The Amazon in Brazil is on fire – how bad is it? | Hacker News Reader

The Amazon in Brazil is on fire – how bad is it?

bbc.com

88 pointsallanberger68 comments

This article completely fails to mention a very important issue: Scientists are worried that the amazon may approach a tipping point after which the ecosystem will completely collapse.

The guardian has a better take on the story: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/23/amazon-f...

Sounds likely to me. If you mess around with any ecosystem enough it will change unpredictably

I hope you do realize your comment is about as rational as dark ages priests and peasants blaming villager’s sins for the bad harvesting ( i don’t mean to pick a personnal fight with you in particular, just that your opinion seems very widespread even on this forum, and it worries me)

Blah I said “sounds likely”. Is this priests said in the Middle Ages

NASA came up with a follow up article and it seems like there's a lot of fire in Amazon currently "making it the most active fire year in that region since 2010".

So looks like it's been worse only 9 years ago and in some stupid articles I read that we lost 20% of Amazon in the last month or so... Amazon apparently has "fire season" every year when fire blasts there for months.

I feel like someone is trying to set up Bolsonaro or maybe the histeria is accidental because this years "fire season" in Amazon is "dry season" for media?

The charts does not look so bad this year, but I suppose 99% people have no idea Amazon burns every year:

https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145498/uptick-i...

I mean it's really good we're finally opening our eyes (it might be too late though), but I feel like we're being manipulated big time.

When the Amazon turns into a savannah well into our lifetime, we will see how this stuff looks like historically.

I suspect though that the attention that the press is giving to this year's fires, which are catastrophic and need attention, has something to do with the fact that Brasil is about to sign a historic trade agreement with the EU and this is being used to politically pressure Brasil into stopping the increasing deforestation.

Which I'm all for it, I get it that it's politics and that's how it works, I just don't like the manipulation.

The "manipulation" to stop destroying the planet? To me its all about the accelerated logging in the amazon basin that we know is fatal.

Have a look, logging is only 3%, the rest is cattle ranching and agriculture (most of it to produce cattle feed) - https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2019/08/d...

I agree it's necessary to force Brasil's hand to take some immediate action, but I just don't like these tactics. What else is in the news for similar type of reasons?

No. This year Russia lost 3 times more forest and nobody cares :) All the noise is just about politics.

A hectare of forest lost in brazil is not equivalent to an hectare lost in Taiga. Biodiversity in taiga is not even remotely close to the biodiversity in rainforests.

There are decens of different species of trees, giving fruits, supporting bromeliads, hundreds of orchids, arboreal frogs, monkeys, sloths, macrobats, snails, spiders, scorpions, thousands of different insects, snakes, hundred of birds, raptors, lizards, thousands of different fishes also in the flooded soil ... You will never find that in a taiga's pine. Taiga is a frozen void desert for many months of the year (and has been devoid of most of this former macrofauna yet).

Is not always about politics.

Yeah, forest is "frozen void", lol. And each summer it's so "cold" there, that's why forest is in fire every year.

Macron says nothing about "biodiversity", he is talking about oxygen. And forest in Siberia makes the same oxygen (maybe just with small scent of vodka). So in this case is just politics.

Any sources on that?

Regardless of the consequences, I'd be a more at rest knowing the ones responsible will be prosecuted. However, based on history we will know this will probably not happen.

There is also a big forest fire in Siberia, but I can't remember seeing anything on it in the Norwegian press. There are some stories about the Amazon fire, though. Perhaps the one in Siberia is less dangerous? I don't know! Why is the Amazon fire worse? Or can you compare them at all?

Yet the BBC did an identical style piece about the Siberian fires about a month ago. So what's your gripe with this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49125391

Amazon is the source for 20% oxygen. Brasil's president thinks climate change is a myth (just like every conservative head of state these days)

It's scary how much he could damage the world by flattening the Amazon

I don’t think that is accurate. Most of the oxygen produced by the Amazon remains local and is consumed by local fauna. The rest of the world is almost entirely dependent upon local systems and oceanic diatoms for oxygen.

There are many other serious environmental concerns at stake, but not oxygen loss.

What? This doesn't sound plausible at all. Do you have a citation for this claim?

This paper suggests quite the opposite. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209592731...

There is a large HN discussion about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20789771

Makes sense that regions would have a local source of O2.

But it will have some impact on CO2 right?

Let's not forget the recent and ongoing fires in Indonesia, home to one of the world's last and largest rainforests.

Not gonna lie I had the impression that Amazon was gonna get wiped out in a matter of weeks considering the amount of attention this story has been getting.

All the rainforest will disappear around 2040-2060 based on current projections. Not that I blame the developing world for growing palm trees or soybean that feeds the cattle or gets into products for the developed world.

Hail Globalization!

To be fair, the article leaves out the size of the areas affected by the wildfires; however, it does proffer a guesstimation in the potential damage as a byproduct of the fires:

>The fires have been releasing a large amount of carbon dioxide, the equivalent of 228 megatonnes so far this year, according to Cams, the highest since 2010.

