Brazil's president has unveiled plans to protect a large area of the Amazon rainforest, after weeks of mutterings that the country has insufficient protections in place. The proposal by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva would create three protected reserves for a total area the size of Vermont; the plan still has to be approved by Brazil's Congress. Amazon deforestation is on the rise, and while welcoming Silva's proposal, critics are still wary of the president's view that "environmental protection and development [of the Amazon] are not incompatible."
source: Reuters, Associated Press
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
How industry pressures and competing national agendas dim prospects for a climate treaty
Comments
View as Flat
Tasermons Partner Posted 3:59 am
06 Jun 2008
He'd do better to focus on that.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 9:45 am
06 Jun 2008
By definition, development destroys whatever natural area it takes place on. Development of a wild area like the Amazon is not only incompatible with protection of it, it's an absolute ecological disaster for that area.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:14 am
07 Jun 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:28 am
07 Jun 2008
Lula has agreed to build a road from the Amazon River Basin to the Pacific Ocean that will link the Amazon to ports in Peru. That road will create easy access for those who want to profit from destroying the rainforest. Roads are almost always the first step in forest destruction, though trees can unfortunately also be killed by helicopter logging.
For some reason, I had a bad feeling about Lula when he was elected. No one seemed to have any info on his environmental record or positions. My suspicion has turned out to be correct, unfortunately for the Brazilian rainforest and its inhabitants. And BTW, how come these leftists never seem to care about traditional indigenous people, like those who live in rainforests and whose lives are being destroyed by roads and logging?
Permalink
5001 Posted 8:10 pm
07 Jun 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:42 pm
07 Jun 2008
But your point, Wolverine, is a good one. Environmentalists, scholars and scientists might naturally incline toward the political left wing. But they should no more approve of everything they find there, than should conservative Christians among those on the political right.
John Noble Wilford's piece, in today's Sunday New York Times, on the recently flown-over and widely reported "undiscovered tribe" in Amazonia, is fairly depressing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/weekinreview/08wilford. ...
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 11:06 pm
07 Jun 2008
Funny how people think "indigenous people" should more or less be left isolated, like animals in a nature reserve. Did it ever occur to anyone that isolated indigenous peoples die horrible deaths from easily preventable diseases? That they suffer incredibly high rates of infant mortality?
For those who think living like that is some sort of paradise, allow me one word on the subject: Dentistry.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:59 am
08 Jun 2008
Actually, it's sorta the other way around. Most isolated populations have very large die-offs when their isolation has been removed. They often have little or no immunity to diseases common in larger and more open socities.
Since the 1990s even, several "lost" and isolated tribes have nearly been wiped out by disease when they encountered traders, poachers, and even researchers from the outside world.
Their isolation is actually a defense against disease that they would'nt otherwise survive.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 3:31 am
08 Jun 2008
None. The biggest problem is overpopulation, and having to have elections is just another symptom of that problem. Hugo Chavez seems decent. He has talked about the need for Americans to stop driving gas guzzlers and the threats posed by global warming, but on the other hand his economy is based on oil, which I obviously don't support.
Guess what? Traditional indigenous people don't want contact with civilization. Ever see a video or picture of them throwing spears or shooting arrows at planes or helicopters? Remember the fishermen who were killed by the indigenous people when they got to close to the latter's island in the Andaman Islands?
Your post is anthropocentric, which is my complaint about the left and why I don't consider myself a leftist, even though I generally agree with leftist principles. The issue is not whether members of a certain group of people suffer horrible deaths -- and BTW, what do you consider a nice death and what group of people enjoys this? -- or suffer high rates of infant mortality, it's whether they've kept their population to an environmentally friendly low level and whether they otherwise live in an environmentally friendly manner. NO civilized group can claim either of these, because practice of agriculture defines civilization, and agriculture was the original cause of overpopulation. Only hunter-gatherers have the potential to live naturally enough to have naturally low populations and to otherwise not destroy the natural environment.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:41 am
08 Jun 2008
Yes, overpopulation is an issue. But when societies become affluent enough, population growth stops.
Hugo Chavez is a demagogue or the worst sort. Hilarious how you back him.
So you basically hate modern humanity? Good luck in what is going to prove to be a very difficult life.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 9:15 am
08 Jun 2008
Several problems with this. First, it usually slows down, not stops entirely (with some exceptions).
Secondly, when the population becomes affluent, they consume more resources, even more than a reasonably larger not-so-affluent population.
Compare consumption rates for basic good in America (300+ Million) with a less affluent country like India (1 Billion, 130+ Million).
Even though India has nearly 4 time the population of the United States, the average American consumes many more resources and thus America as a whole consumes many more resources than India does.
Even if the world population were to level off tomorrow and stay virtually the same, if the existing population began to consume as much as Americans do, the planet would not be able to support the population.
Indeed, it would take nearly 3.5 other worlds just a rich in resources as Earth in order to sustain the human population at that rate of consumption.
So yes, overpopulation is bad...but a population of wastefulness is worse.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 10:18 am
08 Jun 2008
Or, as Pope Benedict, and the UN "right to protect" ethicists would argue: Send in the troops! Advance the gunships! Snatch those babies! Save every life! (except for the guys you gotta kill ... )
But then: What do we do with all those babies? Why, the Pampers alone ...
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:20 pm
08 Jun 2008
First - people like to have sex.
Second - In poor countries, children are you social security.
Third - A lot of people are too stupid or too lazy to use contraceptives.
Fourth - in rich countries having kids often means collecting money from the state.
No, I oppose euthanasia. But caps on children per household? A good idea. But there will be enormous push back. Muslims and Catholics both believe the way to achieve dominance is through demographics.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 11:46 pm
08 Jun 2008
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is?
Get together with some friends and buy up a piece of rainforest.
Here's the cost you are looking at:
-you will have to compensate the Brazilians for refraining from modernity
-you will have to compensate them for mobility and for the very large economic benefits brought about by roads and access to markets
-you will have to pay them because modernity - which you are denying them - leads to social justice and progress
-you will have to pay for social, health, and educational policies from which they have to refrain
-you will have to compensate for reduced international and geopolitical power (because Brazil's agriculture makes it very powerful on the world stage)
-etc...
So you are looking at a bill of perhaps $100,000 to $200,000 per hectare of rainforest.
In return you get a plot that contains many valuable ecosystem services and that shows an amazing biodiversity.
If you're lucky you will find a cure for cancer somewhere deep in your patch of rainforest, and you'll get your money back instantly.
You willing to put up the money?
Go ahead, I'm sure the Brazilian government will welcome you.
Permalink
Jonas Posted 11:53 pm
08 Jun 2008
By the way, speaking of leftists. The only genuinely sustainable country on the planet is Cuba.
North Korea is surprisingly green as well; much more forests there than in South Korea.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:33 pm
09 Jun 2008
And while I decided years ago that without ending capitalism environmental destruction would never stop, that's nowhere near the heart of the problem, but a mere step.
I agree that Cuba is far less environmentally destructive than most other countries -- what about Costa Rica? -- it was not because Castro liked or respected nature, but because Cubans were forced to live without modern Earth destroying things, like massive amounts of petroleum, after the Soviet Union broke up. In fact, long before this, Castro stated his hatred for nature. To paraphrase, he said that nature must be conquered or it will conquer us.
Permalink
allancass Posted 5:28 am
12 Sep 2008
I hope oil will finish soon so that companies will release the long time ago discover alternative energy sources that are much more environment friendly.
Hide Windows Free
Permalink