Brazilian here. In fact, he rejects the term. Some people of his staff deny global warming and he is known for lying and using fake science to justify absurd measures, like removing most of the environmental protection in favor of agriculture. Even rejecting the title, he is known like "Captain Chainsaw" and many others nicknames, most of them mocking him. Unfortunately, in Brazil, our people have a taste for populist presidents, and in this case, he still have support of a big part of the population. Fortunately, his popularity is declining very fast.
What do you think can be done to accelerate this? Is there anything we in the West can do?
I've seen some petitions targeted at the Brazilian embassy here in my country - but not sure of its effectiveness, as it seems Bolsonaro doesn't really care what the West think.
Brazilian here. Meddling with politics could backfire hard, being wrapped around the flag with foreigners booing him could actually bounce back his popularity.
As for something the west could do, I'm not an expert, but I think offering to foot the bill for police and inspectors in the area would go a long way.
Most logging and burning in the Amazon is still illegal, but it's very hard to police a huge sparsely populated area[1], and our government is dysfunctional even when it tries. The average Brazilian has little to no sympathy for the criminals, but is ambivalent about paying more for police in the jungle far away. It would be a lot easier to argue for more officers if someone else was footing their salaries.
[1]The rogue logger only needs to win in a small area, any small area would do. The state needs to win everywhere.
There already was a international fund for paying for inspections and so on, but it was canceled after Bolsonaro said they were using that money to compensate farmers.
On a more positive note, an international reforestation / environmental fund should be set up ASAP to reward satellite-verified reforestation with $$$$ and tax countries for deforestation.
It can also use the money to build multi story farms, where solar energy or mirrors are used to feed plants on lower floors. You can save 5-10 the space for cows this way. Why are farms without any stories?
No downvotes from me because they're at least ideas to discuss, but in any story about multi-level farming, there is criticism based on cost/scale. Drive through farmland sometime and think about the cost of building a second storey on an area that size. That might've pushed some to downvote?
The main responsibility of the Amazon fires lies in the west. The Amazon is on fire in order for Brasil to be able to provide cheap meat for western countries.
This comes under two main forms, one is to make room for soy crops, used mostly for cattle feed and not for direct human consumption, the other is for creating pasture land.
The west, as well as China, encourage the Amazon fires by favorable trade agreements with Brasil, which incentivize the deforestation.
"The Amazon is on fire in order for Brasil to be able to provide cheap meat for western countries."
The largest markets for Brazil beef are, in order, Hong Kong, China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chile, and Venezuela. I don't think this qualifies as "Western Countries". A very small amount, relative to those consumers, goes to the EU.
Close to none goes to the United States or Canada -- a minuscule novelty amount -- both of which are entirely self sufficient with beef, poultry, etc, and are net exporters.
There is a point where "blame the West" just isn't constructive as a go to.
Are you really saying that because China is refusing to buy soy beans from the US, that makes the US to blame for China buying more soy beans from Brazil?
I'm saying that global demand for cheap meat (lead by both China and the west) is the actual cause for the ongoing deforestation, as the forest is being cleared to produce cattle feed.
And this is something hardly mentioned in the news at all, by whatever reason.
The trade wars with China have made things a bit worst recently, as there is more demand for brasilian soy.
The main responsibility for me lies with the consumers of the final product (meat), because they are driving the demand.
But OK it's not just the west after all, it's mostly the west and China, but really any nation that is importing cattle feed from Brasil is sponsoring the deforestation, it's a global thing.
It isn't the West at all beyond the most marginal of imports to a small number of EU countries. That you are trying to eek out some sort of completely convoluted way that your incorrect claim was right is becoming some serious mental gymnastics.
The West likes beef. The West overwhelmingly makes and feeds internally, having nothing to do with the Amazon rainforests. Will you now argue that the West is to blame because it doesn't make enough for itself and China?
If you argued that palm oil production was a factor you'd have some basis, but you are entirely and completely off base with these claims about beef.
You know well that there are a lot more crops other than soy being planted, it's obviously much more complicated than that.
Do you have any doubt that a lot of the products produced directly or indirectly as a result of the deforestation are being sold mostly to the richest countries in the world that can afford it?
Hmm, as I understand it, the US/China trade war you're referring to has been going on for about a year, total[0].
Looking at the graph for soybean production in Brazil, the increase in the past year has been pretty small and actually appears to be a slight slowing of the growth curve[1], even if the export curve looks rather different. I guess you could make an argument that the trade war has driven the increased deforestation over the past 12 months, but you could just as easily blame any number of other factors, notably including Brazil's current president who has rolled back a number of important environmental protections.
Not every problem needs to be exclusively the fault of the west - it's okay for other people to do things wrong as well.
Since you've edited your comment to now be about soy, the US and Canada are both entirely self-sufficient with soy and are major exporters. The EU does import soy from Brazil but it is a tiny consumer (and dropping) relative to China.
Again, not the West. What's next? Adam Smith and the creation of capitalism?
Answered above in another comment, AFIK the Amazon is being torn down mostly for cattle feed crops, soy and others.
A lot of the soy is exported all over the world, to china due to the trade wars with the US, to western countries which need cattle feed but don't have the land to produce those crops.
Developing nations have limited meat consumption still, the biggest consumers of meat is the west in general. The cattle feed needs to come from somewhere, a lot of it comes from the Amazon.
That doesn't answer anything. Brazil's meat and soy exports are overwhelmingly to destinations that are not the West. China did indeed shift a lot of consumption from Canada and the US towards Brazil. That's not Canada and the US' fault, and is 100% the actions and malice of China in trying to be punitive.
One thing's for sure, the forest is being taken down to produce cattle feed, with the final goal to produce cheap meat.
The biggest consumers are the West and China, so following the money I think those are the main responsible because it's their demand for the final product that is ultimately the economic reason behind the deforestation.
So indeed I underestimated the role of China in this process, has I thought historically the biggest consumers of meat have been the west.
The trade wars with China have recently increased the demand for brasilian soy, adding fuel to the fire so to speak.
Again, the US is a significant exporter of soy beans, and most of the rest of the west consume fairly little. China is by far the largest importer of soy beans, importing about 30x[0] more than the next largest. Aside from the US and Canada, many western countries are net importers of soy beans, but not in anything like enough quantities to demand anything like the vast amounts Brazil exports.
>The top exporters of Soybeans are Brazil ($25.9B), the United States ($22B), Argentina ($2.82B), Paraguay ($2.19B) and Canada ($1.91B). The top importers are China ($36.6B), Mexico ($1.72B), the Netherlands ($1.6B), Japan ($1.41B) and Spain ($1.31B).
It would appear China is the one with the insatiable appetite for soy, not the US and Canada.
No, it's not, and I for one get fed up with this constant self-shaming, or "riich western country-shaming" attitude.
The problem is the entire system.
Of course there is demand, but there is also supply.
Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options.
And both sides must hold each other accountable. Consumers must verify that production is sustainable, etc, and suppliers must insist on prices that support that, and reject quick-money offers/undercutting-schemes that undermine standards.
In this particulr instance, I think there is a case (even an imperative) for "the west" to try to impose eco-tarrifs or eco-certifications etc on Brazilian beef, in order to pressure for more sustainable production practices.
> Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options.
People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make enough money not to be in qualitative extreme poverty[1] let alone enough money to be able to freely choose options that are not cheapest. Extremely small portion of total people have any actual freedom to choose options other than cheapest.
> Consumers must verify that production is sustainable
Such verification is impossible as it requires infinite time and perfect information. It is always cheaper and more profitable to lie about sustainability than to actually be sustainable. When one hole is fixed 10 more holes appear.
By "consumers" I lean more toward "consuming countries". They should reject or penalize destructive products on behalf of individual consumers, just as they currently do for various product-safety standards.
Perhaps in the same way as CITES for banning trading in endangered species, or the various timber certifications, which are certainly imperfect and "full of holes" but at least a start. I think tech could vastly improve systems of provenance.
As I said, the system itself is at fault (as per your excellent link - thanks) - there will always be consumers wanting the cheapest price regardless, and suppliers willing to offer it, or even encouraging it (and certainly trying to hide the 'regardless' part of the equation).
