Biden To Pledge $500 Million To Stop Deforestation In Brazil 73
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: President Biden on Thursday will pledge $500 million over five years to fight deforestation in Brazil, a White House official said, in a move that would make the United States one of the largest donors to the global Amazon Fund. But the pledge would require approval from Congress, where Republicans are overwhelmingly opposed to international climate assistance and have made it difficult for President Biden to deliver on his promises to help poorer nations cope with climate change. Brazil's president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has been working with the Biden administration on several issues, including climate change, despite Mr. Lula's criticism of U.S. support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.
The Amazon Fund, a conservation program, was established by Brazil in 2008 and has bankrolled efforts to curb deforestation in the world's largest rainforest. Norway, the first and largest contributor to the fund, has donated more than $1.2 billion. Germany recently announced a $217 million donation. But the fund was suspended under Mr. Lula's far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who weakened environmental protections and saw annual average deforestation rates soar, reaching levels the country hadn't experienced in more than a decade.
The Amazon Fund, a conservation program, was established by Brazil in 2008 and has bankrolled efforts to curb deforestation in the world's largest rainforest. Norway, the first and largest contributor to the fund, has donated more than $1.2 billion. Germany recently announced a $217 million donation. But the fund was suspended under Mr. Lula's far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who weakened environmental protections and saw annual average deforestation rates soar, reaching levels the country hadn't experienced in more than a decade.
Tony Brazil: (Score:5, Funny)
"Send us money or the climate takes one in the trees."
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much it..
The government of brazil controls the territory, they could easily make it illegal to cut down the trees and throw anyone in jail who is caught doing so.
They don't because it's profitable to cut down trees, you can sell the lumber and use the now empty land for other profitable activities like farming or building, unless it becomes more profitable to let someone else pay you to leave the land as a forest.
No chance. (Score:3)
I know, I always estimate on the high side.
Re:No chance. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh don't be so pessimistic, it's just that trans-athletes are a much more urgent issue than climate change right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod my comment 'troll' all you want, but gas prices and inflation were supposed to be the hot topics when Republicans took over the House. If mentioning that hurts....
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Considering some of the laws attacking trans people going into effect, protecting them is actually quite urgent now. Victims of the culture wars need help right away.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
We all know there is a 0% chance of this being passed by Congress.
Which is exactly why both voters and citizens need to understand and recognize a Weapon of Mass Distraction when presented.
Trillions have been approved and spent under the pass-this-NOW Congressional table, simply because citizens were too damn distracted by stupid shit. You know, like Roe vs. Wade being doused in political fuel and set on fire right around the time a $2 trillion dollar "rescue" plan needed to be passed.
Wake the FUCK up citizens. There is no damn reason your elected leaders should be dece
Re: (Score:2)
We all know there is a 0% chance of this being passed by Congress.
I know, I always estimate on the high side.
But isn't Brazil in the USA's back yard?
There's a lot of US soil trees could be planted on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's a lot of US soil trees could be planted (Score:5, Insightful)
If all you want is more forest, why just hope paying some remote country will do it? There is plenty of US soil that trees could be planted on - instead of vast corn or cattle farms, for example.
Several reasons:
1) The Amazon is much denser and has a lot more biodiversity, you can't recreate that in the US.
2) For many reasons it's a lot easier not developing wilderness than reverting developed land back into wilderness.
3) Cost effectiveness, $500m buys you a lot more trees in Brazil than it does in the US.
4) It's not just the global climate, it's local climate as well. The idea of a rainforest is the trees trigger a lot of the rainfall. If the Amazon keeps getting clear cut it eventually stops being a rainforest and you get mass desertification in South America (which then hits the global climate as well).
Charity begins at home.
It's not charity, it's paying Brazil to save your bacon.
Re: (Score:2)
3) Cost effectiveness, $500m buys you a lot more trees in Brazil than it does in the US.
It might not, for various reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, pretty sure when the parent was talking about vast tracts of land in America being "available", they weren't talking about turning our concrete jungles back into naturescapes. Undeveloped land, is still plentiful in the US. In fact, a shitload of it is owned by the US Government.
Defined "undeveloped".
If it's agricultural land then it's currently owned and being used for a commercial purpose. And it's also mixed in with a lot of other farmland, very expensive and complicated to re-nature.
If it's undeveloped, well then it wasn't supporting a forest before so it might not be able to support a forest now.
3) Cost effectiveness, $500m buys you a lot more trees in Brazil than it does in the US.
Now account for multiple layers of blatant corruption. Then get back to me as to what $500m buys in Brazil.
Depends how you spend it. Maybe the $500m is used to fight corruption.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Not only that, if Brazil becomes deforested and desertified, the U.S. can expect more mass migration up north. Even the Maga-Dolts should see that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Charity begins at home.
