Me0wTTV t1_j2aq5k5 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] 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
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.
[deleted] t1_j2aqmwq wrote
[removed]
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.
[deleted] t1_j2b46u6 wrote
[removed]
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.
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".
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments