Amazon Rainforest is Burning at an Unprecedented Rate (bbc.com) 98
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has said his government lacks the resources to fight the record number of fires in the Amazon. And he again suggested that non-governmental organizations had started fires in the rainforest, but admitted he had no evidence for this claim. From a report: He added that his government was investigating the fires. Earlier, Brazil's Environment Minister Ricardo Salles was heckled at a meeting on climate change. Conservationists have blamed Brazil's government for the Amazon's plight. They say Mr Bolsonaro has encouraged the clearing of land by loggers and farmers, thereby speeding up the deforestation of the rainforest. Satellite data published by the National Institute for Space research (Inpe) shows an increase of 85% this year in fires across Brazil, most of them in the Amazon region. The largest rainforest in the world, the Amazon is a vital carbon store that slows down the pace of global warming. Answering questions from reporters on Thursday, Mr Bolsonaro said the government couldn't simply get the ministry of the interior to send 40 men to fight a fire. "Forty men to fight a fire? There aren't the resources. This chaos has arrived," he said.
Let them breath CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see the people responsible held to account. Jail time for the head of Exxon and politicians who conspired with him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
you are confused about something, the 17% of rainforest that has disappeared in the last 50 years would have absorbed about 400 million tons of carbon per year... but that's really not enough to matter when 10 BILLION tons (and growing) are being emitted.
There are bigger wins to be had by alternative energy (not emitting), let the Brazilians have their farmland.
Re:Let them breath CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's 4%. I'd say thats a lot considering we could have had that "for free" with no additional effort.
In your estimation, at what point do all the things that are "really not enough to matter" start to matter? 4% here, 2% there... eventually it adds up to a decent chunk of the total.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
with fossil fuel use up 3% in 2018 alone, and who knows what this year.... just not doing that, substituting something else, would be biggest thing.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't answer the question.
There are a lot of easier-to-do things that individually may not seem to add up to much, but taken together can amount to a sizable contribution.
Why do you so easily discount arguably minor but easy partial solutions?
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
what solution though? the 17% forest is gone over a period of half a century. ain't coming back. You're going to take away the farmland and replant the forest, crashing the economy and putting people into poverty, meanwhile as we burn more and more coal & oil for our comfy life?
I don't see that as viable solution to anything and would cause harm. the big emitters, China, USA and India could do things that actually lower the carbon emitted globally each year and the Brazilian farmers could do whatever
Re: (Score:2)
The cattle ranches they're putting in (this years burning is mostly for cattle ranches) barely makes economic sense and as soon as the price of beef drops slightly, the land will be left fallow.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, makes huge economic sense. Global beef market is expected to continue to grow at 3.1% compounded for years, mainly because of China and Islamic markets with new disposable income
Re: (Score:2)
There's still the question of how long the land can support grazing. The soil down there is pretty shitty with all the nutrients held in the trees due to the leeching from the rain.
Re: (Score:2)
that's the problem in the tropics anyway, nutrients get washed down to water table as primary issue in any place where soil never freezes (sun is secondary issue). But there are things to be done for that to increase nutrients for cattle, that's an old science. Some of the solution comes out of the south bound end of north bound cattle.
Re: (Score:2)
"It will hurt the economy" is the argument used against curtailing emissions, so since you use that argument against NOT burning the rainforests, I'll give you the same reply:
Tough shit.
If the Amazon forests vanish, there will be nothing stabilizing the region's climate. Brazil is closer to the equator than Saudi Arabia... yet Brazil is a lush forest and Saudi Arabia is mostly desert. If you remove the forest, it will become desert.
Good luck grazing your cattle in a fucking desert, you criminally myopic shi
Re: (Score:2)
It's a trick to avoid doing anything at all. Everything is either too small to matter or too vitally important to stop.
Re: Let them breath CO2 (Score:2)
Re:Let them breath CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let them breath CO2 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
the fire is releasing all the carbon they captured so far.
How come? Wouldn't that be "all the carbon they contain currently"? Didn't most of the carbon they captured go into the leaves they have been shedding over the years that have long since decomposed?
