Say goodbye to the lungs of the earth 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   caniscandida Posted 12:07 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Or rather,the agribusiness people say that the new reports of persistently high deforestation rates are grossly exaggerated.  "The government should be ashamed of itself, for releasing such a report!  It gives Brazil a bad name!"
   Many of us must feel very helpless indeed.  The deforestation of the Amazon has been in the news for a long time, the reasons why that is a bad thing are fairly widely understood, there is lots of pressure from many quarters pressing against the work of the forest-clearers, the Brazilian government is on board -- and yet, it just keeps happening, worse than ever.
   What is to be done?
   
   Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

   Permalink

2. 

   Jonas Posted 12:40 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Anti-people's lobbyThe anti-people's lobby says biofuels have everything to do with Amazonian deforestation, even though pro-people biofuel crops grow 1000 miles South of anti-people's lobby's forest.

   Permalink

3. 

   Jonas Posted 12:46 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Seriously, thoughWhy don't the critics put their money where their mouth is?
   Get together with some friends, create a fund to protect the Amazon, and buy a plot of rainforest.
   You will have to pay around $100,000 to $200,000 per acre.
   The Brazilian people and government will welcome you.
   Let's not forget that the fact that you are now a 'green sensitive' person is merely the result of the fact that you deforested Europe and the US centuries ago for your own development.
   If you don't want poorer nations to develop along the same pathway, then offer them the funds to avoid it.
   Good luck.

   Permalink

4. 

   sindark Posted 12:53 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Forests are keySorting out deforestation is critical and urgent. It represents about 18% of emissions, according to the World Resources Institute, and is probably much cheaper to stop than other GHG sources.
   Building solar panels in cloudy Germany while the forests of Latin America and South East Asia burn is bad prioritization.
   
   a sibilant intake of breath

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 1:02 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Fair and balanced"That debate has raged even within Brazil's government, with President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at times striking an environmentalist line and at other times downplaying the dangers of agribusiness to the Amazon."
   It's a "fair and balanced" approach.  To divert attention while the corporate bribes accumulate in Swiss banks, under the key politician's secret account numbers.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

6. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:02 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Most cane is presently growing where thegreat Atlantic Rainforest used to be, cleared with the blood of slaves. Life span of many of today's cane workers is about the same as the slaves they replaced. Expansion of cane is coming at the expense of existing carbon sinks (Cerrado etc). Displacing grazing pasture with crops simply forces cattle herders to clear rainforest for more pasture.
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-mcgowan/biofuel-could ...
   And, contrary to what President Lula and some others have claimed, cane is indeed cultivated there [Amazon]. In July, Brazilian authorities raided an Amazon sugar cane plantation, in which 1,000 laborers were found working in horrendous debt-slavery conditions. The company, Para Pastoril e Agricola SA, grows cane for ethanol on a 10,000-hectare (24,700 acre) plantation in Pará state, in the Amazon. Global bank HSBC Holdings PLC got unwelcome publicity for loans it had made to the firm, as did Lula - who had been calling ethanol producers "national heroes." Many sugar-cane cutters in Brazil work in miserable conditions.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 1:13 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Just pay "Lula"?"You will have to pay around $100,000 to $200,000 per acre."
   Cheaper to pay Lula directly.  How much does he charge per acre?  
   The usual rate here in the US is 1000 bucks to the GOP per million dollars worth of contractor theft of tax dollars.
   These are frontier prices though, in the Amazon.  If land is worth 100k to agribizz it would most likely net 10 bucks for Lula and his cronies.
   Bargain pricing!  What if we offered 12 bucks per acre to preserve it?
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

8. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:30 am
   10 Jun 2008

   The US destroyed its greatgrassland carbon sink resulting in the dust bowl of the 30's. It was an incredibly stupid thing to do and totally unnecessary. We still became the wealthiest nation in the world. It won't be necessary for Brazil to destroy it's environment to grow its economy either. That is the whole idea--to learn and not to repeat past mistakes.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

9. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 5:06 am
   10 Jun 2008

   Could you please provide a link ...... to your land-price estimate.
   Mongabay says that, according to a local cattle rancher, prices for pasture land in the Mato Grosso was around $450 per hectare in early 2007.
   Let's say the price trebled over the last 16 months, and that land prices in the Amazon are double those in the Mato Grosso. That still comes to no more than $3,000 per hectare, which is around $1,200 per acre.
   So where do you get $100,000 to $200,000 per acre?
   
   These are only my personal opinions.

   Permalink

10. 

    Jonas Posted 2:45 am
    11 Jun 2008

    Ron, you have to look at opportunity costsRon, you have to look at the real costs of conservation.
    If you want to protect a patch of rainforest, you have to "neutralize" all the economic, social and cultural pressures on this land; both the direct and the indirect pressures.
    If you don't do this, you are merely displacing the problem and it will pop-up some place else.
    This means you have to relocate people, build new high-rise cities to house them, pay for education, health care, social programs, the creation of workable economic markets, provide all goods and services (food, water, etc...), possibly implement a population policy, etc... which is what you really need to eliminate these stresses and to allow the Brazilian society to leapfrog into post-modernity.
    Building a postmodern city that cuts away the social, economic and cultural stresses on forests, costs a lot of money.
    Just buying up a plot of land and protecting it with a machine gun (which is what most naive conservation schemes come down to), is obviously not going to work.
    Hence the rough estimate of $100,000 to $200,000 per acre. It's a highly conservative estimate.

    Permalink

11. 

    amazingdrx Posted 11:58 pm
    11 Jun 2008

    Lula lost the respect of the left'In the minds of most MST members, President Luis Inácio "Lula" da Silva and the Workers' Party (PT) have failed to implement the radical economic and social reforms that were promised, especially agrarian reform. According to José Maria Tardin, who was elected the first mayor of the PT in the state of Paraná in 1989, and now works in the MST, "For the left, Lula is the biggest political tragedy in the history of Brazil."'
    http://www.counterpunch.org/kenfield06182007.html
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

    Permalink