Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2a98ng wrote

Reply to comment by wastelandho in Brazil's outgoing President Jair Bolsonaro, who has not acknowledged his electoral defeat, bid followers a tearful farewell Friday without stating whether he would attend Sunday's inauguration of victor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva by DoremusJessup

Love when foreigners care more about the possibility of decreased deforestation than people.

−137

wastelandho t1_j2ab4ls wrote

Kind of assuming you're being sarcastic, but yeah, I have no love for people who are destroying the planet, don't care what nationality you are.

61

[deleted] t1_j2abxgh wrote

[removed]

−41

Me0wTTV t1_j2ajsxb wrote

No one said anything about Brazilian families, you’re just being an asshole. We have no love for Bolsonaro, he WAS actively destroying the planet. Or his supporters.

44

ThatGuyMiles t1_j2bh47z wrote

Honestly why are these comments always on a low effort alt account. Is this self awareness, why not just post on whatever main account you use instead of quickly creating to changing to a random account. This just seems bizarre to me…

15

ARollingTheist t1_j2b5lnu wrote

The fact that you blame "foreigners" says so much about how right-wingers just pretend everything is someone else's fault.

44

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2b6c2m wrote

> The fact that you blame "foreigners" says so much about how right-wingers just pretend everything is someone else's fault.

The largest enviromental disasters are caused by foreign companies.

The produce/meat is not for national consumption and is exported.

The border are the most active regions because they know the Brazilian authorities can't act properly.

There are thousands of problems that are 100% national, this ain't one.

−60

LostGuy242 t1_j2dsgy9 wrote

Your idol bolsonaro is human trash a cancer in this world you have internet inform yourself idiot

4

[deleted] t1_j2aadxo wrote

[removed]

8

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2ab7i7 wrote

Not really, just what I keep seeing online. Europeans and Canadians talking about how the Amazon should be invaded and Brazilian people don't have any sort of claim on it, blindly support any figures that says something about the amazon because trees.

Meanwhile no one wants to stop norwegian mining companies or make one third of their country an international reservation (pine tree wastelands don't count).

Pretty standard on the internet.

−28

JibberJabber420420 t1_j2adlt2 wrote

I mean the fate of the Amazon has a pretty disproportionate impact on the environment due to the biodiversity and the insane amounts of CO2 it sequesters, so it merits international condemnation when there is problematic illegal (and legal) logging.

20

[deleted] t1_j2af963 wrote

[removed]

−4

[deleted] t1_j2ak4zi wrote

[removed]

10

[deleted] t1_j2ao3gf wrote

[removed]

1

Me0wTTV t1_j2aq5k5 wrote

I mean…it’s not like anyone wants to be doing that? It’s just not an option to replace it all yet? Burning down the rainforest is very…optional? Nuance is key.

2

[deleted] t1_j2aqmwq wrote

[removed]

0

Me0wTTV t1_j2b27cp wrote

I live somewhere where that’s the case, honestly most of the US is either really hot or really cold. EU is a bit different but I don’t live there.

Yea it was. fucking up the rainforest, and honestly a lot of logging and destruction of forested areas could have been prevented had we adopted more sustainable practices earlier - they existed.

I’m just glad it’s one thing ticked off the list of shit humanity is breaking. Let’s go get off shore drillers next, fucking yo the ocean is equally condemnable in my book.

1

[deleted] t1_j2b46u6 wrote

[removed]

1

flamehead2k1 t1_j2b5ki2 wrote

A lot of countries are increasing protected areas.

If you look at the past, you're going to see large portions of the northern hemisphere deforested but no one can change that. We can only try to repair the damage done and protect remaining wilderness.

Brazil is fortunate enough to be able to focus on the latter and it doesn't need to do so at the expense of its development. Sure, agribusiness will take a hit but that industry doesn't benefit the average Brazilian all that much. It keeps food prices low but also has shit wages and working conditions.

2

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2b7265 wrote

> A lot of countries are increasing protected areas.