Anyone familiar with a low carbon footprint meat brand or certification? Seems like an interesting market opportunity. I didn't find a source for child comment re "the West" not being a primary market for Brazilian beef exports, but it doesn't sound unreasonable. Nevertheless, my understanding is that the entire beef supply chain has a massive carbon footprint, and I would think that there is a market for upscale US-raised carbon neutral beef.
Is that even actually possible, carbon-neutral beef? I mean the deforestation implied for producing the crops that yield cattle feed, plus the methane emissions produced by the animal during it's lifetime, not to mention the water consumption that both the animal and the crops take, plus the huge amounts of excrements involved.
France and Ireland are on the brink to block ratification of the Mercosur free-trade treaties so there's that. I believe Germany (and Scandinavian countries eg. Norway has already cancelled paying into the Amazonas found, though not sure this is counter-productive) could be pressured by public opinion as well.
The Atlantic was sold in 2017 to the Emerson Collective.
The Emerson collective is a philanthropic endeavour of Laurene Powell Jobs, wife of late Steve Jobs.
Literally this article was published by the wife of a silicon valley tycoon.
This is why I only read IPCC Studies and pay attention to them. If the world burns out because of global warming, it'll be due to Scare-articles like this one.
If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation.
Expecting poor people to voluntarily give up on the opportunity to make money because you are threatened about your children's future but can't even be arsed to reduce your own consumption of beef is wishful thinking at best.
As the article says, the Amazon rain forest supplies 20% of the world's oxygen. We all need it. If we won't do what it takes to prevent the people there from killing it, we will all get exactly what we deserve.
It might helpful to introspect on why you'd rather have the money spent on one side of an imaginary line the ground rather than another.
> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation.
But if the income they're receiving is coming from a tax on beef, wouldn't they want to produce more?
> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation.
Wouldn’t this incentivise beef production? They would be indirectly paid for beef. Or am I reading this wrong?
> pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef and pay the proceeds from that tax directly to the people living in the amazon basin. That will incentivize them against deforestation.
Typical HN comment: "never seen a problem which couldn't be solved by more taxation"!
Why wouldn't I avoid the said tax and use saved money to buy couple acres of Amazon forest and employ private security to keep everyone off my land?
It's pretty insane to assume that multiple layers (local taxation plus redistribution to other countries) of incompetent and corrupt government employees can do a better job of protecting property than actual owners.
Beef is like 2 % of humanity's emissions. Gasoline-based transportation and electricity (mostly from coal power plants) are together like 60 %.
It's obvious which one we need to focus on. Stop it with the beef already. We need data driven approach. We really really don't need hysteria based approach where something (like beef) is declared sinful.
Regardless of emissions, beef production is contributing to this specific problem. From the article:
> Much of the deforestation binge is being driven by farming pressure: The Amazon basin is the largest exporter of beef in the world, with about 200 million heads of cattle. And all those cows need a lot of space to spread out.
Did you not read before telling us we need a "data-driven approach"?
Isn't that more relevant to a general climate argument than one about the world's ecological heartland being cleared with fire to raise cattle? And as an individual, isn't it possible to make small steps without huge sacrifices on both fronts?
Methane emissions from beef cattle account for about 2% of GHG potential. Tropical deforestation contributes to about 10% of our climate impact, most of which is driven by beef farming. There are also significant non-climate impacts of deforestation in terms of biodiversity.
Beef is a big deal. It's not the biggest deal, but it's one of many things we need to address. Electricity generation and transport are being rapidly decarbonized thanks to new technology, but there's no technological replacement for old-growth rainforest. We can generate electricity with PV panels, we can run a car or a ship on batteries, but we don't have any sustainable option for things like jet aviation and beef; for the foreseeable future, the only option is to drastically reduce our consumption.
Every "wallet voter" is in a kind of "prisoner's dilemma" with each other where it won't do anything if they stop unless everyone else stops too. But if everyone else stops then they can continue. Everoyne is aiming to be the one who can continue while everyone else stops thus nothing happens. Every collective downside of any consumption (and because of requirements for infinite growth there is always collective downside no matter what) will always go away if someone is the only one doing it.