Re: (Score:2)
They are also burning out the existing land holders, so you are saying let the corporations have their farmland and fuck those people already living there, let them burn.
Re: (Score:3)
Or said psychopaths realize they will soon be able to sell a product that exceptingfor a few niche uses, they will be able to sell to the general public - breathable ai
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, CO2 is just O2 with the added bonus of a carbon atom. They should be paying the 1% for the privilege!
Re: (Score:1)
He's happy the thing is burning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:He's happy the thing is burning (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, the Bolsonaro government also appealed to small farmers and people who live along the Amazon who felt constrained by laws limiting them from expanding their farms.
When large ranching concerns reach out to them and tell them to start fires to expand their land, so they can raise cattle and ell them to the ranchers, they are more than willing to do that.
In addition, Bolsonaro government is tying the hands of agencies that would normally fine and prosecute the people starting the fires
These are the downsides to populists and allowing them to gain control of governments
It is unfortunate that we have to watch these ass-clowns deface other countries as well as our own
I don't see the problem as populists (Score:2)
There's also a _lot_ of dodgieness about their elections (and America's too I might add). Voter suppression mostly. It's hard to outright cheat an election without getting caught, but it's not hard at all to send goons around to scare folks into not voting or spend unlimited amounts of corporate cash to discourage
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the e voting systems are provably *completely* insecure... Bosonaro won because the past several presidents were shit and he is something different at least, doesn't seem to be corrupt on face value, and he has very Brazilian conservative values though he sides with some corporate interests bec
Re: (Score:1)
Brazil is having a population boom and starting on a really good economy, hence their demands for food is going up and their entire country is rainforest. Moreover, socialist neighbors like Venezuela that does have farms all but stopped exporting food and oil requiring Brazil to produce more and increase reliance on wood and coal for fuel.
There is no easy solution, people need to eat, a solar panel doesn't help.
Re:He's happy the thing is burning (Score:5, Interesting)
there is no population boom, brasil is actually getting older and population growth is slowing down, economy is crap with another lost decade, we export way more food than we import and the food imports from south america is mainly from Argentina, we do import oil (gasoline and diesel actually) but I don't think we've ever bought any significant amount from venezuela, and wood and coal are rounding errors in our energy matrix.
people are burning down the amazon, and other biomes that do not get the same attention but are just as important, for land speculation and cattle, that's pretty much it.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no easy solution, people need to eat, a solar panel doesn't help.
reducing the crazy rates of meat consumption would be a good start and would be relatively easy, and healthy.
Re: (Score:2)
Even just switching to chicken and pork instead of beef.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well those who follow the Bible teachings can just eat Chicken.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He's happy the thing is burning (Score:4, Informative)
It's suprising over the years here, because it seriously implies that Brazil is essentially in anarchy with the rule of law being ignored. What other country would someone be able to destroy huges swaths of a forest which is a mix of private and public land, without permission, without buying the property, and against all laws, and there is zero accountability? You could almost see this if this were gangsters doing this, but it's done in public view by major companies. Even if the government wanted more farming land, it should still happen through legal means if this was a civilized country.
Re: (Score:2)
No surprise, just look at the Bundy Standoff in America [wikipedia.org]
They are not setting stuff on fire, but they are grazing cattle on lands that cannot support them without being damaged
When the federal government tried to step in, they organized a bunch of gun-toting kooks, which prevented the feds from seizing the cattle
You might notice that they are completely happy with the current administration, since they are not trying to stop them
Re: (Score:2)
The feds did move in though, and the state backed them up (they claimed that feds couldn't own land but individual states could). Part of the relunctance to take action is that they didn't want to get anyone hurt. Whereas in the Amazon the indigenous people are being killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively there are no indigenous people.... and the ones that are there now rely on modern society and in a generation or two will be indistinguishable from any other Brazilian
Re: (Score:2)
I was referring to events that happened this month, where tribal chiefs still living in the Amazon were killed by miners.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is... it isn't Bundy's job to prove he has the right to do something, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that he is causing significant harm go public lands, which is probably impossible... the only harm I've read of him causing are to a few municipal facilities and private and considering they've been grazing that land for over 50 years, and some of their fa
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the rest of the government in Brazil is much more left than their president and simply sending a small battalion of firefighters to fight a quarter of the continent on fire just to score political points.