Brazil still ahead of most, even relative to it size, the whole concern trolling other nations do while not doing even 1/10 of what Brazil does it either on bad faith or extreme ignorance.

> Brazil is fortunate enough to be able to focus on the latter and it doesn't need to do so at the expense of its development.

Sadly it does, protecting an area the size of Europe is extremely dangerous, expensive, and consuming. Outlawing developments make sure no one will pay taxes, work conditions will be slave like, and that the money will end up in criminal hands.

Sadly we can't have our cake and eat it too.

> Sure, agribusiness will take a hit but that industry doesn't benefit the average Brazilian all that much. It keeps food prices low but also has shit wages and working conditions.

They are the industry pay most taxes, employ most people, and is the most stable. It will be a big hit and it is far from being "fortunate enough".

1

Me0wTTV t1_j2b4vbq wrote

I think the key reason is that the Amazon rainforest is famous, and historically one of the most scientifically critical areas of the earth. Many many medicines and rare compounds are found there/derived from plants that can only grow there. Rick’s Logging Co from Oregon cutting down forests for no justifiable reason deserves to take a ton of criticism as well.

I see your point, and I agree with you. It truly needs to stop everywhere, but your forest is the poster child.

1

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2b5cxh wrote

> Many many medicines and rare compounds are found there/derived from plants that can only grow there.

And Brazil can't farm or mine there withouth getting flak from other countries, european companies do it all the time tho.

> but your forest is the poster child.

More like a target, the fame of the Amazon mostly has negative consequences. Best case scenario we get a few mil from UE so they pretend they are helping while causing damages themselves.

0

JibberJabber420420 t1_j2akuhy wrote

You know the Amazon isn’t just in one country right? Hard to prevent it from being an international issue

8

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2anvt3 wrote

> You know the Amazon isn’t just in one country right?

Yes, and it happens that the largest chunk of it is in Brazil. No one has any issues about Peru and Ecuador talking about their borders and shared biomes, but UK and Norway can kinda fuck off.

1

Me0wTTV t1_j2ajyzp wrote

What the hell website are you on? I’m here every day and don’t see this. Quit making up conflicts. No credible human would say anything like that.

9

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2andxy wrote

You can find hundreds of articles about how the amazon forest should "belong to the world" and not Brazil, as a matter of fact you probably don't remember that in 2019 Macron and the EU tried to sanction Brazil because of the amazon forest. Going as far as to threaten to block trade, all because they were displeased. They even discussed what should be done about it in a G7 meeting they didn't invite Brazil to, while calling the forest "our home"

https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1164616868080103425

(Also the picture Macron used is like 30y)

Oh, but the EU offered enough money to buy a couple helicopters to patrol an area the size of western europe, I am sure they all care deeply about it.

Maybe you don't notice those kinds of comments but I am brazilian and it is pretty clear that if it was possible to fence out the Amazon most gringos would do it no matter what the cost.

0

Me0wTTV t1_j2aqghf wrote

Bro I’m American we just want you all to have all your rights and for you not to burn the forest. You seem to be a Bolso guy.

6

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2aukju wrote

> Bro I’m American we just want you all to have all your rights

Not sanctioning us because of wildfire would be a great starts.

> You seem to be a Bolso guy.

Sadly I was forced to vote for him on the second turn (voting in Brazil is mandatory-ish).

−3

Angel_in_Training_2 t1_j2aduya wrote

The effects of deforestation will affect the local populace first, though, there are tons of local activists.

7

Mike-Hunt1969 t1_j2aegml wrote

> The effects of deforestation will affect the local populace first

Do you think people travel half of the continent to do logging and then go back home? It is the local population doing it lmao.

−1

Sad-Meringue-694 t1_j2akm7v wrote

You do know that, in cockney English, ‘Mike Hunt’ means ‘c*unt’ (?) - pretty apt for someone like yourself.

4

rosiyaidynakher t1_j2cofih wrote

Yeah because bolsonaro cares so much about people, that philanthropical people-loving so and so

4