In units the Americans would be familiar with, that would be roughly 461,608,800,000 pounds of carbon dioxide. (1 tonne = ~2024.6 pounds, according to Wikipedia[0]).

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

Of course not, but it's on a steady path to destruction, if you look how it has dwindled over the decades. We ought to be concerned.

That's because the media want your eyeballs for ad impressions. It's sad how bad clickbait has gotten.

For a few weeks there was almost zero news coverage. But the fires gained a lot of traction on the 20th of August [1]. The number of fires has increased year over year by 84% [2]. Given that the amazon produces 20% of Earth's oxygen that's quite a concern. I think the global outcry is warranted (any less may not have achieved a result). It's a good first step that Bolsonaro has deployed the Army for a month to fight the fires, time will tell if this is an authentic effort or one simply to quell the angry Internet mob. If we don't take a stand where profit > environment on a global scale are we not complicit in the destruction?

[1] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=...

[2] https://www.woodtv.com/news/international/sharp-increase-in-...

Our information ecosystem is truly polluted. It's hard to find impartial journalism these days – or maybe it was always like that? I think that our willingness to share content (without thinking) is exploited to spread disinformation.

Even this article isn't great, though it's obviously better than the hoaxes on social media. For instance, they start off the article with the claim that Brazil has seen a record number of forest fires in 2019 and a scary-looking graph of them increasing from 2013. They then follow up with a repetition of activists' claims that right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro is to blame. You have to scroll down several pages to the very end of the article before you find out that actually, the fire activity is close to average and 2013 was an unusualy fire-free year - and also many of the other countries in the region are seeing similar increases in the number of fires.

“this article isn't great”

From your description, that seems like an understatement. If you cherry pick starting points to make s graph look dramatic and leave out crucial context so that readers will assume the worse, that’s not just “not great” it’s flat out fraudulent, manipulative propaganda.

Duh... very bad?

State of emergency in the largest state of Brasil

75.000 wildfires in 8 months, double as in the last year

200 millions of tonnes of CO2 released, actively boycotting any chance of fixing climate of the planet

Deforestation accelerated in a 278%, actively increasing the six extinction rate

But, but... this is happening since the last decades also!, so, oki doki. All is fine like soy ice cream. Not Bolsonarson fault.

I'm seeing a lot of apparently conflicting information about these Amazon fires. I've seen sources saying its about average, and I've seen sources saying it's the worst since 2010.

Are they in disagreement, or are they measuring different things, so aren't disagreeing? Or is something else going on? I'm kinda lost

From the Guardian article, the amount of ash and particulates in some Brazilian states has hit the highest levels since 2010. There are 27 states in Brazil (though I'm not sure all of them are downwind from rainforest or agricultural areas). Basically, in some areas it's the worst it's been since 2010, but overall it's about average.

All I have seen these days in the press is to blame Bolsonaro, of some fires that occur, every year, for decades on an area of 5,500,000 km2 and you will tell me how a person can monitor so much surface, which is not even People can travel. Presidents of other countries that I am not going to mention have campaigned against Bolsonaro using old photos. It is unfortunate the political use that is being given to this, added to the contribution that the press is making to the levels of hysteria of the people, does not help at all.

Bolsonaro is a dangerous far-right buffoon who is accelerating logging in the amazon basin. If you want to talk about politics then why was his direct opponent put in jail during the election?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-politics/brazils-b...

He is basically the encyclopaedia image of corruption.

His direct oponent was guilty of several corruption cases. It went on an extensive judiciary process i believe you have followed or you understand. It wasnt jailed summarily. The supreme court even denied by votation so, it is not something we can relate to the amazonian fire season.

His opponent was jailed with zero proof, in a sham that clear at the time for anyone that understands the justice process. But recently it was clear for everyone with the judge Moro leaked WhatsApp messages.

https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/rio-politics/national...

Here, take your mortadela sandwich.

This comment breaks the site guidelines. Can you please review them and use HN as intended?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: we've had to ask you multiple times not to do political flamewar on HN. Please don't use this site for political battle, even if other commenters are wrong or annoying. It destroys the intellectual curiosity that HN exists for.

> how a person can monitor so much surface

Brazil used to have an autonomous satellite monitoring system (Prodes and Deter) which Bolsonaro is actively working to dismantle, along with the environmental protection agency Ibama. There are many valid reasons to blame Bolsonaro for what is happening.

NASA is doing that too. But how you can control everything to the point to avoid the Fire Season. You can't. The Amazonias (I visited in 1998) is not a place you can move teams and quickly shutdown any fires. It's a very complicated terrain and also, the fires spread at a pace you cannot really imagine.

How can you be arguing that Bolsonaro is doing the best he can to reduce deforestation and fires when he has repeatedly shown that he has no interest in doing so?

You certainly can't do much against the fires once they have broken out at such a vast scale. But with something as recurring and hence predictable as the Amazon wildfires, you can at least try to reduce spread and contain the damage. Also, I'm sure a lot of the fires are intentionally started as a quick way of deforesting and clearing land for farmland and cattle.