So you cannot see or understand the system by looking at an individual. System that divides people into making rational individual decisions (called free market economy) without any real way to conspire co-operation is always going to result in something that is irrational for everyone as a whole. Everyone has to "defect" and for every person you convince against their self-interest to "co-operate" there will be 10 more "defecting". If you want best possible overall result you need entirely different system like centrally planned economy which for example walmart and amazon already uses.
If you attempt to fix the system instead changing it entirely you will just end up making it worse because of regulatory capture. The fault I described cannot be fixed because it would be contradictory to the very foundation, so instead of actually fixing anything it will make the system even more unfair and perverted.
Not everyone defects, and your conclusion that "regulatory capture" is inevitable, and that us little people can do nothing, is toxic. Both are wrong.
I've spent years of my life trying to change things but it is defeatists like you that are part of the problem - spreading "we're fucked anyway" memes is corrosive because it induces the exact attitude and behaviour you say will happen.
Let me be clear, if the world dies we die with it and you die too - got it? So please get off your butt, stop trying to look so worldly-wise, and do something. I know, I know, it takes more effort than posting on HN. Tricky, that.
I don't think I said so. In fact I am vegan myself. I said for everyone that co-operates 10 more will defect, which is true in sentiment because meat consumption keeps rising.
> we're fucked anyway
Well more specifically either capitalism ends or the world ends.
> Well more specifically either capitalism ends or the world ends.
Let's say capitalism ends right now without destabilizing the entire world (so no post apocalyptic scenario where only a few million survive). What would be a system that doesn't result in the "world as we know it" ending in the coming centuries? You would still have to deal with the current state of the environment and the current population. People will still be the same persons they are now, who wants to eat meat, over-consume, close their eyes when an issue doesn't concern them directly. Or do you see it in a different way?
> What would be a system that doesn't result in the "world as we know it" ending in the coming centuries?
Well like I said in my OP you'd need to have economy entirely based on planning around needs and environment as opposed to private profits.
> People will still be the same persons they are now, who wants to eat meat, over-consume, close their eyes when an issue doesn't concern them directly. Or do you see it in a different way?
It's hard to tell what people are "naturally" when they are forced to live under a system that requires those traits in order to function and perpetuate itself. If you remove overconsumption and individualism a capitalist economy will collapse, then it is most likely not a coincidence that people are like that in a capitalist economy and not their "true" nature.
If the system is even going to be changed it's going to be because critical mass of people have recognized the need to change it (not suddenly overnight) which implies they are no longer indoctrinated to overconsume and see the world in individualistic way and have assumed other ideologies that are needed to support and perpetuate the new system.
That's why I said you need to get laws passed making beef consumption extremely expensive. Individual acts of voting with your wallet are unlikely to succeed.
> If you are seriously concerned about climate change, pressure your government to impose a large tax on beef
Why not, but there are so many factors contributing to climate change that it's "suspicious" when people target one specific thing. It's quite difficult to be heard. Why should I renounce to eat beef, while other people have the right to have 3 kids, or to drive a SUV, or to fly to the other side of the world.
If it was possible, it would be best to integrate the cost of externalities in what we consume, so that everyone can choose to sacrifice what they value less. But maybe if we really had to pay for externalities, they wouldn't much that we could still afford.
People love meat. I've had discussions with (otherwise) intelligent and responsible people - they suddenly turn irrational and irresponsible when talking about the amount of meat they consume and its shitty effects on everything.
It is going to be really difficult to convince people to consume less meat, increase tax on meat etc.
Not saying we shouldn't try, but it is a tough problem to take on.
You really think ail deforestation is driven by the poor people, and not by the Brazilian meat packing corporations JBS, BRF, Marfrig and Minerva?
Slavery is still very widespread in the meat-packing industry in the region, I do not think the 'poor' have much agency in this<
"In the Amazon region, fires are rare for much of the year because wet weather prevents them from starting and spreading. However, in July and August, activity typically increases due to the arrival of the dry season. Many people use fire to maintain farmland and pastures or to clear land for other purposes. Typically, activity peaks in early September and mostly stops by November.
As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) 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."
Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has an anti-climate speech similar to Donald Trump's speeches on immigrants. This meant that in the city where I live, people began selling artisanal charcoal from burning near the city.
