India Has Lost the Second-Largest Forest Area Among All Countries in Five Years (yahoo.com) 47
India lost 668,400 hectares of jungles on average between 2015 and 2020, a new report has said. From a report: The is only second to the scale of deforestation in Brazil, noted the report released last month by Utility Bidder, a UK-based utility costs comparison firm. Brazil lost nearly 1.7 million hectares of forest between 2015-2020, as climate change adversely affected forest growth. Utility Bidder's report analyzed deforestation trends in 98 countries over the past 30 years. "As the country with the second largest population in the world, India has had to compensate for the increase in residents -- this has come at a cost in the way of deforestation," the report stated. Since prime minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, his government has given an impetus to stalled projects approved under his predecessor, besides launching fresh ones. For this, vast areas of forestry needed to be cleared.
India is becoming... (Score:5, Insightful)
India is becoming yet another totalitarian hellscape. All their best and brightest try to get to America.
That isn't really a pertinent conclusion (Score:3, Informative)
They have a lot of people, still growing, and by and large, they cook on wood and use oil lamps for lighting.
A milliard people cooking on wood can't possibly be good for forestation.
Re:That isn't really a pertinent conclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
You're correct. Their national population added an additional 84.7 million people in those 5 years. What were they supposed to eat? Wear? And where they supposed to live and work?
That's equivalent to 1/4 of the population of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
When they get over to America, they realize we are going downhill in that direction too.
I had an Indian Coworker, and I wished her a Happy Diwali, Other than being surprised a White Middle Age guy knew about Diwali, she didn't plan on celebrating it, in fear of her neighbors.
This isn't a sign of a free open society.
Re: India is becoming... (Score:1, Troll)
The USA has entire political party that hates anything different.
An international beer company trying to expand their sales added another endorsement actor to the line up. They didn't cut they added. Something done all the time. Republicans are literally shooting their bud cans in protest.
Can't have a completely open society when half the population wants to murder people for not believing like they do.
Re: India is becoming... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did you actually see Mulvaney ads? (Score:3)
Bud is beer for poor white conservative men. Using Dylan Mulvaney as a spokesperson for Bud is insulting to those poor white conservative men. It's a complete mismatch on the part of the marketing department. It'd be like Starbucks using Trump to sell lattes to liberals. It's an insulting marketing mismatch that liberals would be just as upset about.
Interesting point, but I would counter with the the question: "where did you see this ad?" Yeah, Starbucks running Trump ads during the Daily Show or Steven Colbert's show would be very stupid on Starbucks part, but pitching it on Parler?...I don't know if people would be as insulted. Yeah, some would overreact, but I would wager you won't see liberal celebrities buying several lattes and posting social media videos shooting them up with assault rifles like Kid Rock did.
Bud is not for conservatives o
Re: (Score:2)
The only reason people are angry about this, instead of being comp
Is it any better in India? (Score:4, Informative)
The USA has entire political party that hates anything different.
Do you know any Indians? If you think Americans are bad, meet more Indians. Try asking them about Pakistan. America has serious issues, yes, but we really need to evaluate relative to other countries. America has shitty racists...but if I have any shitty racist American-born coworkers in the office, I am unaware and they're keeping their bigotry on the down-low. I have a large number of Indian coworkers...well educated, white collar engineers, who are overtly hostile towards non-Indians and especially black or Latino coworkers or other Indians of the "wrong" caste or religion.
In America, if you're an overt racist, you keep it on the down-low in the workplace. In my state, if you say something racist, you become a social pariah, at least among most people with a college degree. Many of my Indian coworkers: a mix of H1Bs, naturalized US citizens, and workers in our Indian offices have far less hesitation to show racism, if not overtly express it.
The Civil Rights movement is old news for most Americans. Most Americans have been taught since they were born that racism is bad and acting racist is bad. It doesn't seem to be hammered into the minds of many Indians as much. Even most far-right individuals who get labeled racist are not overt white supremacists. Their views may be problematic to many, but the racism is more often than not quite indirect and arguably not technically racism. (not defending their views, but there's a huge gap between Margorie Taylor Greene and David Duke)
America has many opportunities for improvement. However, when you're comparing them to India, I'd say we're quite a bit ahead of them in terms of tolerance of diversity. Again, go around to your Indian friends. Ask them about Pakistan, Indian Muslims, Homosexuals, or just whomever is the "wrong caste" to them. Ask them what they think of black people. Hopefully most of your friends will not say anything problematic, but I'll wager you'll find more Indian-born individuals comfortable expressing hostility towards marginalized groups than their American counterparts in similar occupations with similar education levels.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA has entire political party that hates anything different.
One? There are a lot of subjects you can't speak about these days because members of both parties are just waiting for the chance to pounce. Say the wrong thing around the wrong person and either you're instantly deemed "deplorable," or somebody agrees with you that was already deemed deplorable, therefore your argument, and yourself, auto-magically take on all negative traits of that somebody that agreed with you. Public conversation of any type is an absolute minefield of fuck yous.