You seem to argue that the fires are purely an act of God and there is nothing humanity can do, which just seems a little ridiculous given that Bolsonaro is dismantling established environmental protection policies to make way for more farming etc.

There is a lot of evidence that human activity is significantly contributing to the wildfires [1].

[1]: https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/fires-amazon-rainforest-...

I've read like 10 articles about this so far, and they did not answer the following questions:

- How large, proportionally, is the burned region? How long would it theoretically take for the whole thing to burn down at this rate?

- How large, proportionally is the burned region in Siberia? How long has the Siberian fire been burning, how long would it take for everything to burn down, etc.

- I've seen the 20% of the worlds oxygen stat a bunch. But how significant is this fire in affecting that? Wouldn't we expect the Siberian fire to have a larger effect because it covers a thousand times more area?

- Can anyone explain the tipping-point business? How can a series of local fires cause a global collapse? Especially considering that this is neither the first nor the biggest fire?

- Do these fires burn themselves out? How do they end?

The best lay explanation of the tipping point business I saw recently was this Economist piece: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2019/08/01/the-amazon-is-...

In short beyond a certain point the local climate becomes unsuited to the flora, further encouraging deforestation and changing the climate, which becomes more prone to drought. Meanwhile the evaporative cooling from the shrinking expanse of trees declines, changing the climate and encouraging drought. It becomes a reinforcing effect.

The "20% of the world's oxygen" claim is unfounded.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/08/23/as-the...

As the professor states in his tweets, there are legitimate reasons to avoid deforestation ("for climate, for biodiversity, for indigenous communities"). Oxygen supply is not one of them.

> - Can anyone explain the tipping-point business? How can a series of local fires cause a global collapse? Especially considering that this is neither the first nor the biggest fire?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_savannas_of_Nort... seems to suggest that specifically burned areas of rainforest turn into savannah. But a lack of fire will cause a reversion to rainforest.

It is very bad because the current president policy is to sell and deforest for farms or cattle, without any worry of the ecosystem or native people of the area. Which should be preserve and protect.

In terms of the area affected by fire, more burned in Portugal in 2018, which is a very small compared with Amazon size.

Do you have any oficial policy document that support that claim?

Like so many other articles, this one contains no information about the possible causes and motives behind forest fires, just a bit of hearsay. Surely in most countries, land that is forest has to stay forest even after a fire and cannot legally be used as farm land? What is the legal situation in Brazil? Could it be that reforestation has other economic benefits, like new CO2 credits?

Everyone who is Brazilian will tell you it’s a long shot that this is anything but big landowners. They’ve been doing this for ages and they have murdered people who tried to stop them.

The law in Brasil is not like in other places. You think someone will stop a big landowner from getting more land after it’s been deforested? The new President has gutted the environmental agencies so nothing will or can be done.

Here’s an article on rolling stone with some more detail: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/brazilia...

Notice how the local government office is under armed protection. This is to protect them from the big landowners. This is not unusual in Brasil. Please do more research

Also the article is openly quoting Brasilian forest agencies - you think that’s hearsay? That’s pretty silly

The Amazon Rainforest Tipping Point is 20-25% deforestation total.

We are at 20% deforestation now.

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-amazon-deforestation.html

The forest fires stem from previous deforestation, so destruction is cumulative, exponential.

Past the tipping point the rainforest dies.

To quote the Expanse, this is the cascade, (and we are nearing the point where) this station is already dead.

> The forest fires stem from previous deforestation, so destruction is cumulative, exponential.

That's just wrong. The fires can actually make the forest stronger next year[1]. This is part of the cycle of nature. Have you been to the Amazon? Pretty much every inch of it has burned in the past, but after a year or so, you could barely tell, as in the wet season, the plants grow a lot faster than most people who are not from the region can even imagine.

[1] http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0001...

The forest does recover, unless the burnt area is cleared and planted with soy or corn of-course.

The evidence disagrees, the link I posted provides evidence that the majority of the forest fires stem from previous clearances.

While there is a natural role for fire in forests this is unsustainable and close to a tipping point of unrecoverable.

Last I read was, that die back is at around 20 to 25percent. We are at 20 percent. I would say, yeah it is bad :)

VERY BAD, because now someone need to add 'in Brazil' to avoid confusion.

Cheap burgers are cheap for reasons

In the average of the last 15 years:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...

>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 problem is a combination of factors, what for others would have been a tragedy to avoid, the current Brazilian president welcomes the fires as an opportunity to dislodge natives and sell more land and wood.

This is amazing. It's amazing how the histeria has spreaded like a virulent disease but people never cared to learn about this. First, there's a "fire season", then the averages and then, the current situation. But it's amazing how easy they blamed capitalism and bolsonaro in the socialmedia. The worst of this situations: some progressive PM did it too falling into the perseption fallacy. How sad this world has became with Social media.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com