I have always heard that the rainforest is “carbon neutral” because a mature forest will emit just as much carbon as it absorbs. With that in mind, why does the fact that the rainforest produces 20% of the worlds oxygen matter? When I read the above claim I felt like it was trying to push the “rainforests save the atmosphere” angle and I do not know how accurate this sentiment is.
It goes without saying that cutting down the rainforest would release a lot of CO2 and should not be done for many reasons. I am just curious what the significance of producing “20% of the world’s oxygen” is. Or, what does the rainforest do for the atmosphere besides act as a huge carbon bank?
As people good at developing software, is there anything we can do to help with this situation, or issues related to climate change/other big environmental stuff?
70 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 138 ms ] thread> An avid deforester, Bolsonaro has jokingly nicknamed himself “Captain Chainsaw.”
An alternative article from The Guardian says that he rejects that term?! https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/07/bolsonaro-amaz...
I've seen some petitions targeted at the Brazilian embassy here in my country - but not sure of its effectiveness, as it seems Bolsonaro doesn't really care what the West think.
As for something the west could do, I'm not an expert, but I think offering to foot the bill for police and inspectors in the area would go a long way.
Most logging and burning in the Amazon is still illegal, but it's very hard to police a huge sparsely populated area[1], and our government is dysfunctional even when it tries. The average Brazilian has little to no sympathy for the criminals, but is ambivalent about paying more for police in the jungle far away. It would be a lot easier to argue for more officers if someone else was footing their salaries.
[1]The rogue logger only needs to win in a small area, any small area would do. The state needs to win everywhere.
Not just your people, they're everywhere
On a more positive note, an international reforestation / environmental fund should be set up ASAP to reward satellite-verified reforestation with $$$$ and tax countries for deforestation.
It can also use the money to build multi story farms, where solar energy or mirrors are used to feed plants on lower floors. You can save 5-10 the space for cows this way. Why are farms without any stories?
https://youtu.be/cY7O5YNxKuI
To the downvoters: why not at least explain what you disagree with?
We should definitely invest more in vertical farming and the reforestation fund also sounds good.
This comes under two main forms, one is to make room for soy crops, used mostly for cattle feed and not for direct human consumption, the other is for creating pasture land.
The west, as well as China, encourage the Amazon fires by favorable trade agreements with Brasil, which incentivize the deforestation.
The largest markets for Brazil beef are, in order, Hong Kong, China, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Chile, and Venezuela. I don't think this qualifies as "Western Countries". A very small amount, relative to those consumers, goes to the EU.
Close to none goes to the United States or Canada -- a minuscule novelty amount -- both of which are entirely self sufficient with beef, poultry, etc, and are net exporters.
There is a point where "blame the West" just isn't constructive as a go to.
I know that the US is self-sufficient in meat, both in terms of raising the cattle and the soy and corn crops that feed it.
Actually, a large portion of the US is dedicated to meat production, both in pasture land and feed crops - https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/
Which is insane if you ask me, a horrendous waste of resources.
And this is something hardly mentioned in the news at all, by whatever reason.
The trade wars with China have made things a bit worst recently, as there is more demand for brasilian soy.
The main responsibility for me lies with the consumers of the final product (meat), because they are driving the demand.
But OK it's not just the west after all, it's mostly the west and China, but really any nation that is importing cattle feed from Brasil is sponsoring the deforestation, it's a global thing.
The West likes beef. The West overwhelmingly makes and feeds internally, having nothing to do with the Amazon rainforests. Will you now argue that the West is to blame because it doesn't make enough for itself and China?
If you argued that palm oil production was a factor you'd have some basis, but you are entirely and completely off base with these claims about beef.
Do you have any doubt that a lot of the products produced directly or indirectly as a result of the deforestation are being sold mostly to the richest countries in the world that can afford it?
Not every problem needs to be exclusively the fault of the west - it's okay for other people to do things wrong as well.
0: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-china-exports/u... 1: https://gro-intelligence.com/insights/articles/in-race-for-c...
Again, not the West. What's next? Adam Smith and the creation of capitalism?
A lot of the soy is exported all over the world, to china due to the trade wars with the US, to western countries which need cattle feed but don't have the land to produce those crops.