There was a time I coul
Re: (Score:1)
There was a time I could have a polite conversation with nearly anyone I met, even the first time I met them.
They cannot even have a heated debate anymore, either. They want complete cancellation & censorship or nothing. Of course, these are people with such a lack of critical thinking skills that they accept whatever the media tells them. They melt down when someone uses logic, because they've so rarely encountered it. They eschew the need for debate by simply advocating violent authoritarianism and total big-government coercion.
it's making me wonder if we're worth trying to save.
I wonder, too. It also makes me ashamed (where I used to have pride) in building
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Say the wrong thing around the wrong person and either you're instantly deemed "deplorable,"
You say this like it's bad. All you have to do is stop saying deplorable things, then it doesn't matter who you talk to.
Yes yes, I know. What you actually meant was that people can be overly sensitive and make judgements about others even when those others haven't said anything deplorable. This has always been true, but it's been elevated lately with the extremization of politics. It used to be that we'd just be arguing over little stuff, like taxes, and would generally agree on the big stuff, like Nazis
Re: (Score:2)
Say the wrong thing around the wrong person and either you're instantly deemed "deplorable,"
You say this like it's bad. All you have to do is stop saying deplorable things, then it doesn't matter who you talk to.
Isn't it interesting how you went right to, "Don't be deplorable." Hell, it's hard to keep track of what's deemed deplorable for people trying to live their lives while doing their best not to put others down. I've been attacked for calling myself a spazz when I dropped something. How does that make me a deplorable?
Yes yes, I know. What you actually meant was that people can be overly sensitive and make judgements about others even when those others haven't said anything deplorable. This has always been true, but it's been elevated lately with the extremization of politics. It used to be that we'd just be arguing over little stuff, like taxes, and would generally agree on the big stuff, like Nazis. You can disagree over the little stuff without condemning the person who you're talking to. It's hard to do that with some of the big stuff.
This is what I was getting at. We're at a point where one, tiny, little slip outside the lines that someone else has created instantly means in that other person's eyes, you're trash. Used to be
Re: (Score:2)
Almost nobody in the US would feel anything if she celebrated Diwali, not even the vast majority of Trumpers. She's operating on her Indian-social-media understanding of the world, where everyone hates everyone. This reflects where she came from, not where she is.
On Brazil... (Score:4, Insightful)
climate change adversely affected forest growth
That's an odd way of phrasing "Bolsonaro pillaged the environment"
Re: (Score:3)
It hardly started with Bolsonaro. That was going on before he was even born.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It hardly started with Bolsonaro. That was going on before he was even born.
He didn't invent it, but he did magnify it [courthousenews.com], and it's unclear why you would dissemble on that subject unless you wanted to protect him. And it's unclear why you would do that unless you have a taste for boot leather.
Re: (Score:2)
No Bolsonaro doesn't have the benefits of being ignorant of the impact of environmental devastation. Even if he didn't massive increase the rate of deforestation, the fact he didn't reduce it at this day and age is horrible enough. He deserves 100% of the blame for what went on in Brazil during his reign. What came before was irrelevant.
More is less (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get how some say that population (growth) isn't our biggest environmental problem.
Because we have more than enough resources if we just allocated them reasonably and cut out the worst of the waste. Or at least, we have had. Arable land is shrinking, so soon the planet actually might not be able to support so many people even in the best case.
Re: (Score:3)
We could always get the population down to managable levels. Perhaps try something along the lines of TNR: Trap Neuter Release.
Re: (Score:1)
We could always get the population down to managable levels. Perhaps try something along the lines of TNR: Trap Neuter Release.
OK, but we need to start with the wealthy, and they are the ones supplying the dimes. The richer the parents, the greater the ecological impact of the offspring (on average.)
Re: (Score:2)
This phrase has been forwarded to the FBI. Shortly your parents will be "rendered" to Poland for "vigorous" questioning over how you came to hold such anti-American opinions. We have super-duper Li-ion batteries for our cattle prods now, so you'll only have minimal intermissions in the screaming we relay to your cells.
More precisely (Score:2)
or more precisely population x (consumption from unsustainable processes).
On this count, one US citizen for example contributes about 10x to the problem as one Indian citizen.
Indian population is not 10x greater than US population. Only about 4x.
So... what was the problem again?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. US per capita income is something like $40K. In order to put Americans in line with the rest of the world, that must be reduced (for example by inflation) to $4K in current dollars in order to get the 10x reduction. I assume that because climate change is an existential crisis, y'all are going to be happy with a $4K/yr paycheck.
Re: (Score:2)
Please try not to be dishonest. You know that's a bullshit argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you could achieve a reduction in that by reducing disposable income, but that's not necessary, and only helps you score your cheap political point.
You can also achieve a reduction in the climate problem by transitioning the economy so that we consume the outputs from sustainable processes.
For example,
consuming products of decarbonized industrial process and supply chain
Population growth is expected to stop (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't get how some say that population (growth) isn't our biggest environmental problem.
