top | item 20527620

Amazon deforestation accelerating to unrecoverable 'tipping point'

131 points| sandino | 6 years ago |theguardian.com

63 comments

order

tracker1|6 years ago

How much money is made from the farmland from deforested regions... how much from the lumber and how much from the reuse of the land? How many countries are trading with Brazil for consuming those goods?

It's a big problem, but without some input from trade partners globally and/or other support, I'm not sure what the solution really is. Also, not just in Brazil, but other areas with grasslands that have seen desertification, countering that is very important. It may be necessary to support global efforts to increase diverse planting to portions of agricultural lands to at least try to preserve them. Grazing and crop rotations as well.

Efforts for more diverse use of agriculture as well. More barley and buckwheat, less soy and corn. Less monoculture in the crops, seed varieties of crops we already grow to increase diversity in agriculture. Of course, moving away from Monsonto controlled models, which should mean reverting policy on patents regarding genetic markers and traits.

Right now, too much of the food supply is from mega farms with no diversity and lots of chemical pesticides and resistant strains of crops that are killing off bee populations. I'm not so much against GMO crops as a practice, but definitely need some genetic diversity in the practice. We have the ability to feed the world, we need to start concentrating on doing it better.

heduduhdjjd|6 years ago

The only real solution will be for wealthy nations paying Brazil to not exploit their natural resources, which seems like a very very high ask for all parties involved.

Otherwise we'll see the continued destruction for at least another 30-40 years until there's a global demographic peak.

We're also going to see the destruction of the Canadian Boreal forest as temperatures rise makes such land viable for industrial farming.

hanwenn|6 years ago

The money is not made on the lumber, but on agriculture.

I recently read that, most of the deforested regions are used for low-density cattle (0.5 cow / hectare), which gets transformed into beef, mainly for export.

chewz|6 years ago

> Less monoculture in the crops, seed varieties of crops we already grow to increase diversity in agriculture.

Less people on planet Earth consuming like there is no tommorow

gtirloni|6 years ago

Until we find an economic solution, this trend will just continue. Unfortunately, people only want to profit at all costs and governments usually want to be enablers of that, so the economy grows and they can have more votes in the next election.

I think the real question is: can equivalent money to logging/beef be made from tropical forests? If we can come up with an answer to that, maybe we can revert this trend.

gdubs|6 years ago

If carbon was priced to reflect its negative externalities the Amazon [Rain Forest] wouldn’t have to generate money because clearing it for agriculture would be prohibitively expensive.

vfc1|6 years ago

Cattle ranching in the Amazon is the main responsible for deforestation, responsible for about 65% of the land deforested.

So a simple economic solution to the problem is to stop buying so much beef and the deforestation would reduce drastically. Why would they continue to chop the forest down if they have no economic incentive to do so?

The excessive consumption of animal products in the west is the main reason why this "3 football fields" a minute thing is going on.

baxtr|6 years ago

Stop eating meat could be one of answers.

avip|6 years ago

Is this the question? Could rainforests produce enough "economic value" to justify their existence?

tempsolution|6 years ago

There needs to be a new international law that classifies nations who deliberately destroy nature as "at war". The idea is simple: Wrecking your local environment is not a local action. It affects the entire planet and should be seen tantamount to war. This will likely pretty much put a lot of nations into the war section... Then negotiations can continue from there.

While military action is not feasible and in this case counterproductive, aggressive sanctions might help. Sanctioning these nations back into stone age if they don't change their course...

Right now, there is no accepted means to stop this from happening.

chiefalchemist|6 years ago

No doubt Jair Bolsonaro hasn't helped. However, this has been going on for a long, long, __long__ time. Tipping point or not, such spin on who's accountable is irresponsible.

z3t4|6 years ago

I remember in the 90's there was a drive to buy Amazon forest to prevent deforestatio. A lot of people bought (i didnt). I wonder if it still stands or if it was a scam.

Kaibeezy|6 years ago

I’m interested in this but not knowledgeable.

What is a “tipping point” in this context? The article doesn’t say.

How does the overall size of a forest affect its ability to re-expand? Wouldn’t this happen at the edges once those are no longer maintained, regardless of the overall size?

Does “unrecoverable” mean “via natural processes”? Wouldn’t it be possible for human intervention to reforest?

Thx.

PinkMilkshake|6 years ago

It feels like we've reached the end of the old land ownership model. If you were destroying something on your land that supplied my breathable air, I would have no choice but to stop you, even though I recognize your right to the land.

ralusek|6 years ago

That's called a third party negative externality. Even libertarians are fine with state intervention.

shmerl|6 years ago

[deleted]

holoduke|6 years ago

Completely off topic, but it took me more than 2 minutes and more than just one comment before I understood the word Amazon correctly. I though about some Jeff bezos announcement about deforestation.

beefcake|6 years ago

Hopefully this creates a lot of wealth and amazing businesses in Brazil. Why should they not be able to use their land to make profit?