Developing nations have limited meat consumption still, the biggest consumers of meat is the west in general. The cattle feed needs to come from somewhere, a lot of it comes from the Amazon.
The biggest consumers are the West and China, so following the money I think those are the main responsible because it's their demand for the final product that is ultimately the economic reason behind the deforestation.
So indeed I underestimated the role of China in this process, has I thought historically the biggest consumers of meat have been the west.
The trade wars with China have recently increased the demand for brasilian soy, adding fuel to the fire so to speak.
0: https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/1201/
>The top exporters of Soybeans are Brazil ($25.9B), the United States ($22B), Argentina ($2.82B), Paraguay ($2.19B) and Canada ($1.91B). The top importers are China ($36.6B), Mexico ($1.72B), the Netherlands ($1.6B), Japan ($1.41B) and Spain ($1.31B).
It would appear China is the one with the insatiable appetite for soy, not the US and Canada.
The problem is the entire system.
Of course there is demand, but there is also supply.
Each side must maintain standards, rather than just choosing the cheapest options.
And both sides must hold each other accountable. Consumers must verify that production is sustainable, etc, and suppliers must insist on prices that support that, and reject quick-money offers/undercutting-schemes that undermine standards.
In this particulr instance, I think there is a case (even an imperative) for "the west" to try to impose eco-tarrifs or eco-certifications etc on Brazilian beef, in order to pressure for more sustainable production practices.
People don't have infinite money. In fact 4.5 billion people don't make enough money not to be in qualitative extreme poverty[1] let alone enough money to be able to freely choose options that are not cheapest. Extremely small portion of total people have any actual freedom to choose options other than cheapest.
> Consumers must verify that production is sustainable
Such verification is impossible as it requires infinite time and perfect information. It is always cheaper and more profitable to lie about sustainability than to actually be sustainable. When one hole is fixed 10 more holes appear.
1. https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/07/5-myths-about-global-...
Perhaps in the same way as CITES for banning trading in endangered species, or the various timber certifications, which are certainly imperfect and "full of holes" but at least a start. I think tech could vastly improve systems of provenance.
As I said, the system itself is at fault (as per your excellent link - thanks) - there will always be consumers wanting the cheapest price regardless, and suppliers willing to offer it, or even encouraging it (and certainly trying to hide the 'regardless' part of the equation).
They must be stopped.
https://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html#elbeni
The Atlantic was sold in 2017 to the Emerson Collective.
The Emerson collective is a philanthropic endeavour of Laurene Powell Jobs, wife of late Steve Jobs.
Literally this article was published by the wife of a silicon valley tycoon.
This is why I only read IPCC Studies and pay attention to them. If the world burns out because of global warming, it'll be due to Scare-articles like this one.
https://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html#amazonas
It is the biomass burning season, so you do expect some fires anyway - I am not clear quite how this year fits in overall.
Expecting poor people to voluntarily give up on the opportunity to make money because you are threatened about your children's future but can't even be arsed to reduce your own consumption of beef is wishful thinking at best.
> people living in the amazon basin
are the ones producing all the beef or rather some big land lords?
I concur with the taxation but not paying the money to some other country - rather invest in alternatives.
It might helpful to introspect on why you'd rather have the money spent on one side of an imaginary line the ground rather than another.
But if the income they're receiving is coming from a tax on beef, wouldn't they want to produce more?
Wouldn’t this incentivise beef production? They would be indirectly paid for beef. Or am I reading this wrong?
Typical HN comment: "never seen a problem which couldn't be solved by more taxation"!
Why wouldn't I avoid the said tax and use saved money to buy couple acres of Amazon forest and employ private security to keep everyone off my land?
It's pretty insane to assume that multiple layers (local taxation plus redistribution to other countries) of incompetent and corrupt government employees can do a better job of protecting property than actual owners.
It's obvious which one we need to focus on. Stop it with the beef already. We need data driven approach. We really really don't need hysteria based approach where something (like beef) is declared sinful.
(see https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...)
> Much of the deforestation binge is being driven by farming pressure: The Amazon basin is the largest exporter of beef in the world, with about 200 million heads of cattle. And all those cows need a lot of space to spread out.