It's not charity, it's paying Brazil to save your bacon.
Indeed. But most people have _still_ not understood how dire the situation actually is. They still think this is a minor hitch that can nicely be solved in the next few decades. They still think they (or their children) can continue living in comfort. They may even think that this is just a problem of those "shithole countries". Nothing of that is true, of course, but it requires the ability to think more than a few years ahead and most people cannot do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is plenty of US soil that trees could be planted on
Planting an entire forest is significantly harder and more expensive than you think.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you want to do it its going to cost more than $500 million. Looks to me like another case of domestic NGOs sucking money out of the federal government. $500 million can't buy very much forest in brazil. But for $100 million a year, you can afford a few $5million a year salaries plus support staff and a nice office in DC.
As many as 14 million people could lose medicare (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You know who wants to cut medicare and SNAP benefits? It's not Biden.
Re: (Score:3)
all while Biden has let record inflation continue
Your post makes perfect sense. You think one man controls inflation. You think deforestation only affects Brazil. You think aid is only for Ukraine and nothing to do with what (or rather who) is involved and that they won't affect America.
You have an incredibly narrow view of how the world works.
food stamps getting reduced
The emergency program from COVID is ending. This isn't a reduction, it's an and to an agreed limited duration increase. But I guess Fox and Friends left out this detail?
Re: (Score:1)
Those programs were set to sunset by law. And try to get extensions through the Maga-Stupidified House now.
Peanuts (Score:2)
If the west wants to pay Brazil to not build roads, it will require closer to a trillion. The opportunity cost of poor connectivity to neighboring nations and lack of ability to mine resources are far more than this fund can cover.
Lula is only a supporter of the environment and tribes relative to Bolsonaro. He will not martyr Brazil.
Take a hard pass. (Score:1)
Brazil was barely honoring the Amazon Fund to begin with. Norway pulled out because "SURPRISE" when you vote in an ultra-rightwing political figure you get someone who says "Drill here, Drill no. . . er . . . Deforest here, deforest now".
So, $500m over the next five years is hardly going to convince Brazil to not strip mine the largest forest on this planet for the small amount of gold in the dirt. The entire point is that Lula has his rich patrons that he needs to appease and long story short, their econ
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to help Brazil. You don't want to save the Amazon. You want the many natural resources we have there.
Couldn't agree more. Altruism is just useful cover for rapacious greed in this world.
And you also want to keep Brazil from ever becoming as relevant as it could be
Well that's a little the world and a little Brazil shooting itself in the foot. I mean Brazil did bring back Lula for round two even after being cozy with Brazil hits like Collor and Sarney. I get that Bolsonaro was the opposite there, but I mean, to put it mildly it was like the Trump / Biden here in the US. That, that's the two choices indicates shits breaking all over the place. But at the same time, people here in
Re: (Score:2)
Btw, its funny that you mentioned Norway...while they complain about deforestation in Brazil, they keep hunting whales. Just like I said: a bunch of hypocrites.
Pretty sure by now the average educated person knows what happens when all the trees go away, but remind me again as to the negative environmental impact of hunting whales in Norway? Since Norway is one of the very few countries left that's still engaging in commercial whaling, I would assume all that banning everywhere else has actually had a proven impact? If not, who we bullshittin' here? Also:
"..the number of active Norwegian whaling boats has dropped from 350 in 1949 to around 20 in 2016 and 11 in 2017."
An industry shrinking by a few metric fucktons, would also have an obvious impact. Again, what exactly are t
Re: (Score:3)
What happened when the trees went away across half a continent is that it helped create modern Europe.
Somebody forgot to ask the real question (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well isn't that nice of him (Score:2)
To give out of his own pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is giving Brazil all that money going to help prevent climate change? Please be very specific. Do you think Brazil is going to stop deforestation?
Re: (Score:2)
You both exactly the same attitude as each other. We will do whatever suits us even when it screws everyone else.
Look forward to spending tens of billions of disaster recover.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so the better idea is to do nothing. You both exactly the same attitude as each other. We will do whatever suits us even when it screws everyone else. Look forward to spending tens of billions of disaster recover.
Fine. If you're looking for an actual answer, solve for obvious corruption in Brazil first.
If we were somehow blessed with the miracle of knowing for a fact that Brazil holds the magic key to solving deforestation, it still wouldn't matter because of the fucking corruption.
I look forward to when humans become intelligent enough to see the obvious again.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know the results of not trying and doing nothing....ZERO, or in this case, MUCH WORSE.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, do you think the USA is NOT corrupt ?
Never claimed that, but feel free to elaborate how that dilutes my point even slightly about handing Brazil money.