Kind of like how our senators refuse to fund ICE and then blame them for a crisis they shaped themselves with over 10 years of underfunding and poor policy.
As long as politicians use a crisis to score points (on all ends of the spectra) nothing will be solved.
Natural treasures, of a sort (Score:4, Interesting)
You may not be able to explain why people do this [youtube.com] from a rational perspective, whichever level of society they operate on.
Re: (Score:3)
You may not be able to explain why people do this [youtube.com] from a rational perspective, whichever level of society they operate on.
Interesting that you bring up levels of society and rational perspective. Not all that long ago people from developed nations went to the rain forest and taught the locals to get rich and developed by slash and burn agriculture. Now that behavior has become part of the local society the people from the developed countries are having fits and calling the locals irrational.
Re: (Score:2)
"People" meaning some people or most people? Also, it's as if we've collectively learned things and are trying to spread and implement that knowledge.
But please, continue to smoke cigarettes to improve your heal [healio.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They are being told that preserving the Amazon is a waste of time and that they are being prevented from improving their own lives.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll burn the Amazon in a heartbeat if the alternative is starving or not having clean water.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that burning the forest screws the clean water (no trees to filter and act as a reservoir) and is just barely economically justified.
Re: (Score:2)
If I get paid, I can go buy a shovel and dig a well.
Re: (Score:2)
Your decision, buy a shovel or food. I guess you can eat your cow when the price of beef drops slightly.
So... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
The movie, Brazil, is a great example of how we are going to end up if this crap continues
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who to believe? (Score:5, Informative)
"The US space agency, Nasa, has on the other hand said that overall fire activity in the Amazon basin is slightly below average this year."
More exacly: https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
Honestly I'd rather believe NASA. INPE's satellites are reportedly known for not being precise enough, and there are suspicion of "double counting" deforested areas. NASA is probably better suited for monitoring the Amazon forest.
OTOH even if deforestation and fires are at the same rate of the past years, Bolsonaro should do better in environmental issues than his predecessors.
Re:Who to believe? (Score:5, Informative)
Not exactly what they are saying
They are saying that this is only the start of the season:
"Typically, activity peaks in early September and mostly stops by November."
And they are saying that it is above average in many areas:
"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. "
But what matters is total average (Score:4, Insightful)
They are saying that this is only the start of the season:
True, but why does that matter if the level of fires is at average? It's irrelevant.
And they are saying that it is above average in many areas:
While that's unfortunate for some specific areas, if the discussion is about the global climate would not the TOTAL matter quite a lot more?
And in fact they said in the article:
total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years.
So in other words what is happening now is pretty much exactly average for the Amazon basin. Yet the articles about this proclaim it as some kind of end of world doom scenario, when come to find it's simply something that has happens every year, without the world ending in past years.
Why stoke such horrible fears in people? This is pretty close to evil to my mind, to bring people to worry about something (specially Amazon forest fires) they have no control over and is not actually a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
oh lookee, it is the global warming denying fossil fuel industry apologist SK
I hope you don't mind if I do not spend any amount of time seriously responding to you, since I know that you are nothing more than a shill who just plays the same cards over and over again
Have a nice day, and heavens help anybody who actually believes your spew
Re: (Score:2)
Facts be damned right?
Re: (Score:2)
The article they are discussing is from TWO WEEKS AGO at the start of the fire season
The facts are that is has increased since then, and that is what is NOW being reported.
The fact that trolls are posting out of date info and trying to present it as current should be alarming to you
Re: But what matters is total average (Score:4)
Looks like you won that argument with facts and logic. Good job!
Thanks for pointing out that, while Brazil is having problems, wild fire rate in the basin is about average.
Re: (Score:2)
All that proves is that it's been an on-going disaster for decades that we have failed to address.
Re: (Score:2)
"unprecedented" has a specific meaning.