Did you not read before telling us we need a "data-driven approach"?
Methane emissions from beef cattle account for about 2% of GHG potential. Tropical deforestation contributes to about 10% of our climate impact, most of which is driven by beef farming. There are also significant non-climate impacts of deforestation in terms of biodiversity.
Beef is a big deal. It's not the biggest deal, but it's one of many things we need to address. Electricity generation and transport are being rapidly decarbonized thanks to new technology, but there's no technological replacement for old-growth rainforest. We can generate electricity with PV panels, we can run a car or a ship on batteries, but we don't have any sustainable option for things like jet aviation and beef; for the foreseeable future, the only option is to drastically reduce our consumption.
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/bee...
So you cannot see or understand the system by looking at an individual. System that divides people into making rational individual decisions (called free market economy) without any real way to conspire co-operation is always going to result in something that is irrational for everyone as a whole. Everyone has to "defect" and for every person you convince against their self-interest to "co-operate" there will be 10 more "defecting". If you want best possible overall result you need entirely different system like centrally planned economy which for example walmart and amazon already uses.
If you attempt to fix the system instead changing it entirely you will just end up making it worse because of regulatory capture. The fault I described cannot be fixed because it would be contradictory to the very foundation, so instead of actually fixing anything it will make the system even more unfair and perverted.
I've spent years of my life trying to change things but it is defeatists like you that are part of the problem - spreading "we're fucked anyway" memes is corrosive because it induces the exact attitude and behaviour you say will happen.
Let me be clear, if the world dies we die with it and you die too - got it? So please get off your butt, stop trying to look so worldly-wise, and do something. I know, I know, it takes more effort than posting on HN. Tricky, that.
I don't think I said so. In fact I am vegan myself. I said for everyone that co-operates 10 more will defect, which is true in sentiment because meat consumption keeps rising.
> we're fucked anyway
Well more specifically either capitalism ends or the world ends.
Let's say capitalism ends right now without destabilizing the entire world (so no post apocalyptic scenario where only a few million survive). What would be a system that doesn't result in the "world as we know it" ending in the coming centuries? You would still have to deal with the current state of the environment and the current population. People will still be the same persons they are now, who wants to eat meat, over-consume, close their eyes when an issue doesn't concern them directly. Or do you see it in a different way?
Well like I said in my OP you'd need to have economy entirely based on planning around needs and environment as opposed to private profits.
> People will still be the same persons they are now, who wants to eat meat, over-consume, close their eyes when an issue doesn't concern them directly. Or do you see it in a different way?
It's hard to tell what people are "naturally" when they are forced to live under a system that requires those traits in order to function and perpetuate itself. If you remove overconsumption and individualism a capitalist economy will collapse, then it is most likely not a coincidence that people are like that in a capitalist economy and not their "true" nature.
If the system is even going to be changed it's going to be because critical mass of people have recognized the need to change it (not suddenly overnight) which implies they are no longer indoctrinated to overconsume and see the world in individualistic way and have assumed other ideologies that are needed to support and perpetuate the new system.
Why not, but there are so many factors contributing to climate change that it's "suspicious" when people target one specific thing. It's quite difficult to be heard. Why should I renounce to eat beef, while other people have the right to have 3 kids, or to drive a SUV, or to fly to the other side of the world.
If it was possible, it would be best to integrate the cost of externalities in what we consume, so that everyone can choose to sacrifice what they value less. But maybe if we really had to pay for externalities, they wouldn't much that we could still afford.
It is going to be really difficult to convince people to consume less meat, increase tax on meat etc.
Not saying we shouldn't try, but it is a tough problem to take on.
"In the Amazon region, fires are rare for much of the year because wet weather prevents them from starting and spreading. However, in July and August, activity typically increases due to the arrival of the dry season. Many people use fire to maintain farmland and pastures or to clear land for other purposes. Typically, activity peaks in early September and mostly stops by November.
As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) 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."
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-bra...
It goes without saying that cutting down the rainforest would release a lot of CO2 and should not be done for many reasons. I am just curious what the significance of producing “20% of the world’s oxygen” is. Or, what does the rainforest do for the atmosphere besides act as a huge carbon bank?