Do you know the results of not trying and doing nothing....ZERO, or in this case, MUCH WORSE.
We're here trying to fix the actual problem of deforestation. It's hardly a hypothetical to understand what the fuck we'll be left with in 100 more years if we take the do-nothing approach. But nothing is what you'll still end up with if you sit around and allow Greed N. Corruption to run the fucking project, and you know it. Only damn thing it'll do is give Greed an excuse to demand more mon
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, so the better idea is to do nothing.
Well, if your "something" is going to accomplish "nothing" then, logically, yes, it is better to do nothing--you will have done the same thing, but took fewer resources to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
But I do know that doing nothing will make climate change worse, which will see more extreme weather events, which will see loss of life and property, crop failures, water shortages, increased disease and ultimately increased violence as people fight over reducing resources.
Perhaps in the future the world will ignore the USA and its climate issues on the basis that helping "will achieve nothing"
And how will this help? (Score:2)
You can give countries all sort of money (the USA does) and they can spend it however they want. This isn't a throw money at it problem and it will go away. Even if this happens, it will amount to political points and nothing more.
They will still cut down the trees.
I agree with the sentiment, but (Score:3)
I agree with most of the sentiment posted on this topic.
1.) $500 million isn't enough to protect any meaningful amount of forest, at least from a climate change perspective
2.) $500 million isn't enough to get the Brazilian politicians to take notice
3.) Brazil has a history of corruption for monies like this.
4.) This seems like one of those domestic, political ploys. Bait the other side to vote this down, and then use this vote in campaign ads to rally your side.
All of that may be true. But the general idea is sound IMHO. Compared to all the other crap like sequestering, pulling CO2 from the air mechanically, seeding the sky with aerosols, fusion reactors, covering Oklahoma with solar panels, etc. Something like this, if done relatively well would be the cheapest, fastest, and most effective mitigation for global warming. The real number is in many billions of dollars. And it doesn't mean that Brasil can't build some roads, or digs some mines. Just means you can't put in another Brasilia in the jungle nor do total strip mining. More importantly it means dealing with the small farmers and ranchers who want to burn everything.
Say $50 billion over many years to lease broad swaths of forest land, and some that can be replanted, monitored by satellite/drone, backed up by a pretty serious standing army ...I think it's doable. I don't want to pick a fight with Brazil or anyone else but the US has a history of protecting our financial interests abroad. Maybe have the CIA make the rounds to convince their politicians that our money is better than Petrobras'
Re: (Score:2)
1.) $500 million isn't enough to protect any meaningful amount of forest, at least from a climate change perspective
2.) $500 million isn't enough to get the Brazilian politicians to take notice
So it should be more then? How much, let's do it.
I'm pledging $500 (Score:2)
How does sending money prevent deforestation? (Score:1)
It is not like this is a natural disaster. The are slashing and burning to make money.
Re: (Score:3)
The[y] are slashing and burning to make money.
This.
And if you pay the indigenous people to not cut the trees, that's fine for a while. But they are nomadic and once they move on, you'll have to pay them all over again for their new patch of land. Plus pay the next tribe that moves in as well.
It is not like this is a natural disaster.
Right. It turns out that before Europeans arrived, the Amazon was much more extensively cultivated [wikipedia.org] than we have been led to believe.
Why the hell are WE paying for this? (Score:2)
WTAF? I can think of a lot better uses for the money domestically and he could even piss it away on green projects if he wants to. How about letting the Chinese pay for this?
What gives the president this right? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The President's role in foreign relations themselves is in Article II.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Article II? That's been fully ratified for about 30 years. True, that's two hundred years after it was written.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry but where is it stated in the US Constitution that the President has the right to give money to another country?
I'm sorry, but where is your proof again that we're still abiding by the US Constitution? It hardly still stands as even a guide anymore. If something violates it, violators merely grab the modern thesaurus to change the vernacular to make the violation less obvious. Somehow.
...I know it's a pledge and therefore just a promise which means nothing and sounds like a nice thing but I don't see what would actually give Biden the right to cut a cheque to do something like this.
Pledges and promises coming from Presidents that require Congressional approval, are dripping with politics for clicks sake. Biden, like every other politician, reserves the right to bullshit you. All day, every day. Believe it wh
Re: (Score:2)
It was reported that this requires congressional action. He merely "pledged" it. Sort of like praying you get better from your cancer.
and yet... (Score:1)
they still don't have decent drinking water in Flint, MI.
Idiot (Score:2)
Biden wants to send dollars to the people who have said they want to kill the dollar as the international currency. This is just flushing money down the toilet to keep him in the good graces of the green fanatics. Lula will say, thanks, sucker, and go on undermining the US and making nice with our enemies.