If this is so inexpensive why not agree to pay producers the costs incurred for not engaging in the practice plus a small fee if they don't engage in deforestation? They would be stupid to turn down free money and given so many people are concerned and the total amount being so low this measure could be funded by donations easily. This could be handled in a few days if what you say is true.
ratww|6 years ago
It happens to be a crime here in Brazil to invade lands and burn preserved areas. People should and have been arrested for it.
The deforestation is purely a political problem, this has nothing to do with economics as you've tried to portray here.
--
Btw, by "political problem" I mean that the government was outright saying that the deforestation and fires "are normal" [1], or they're accusing NGOs of starting the fires [2], or even denying external help to avoid the fires in Amazon [3].
The current position of the government is different, however. Now is that the fires should be stopped, and the army has been sent to Amazon to arrest people. [4]
And that was thanks to both external and internal pressure. Why did it took so long? Because there were too many criminal apologists trying to justify why burning the country was needed. But it wasn't.
---
[1] https://noticias.uol.com.br/meio-ambiente/ultimas-noticias/a...
[2] https://noticias.uol.com.br/meio-ambiente/ultimas-noticias/r...
[3] https://noticias.uol.com.br/meio-ambiente/ultimas-noticias/r...
[4] https://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/exercito-prende-63-pessoas...
unknown|6 years ago
[deleted]