The last thing the conservation movement needs is easily debunked stories that can be used to put doubt in people's minds by those who would gleefully eat their own seed corn. The ongoing deforestation is already bad enough that it doesn't need hyperbole.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice piece of information. I was just thinking about how interpreting data can be tricky. According to Gilberto Câmara, Inpe is actually pretty good - number 1 he says.
Information from Nasa saying it is the same is irrelevant if Inpe data is more accurate.
I mean, it could mean it is too accurate and they are comparing old inaccurate data with new data that can capture smaller fires, hence the trouble, but it is such a simple mistake I would reckon they did not do it.
tl;dr Inpe data is the best we have
Learn something new every day. (Score:2)
I did not know that Amazon owned a rainforest.
Makes sense though (Score:1)
I did not know that Amazon owned a rainforest.
Well where do you think all those shipping boxes came from anyway?
Not to mention all of the Jaguar heads [amazon.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know they also don't exclusively hire warrior-women?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know they also don't exclusively hire warrior-women?
Yes, but now I think they should.
Re: (Score:2)
Not even with product names like Kindle and Fire?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a rainforest on the Earth, so therefore...
Bolsanaro suggests it is NGOs ... (Score:3)
Jair Bolsanaro, the populist president of Brazil, is suggesting that NGOs are setting the fires [bbc.com] to embarrass the government, and because their funding was cut.
Conspiracy theories and blame, the tell tale sign of the new crop of populists.
Good news for Amazon stock price (Score:2)
If the Kindle in Amazon is being consumed at an unprecedented rate, I guess, that is good for the company
20% of the world's O2? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
Seriously, when a tree captures CO2, stores the Carbon in the Wood of the tree and expires the Oxygen into the atmosphere, it is NOT carbon neutral.
This is because the wood will retain the carbon for a very long time, while the Oxygen is released immediately
Unless, of course, the wood is being burned, at which point you could call the burned trees carbon-neutral
I do not know what is a bigger threat, shills like you spewing the garbage, or the idiots that want to believe it
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, you're so far ahead of us that it's a wonder you are here to make sure we all are corrected.
Re: (Score:2)
The carbon density of the rainforest can't increase infinitely. The carbon pulled out of the atmosphere is all destined to eventually be put back in the atmosphere when the plant life naturally dies and decays. You may get a short term net reduction of atmospheric carbon if you increase the density of rainforest vegetation or allow it to cover more land area, but there's a limit. Eventually you get to a point where plant life is dying as fast as it's growing.
OP's explanation is simplistic to the point of b
Re: (Score:2)
Liberate the Amazon? (Score:2)
Wouldn't a sort-of global eco dictatorship be due considering the current state of things in general?
I'd support an invasion of the amazon to save it, hands down. That's about the only thing that would justify taking land away from other people - if they positively can't keep it clean and healthy and are endangering the whole planet as a result.
What do you think?
Re: (Score:2)
lol, BOMB THE AMAZON TO SAVE IT!!!
Naw, I don't think that would work out well, these things need a gentler, long term approach
Why are we so eager to extinct ourselves? (Score:2)
Is this why we can't find any alien civilizations out there in the vastness of the Universe? Intelligence destroys itself after a certain point?
Re: (Score:3)
We have been able to consume our own environment without ceasing for the entire history of our species, and it is only now that we are approaching a tipping point on a global scale.
It is hard to get people to change how they look at things, particularly when just 50 years ago the forests and jungles were seen as wild-lands that had to be tamed
We need to look at beliefs that are intent on holding on to the past and find a way to replace them with something that works in the long term
Yeah, it's gonna suck, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
burning brush on cleared land in Brazil won't extinct us. you've been conditioned by hollywood or twitter that the rainforest in the amazon is some magical place that will cure cancer or some shit.
this fire is nothing next to global carbon emissions too. It's done every year and NASA says thus far it looks like every other year of farmers burning brush
get a grip
Self defence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And what country would have the moral authority to go in there with their military to tell them to stop burning their rainforest?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Self defence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
those fires are not causing any grief to rest of world, stop exaggerating. The global carbon emission for 2019 will not be affected one bit by it (math is hard)
This is a very complex issue (Score:1)