UN estimates are that world population will peak around 2050 and then decrease.
This is an update from previous estimates of the early 2000's, where the population was expected to peak around 2090.
Population growth is slowing and expected to stop. All developed nations are seeing net negative population growth, and only the less developed ones have a population problem (example: Chad). Japan, as an example (126 million), is losing 1/4 million each year, and the decline is expected to increase (and stay at that increased level, around 1/2m to 1m per year) in the next few years as the population ages out. US fertility levels is below replacement by a wide margin, and US population only increases due to the very high level of immigration.
One way to combat climate change is to modernize all the countries. Referring to Maslow's "hierarchy of needs", once safety and security are established the population will turn its attention to their local living conditions, and this effect has been is seen in all developing nations so far.
Note that the UN estimates cited above were upgraded because we recognized the problem and began mitigation effects; such as, bringing 2/3 of the world out of poverty. We've done that at a rate that far exceeded the UN estimates, and are now focused on even more quality of life improvements for wide swaths of the world population. This will probably bring the birth rate down even faster, and it wouldn't surprise me if the UN updates its estimates again before 2050.
So overall population growth was an issue, but we seem to be conquering it at a respectable rate, without draconian measures, and by bringing up everyones' standard of living.
Reduce suffering and misery FTW.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we are still using up natural resources faster than nature can replenish them, and atmospheric CO2 is still increasing. By that measure, the planet is already overpopulated.
If you modernize all countries (Score:2)
We have a carefully crafted system here. You can't just go changing it like that.
elephant in the room? (Score:2)
we can't preach / recommend mandatory birth control -- we'd be accused of supporting genocide!
Dang'd if you do or don't...
Re:More is less (Score:4, Insightful)
100% agree. The for certain, number one biggest risk. There's a train of thought that says, "Hey if the Western nations, in particular the USA were to dial down consumption to some much lower level we're all fine." While I totally agree that the USA is grossly over-consumptive, I respectfully disagree with the simply reduce consumption. Since it requires a radical change in human behavior that is simply not realistic. The only way our collective, planet-wide, behavior will change is when we abruptly hit that red line of being effectively out of water, petroleum, rare earth metals, helium...food(!).
The way to avoid that miserable conclusion is by reducing population...no of course not solyent green, nor Logan's Run. But plain old birth control and incentivizing.
We also need to get away from this idea that reducing populations are some sort of doom. First it's "Population growth is doom" then the news is "Population declines are doom". Stabilizing population to a lower, sustainable level is going to be fine. Especially given productivity gains we have accrued over time. IMHO the productivity gains have been more or less growing in a polynomial fashion, while of course population has been growing exponentially until recently
Quick example. Japan is listed as the poster child for population decline. At the end of WWII it had ~80 million persons. It peaked at around 130 million, and is now declining. Does anyone think that if Japan reverted back to 80 million people over the next 60-80 years that they will not be able to function? They'll be fine at that level, especially if the rest of the world is also resetting. Will there be problems to solve like the aging of the population, reduced workforce, etc. Yes of course. But those are no existential problems like running out of food or drinking water.
The counter argument is the "keep popping out babies to care for the retirees" and that makes as much sense as building more fossil fuel power plants to power air conditioners as the temperature rises due to more fossil fuel power plants.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:3)
With India now having the most people on the planet in an area almost three times smaller than China, they have to make room for all the bodies and what better way than to cut down forests.
Of course this also helps heat up the country because of less shade and reflected light, but since when has that been an issue in India?
With any luck, the increased heat and pollution will help even things out.
Re: (Score:2)
So where do you propose to put all the people?
To put them all in the cities you still have to cut down forests to build the housing, or to mine the metals to build the buildings.
China's demographics have changed, how are India's looking? I'll have to wander off and see.
That model missed (Score:2)
And it wasn't even that old,
The UN’s 2019 assessment suggested that as far as the population size as concerned, India would surpass China in the next 7–8 years and would continue to increase until the year 2061 when its population size would reach 1,650 million. India may experience a decline in its total population after 2061 and count 1,444 million people in the year 2101.
https://oxfordre.com/publichea... [oxfordre.com]
But: it's not 2026 yet.
Looking at population estimates that the UN has published for July
Re: (Score:2)
No. Most of the population of India is highly concentrated in a few small areas where there are few forests to speak of. India isn't running out of space for people. They are strip mining forests for resources.
Continued madness (Score:2)
India is just carrying on a fine tradition of deforestation that the rest of the world is heavily advanced on.
As a result it will be unliveably hot there, with severe droughts and floods, alternating.
So much for tree planting. (Score:2)
It will never keep up with this loss.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually African nations are in project of planting 100 million hectactres / 3 million trees.
So yes the rest of the world can more than keep up if effort made
Forest cover % and carbon emissions also relevant (Score:1)
Proportinoality (Score:2)
So, young, foreign, brown people pay the costs for the West's past dirty shit. Well HOLD THE FRONT PAGE, we've got news to report"