being sold mostly to the richest countries in the world that can afford it?
Not every problem needs to be exclusively the fault of the west - it's okay for other people to do things wrong as well.
0: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-exports/u... 1: https://gro-intelligence.com/insights/articles/in-race-for-c...
Again, not the West. What's next? Adam Smith and the creation of capitalism?
A lot of the soy is exported all over the world, to china due to the trade wars with the US, to western countries which need cattle feed but don't have the land to produce those crops.
Developing nations have limited meat consumption still, the biggest consumers of meat is the west in general. The cattle feed needs to come from somewhere, a lot of it comes from the Amazon.
The biggest consumers are the West and China, so following the money I think those are the main responsible because it's their demand for the final product that is ultimately the economic reason behind the deforestation.
So indeed I underestimated the role of China in this process, has I thought historically the biggest consumers of meat have been the west.
The trade wars with China have recently increased the demand for brasilian soy, adding fuel to the fire so to speak.
>The top exporters of Soybeans are Brazil ($25.9B), the United States ($22B), Argentina ($2.82B), Paraguay ($2.19B) and Canada ($1.91B). The top importers are China ($36.6B), Mexico ($1.72B), the Netherlands ($1.6B), Japan ($1.41B) and Spain ($1.31B).
It would appear China is the one with the insatiable appetite for soy, not the US and Canada.
The problem is the entire system.
Of course there is demand, but there is also supply.
Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options.
And both sides must hold each other accountable. Consumers must verify that production is sustainable, etc, and suppliers must insist on prices that support that, and reject quick-money offers/undercutting-schemes that undermine standards.
In this particulr instance, I think there is a case (even an imperative) for "the west" to try to impose eco-tarrifs or eco-certifications etc on Brazilian beef, in order to pressure for more sustainable production practices.
People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make enough money not to be in qualitative extreme poverty[1] let alone enough money to be able to freely choose options that are not cheapest. Extremely small portion of total people have any actual freedom to choose options other than cheapest.
> Consumers must verify that production is sustainable
Such verification is impossible as it requires infinite time and perfect information. It is always cheaper and more profitable to lie about sustainability than to actually be sustainable. When one hole is fixed 10 more holes appear.
1. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-...
Perhaps in the same way as CITES for banning trading in endangered species, or the various timber certifications, which are certainly imperfect and "full of holes" but at least a start. I think tech could vastly improve systems of provenance.
As I said, the system itself is at fault (as per your excellent link - thanks) - there will always be consumers wanting the cheapest price regardless, and suppliers willing to offer it, or even encouraging it (and certainly trying to hide the 'regardless' part of the equation).
They must be stopped.
It goes without saying that cutting down the rainforest would release a lot of CO2 and should not be done for many reasons. I am just curious what the significance of producing “20% of the world’s oxygen” is. Or, what does the rainforest do for the atmosphere besides act as a huge carbon bank?
> An avid deforester, Bolsonaro has jokingly nicknamed himself “Captain Chainsaw.”
An alternative article from The Guardian says that he rejects that term?! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/07/bolsonaro-amaz...
I've seen some petitions targeted at the Brazilian embassy here in my country - but not sure of its effectiveness, as it seems Bolsonaro doesn't really care what the West think.
As for something the west could do, I'm not an expert, but I think offering to foot the bill for police and inspectors in the area would go a long way.
Most logging and burning in the Amazon is still illegal, but it's very hard to police a huge sparsely populated area[1], and our government is dysfunctional even when it tries. The average Brazilian has little to no sympathy for the criminals, but is ambivalent about paying more for police in the jungle far away. It would be a lot easier to argue for more officers if someone else was footing their salaries.
[1]The rogue logger only needs to win in a small area, any small area would do. The state needs to win everywhere.
Not just your people, they're everywhere
On a more positive note, an international reforestation / environmental fund should be set up ASAP to reward satellite-verified reforestation with $$$$ and tax countries for deforestation.
It can also use the money to build multi story farms, where solar energy or mirrors are used to feed plants on lower floors. You can save 5-10 the space for cows this way. Why are farms without any stories?
To the downvoters: why not at least explain what you disagree with?
We should definitely invest more in vertical farming and the reforestation fund also sounds good.
The Atlantic was sold in 2017 to the Emerson Collective.
The Emerson collective is a philanthropic endeavour of Laurene Powell Jobs, wife of late Steve Jobs.
Literally this article was published by the wife of a silicon valley tycoon.
This is why I only read IPCC Studies and pay attention to them. If the world burns out because of global warming, it'll be due to Scare-articles like this one.
https://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html#amazonas
It is the biomass burning season, so you do expect some fires anyway - I am not clear quite how this year fits in overall.