Thoroughly depressing

[Leothebear]

Now just to put the icing on the cake - the Amazon rain forest is burning at an unprecedented rate.

It's time for all 1st world countries to act together to help poorer countries protect their forests. To help them exploit the benefits of their forests without harming them.

Of course it won't happen.

[Arborbridge]

I'm beginning to think the human race is hell bent on destruction - maybe that's not such a bad thing for the rest of the natural world, which will then go back to what it is good at without interruption from our pesky species.

When some people point out the extreme folly of our actions - and to bring attention to it in some way - another group of people pops up to make fun of them or dismiss their efforts. The end result of this tension is that the is little restorative action, we are set on a course of self destruction whilst taking much of nature with us.

One can only hope that we are forced to see sense one day soon, or that our numbers will be reduced by famine and disease (unless we do it ourselves, unlikely) to a sustainable level.

Arb.

[richlist]

I find the whole thing about rich countries telling South America to protect their forests arrogant. Brazil can do what it wants with its own forest. If the richer countries want more trees they should start planting them now. Britain was covered in trees once.......so replant them.

[Itsallaguess]

Now just to put the icing on the cake - the Amazon rain forest is burning at an unprecedented rate.

It's time for all 1st world countries to act together to help poorer countries protect their forests. To help them exploit the benefits of their forests without harming them.

Of course it won't happen.

I was interested to see that the majority of Amazon fires have been started so as to clear land for cattle, due to the growing demand for meat and meat-based produce -

While the wildfires raging in the Amazon rainforest may constitute an "international crisis," they are hardly an accident.

The vast majority of the fires have been set by loggers and ranchers to clear land for cattle.

The practice is on the rise, encouraged by Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's populist pro-business president, who is backed by the country's so-called "beef caucus."

While this may be business as usual for Brazil's beef farmers, the rest of the world is looking on in horror.

So, for those wondering how they could help save the rainforest, known as "the planet's lungs" for producing about 20% of the world's oxygen, the answer may be simple. Eat less meat.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/americas/brazil-beef-amazon-rainforest-fire-intl/index.html

Given the round-trip demands on getting 1kg of meat onto our plates, in terms of land, feed, and water (which has a shocking rate of demand for cattle...), and that's before we get onto transport costs etc., I think as a species we really do need to start to scale back our demand for meat, and start to move onto more plant-based produce, and I say that as a meat-eater too...

Here's some stats for that '1kg of meat' -



Image source - https://greentravelife.com/the-production-costs-of-1-kilogram-beef/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[vrdiver]

I am on a campsite at the moment, with beautiful weather and (currently) the smell of bacon grilling wafting from many pitches. Later on it will be burgers and steaks (and some chicken) and sausages. The local shops are offering crazy deals on "BBQ Meat" and there is no way the Amazon disaster will have any appreciable impact on this behaviour, at least not until it's made into a government policy (e.g. a "rainforest tax").

We may wring our hands at the greed and stupidity of what is going on in South America, but at an individual level, "it's not my problem", which is exactly the same perspective as the local loggers and farmers in the Amazon who are trying to earn a better living.

It's good that the issue will be raised at the G7 meeting, but sanctions aren't really the way to go; if we want to preserve the rain forests we have to make it the best economic outcome for those who would otherwise destroy them.

HYD describes the West's demands as "arrogant" in that we have deforested all our land, but are making demands that the South Americans don't do the same. Sadly, it's not that simple; just like the tribe where everybody ate their seed-corn, apart from the last family, now that they understand the consequences it seems reasonable to ask the last people who have this resource to use it properly, even if all the demads are coming from the fat, well fed people to the thin hungry people...

As for reforesting the UK etc. even if we did, it wouldn't be a patch on the same amount of land in the Amazon basin. The reality is that they have the conditions and biodiversity to make it the wonderful important rain forest that it is, whereas the UK (and Europe and North America in general) do not.

Where I agree it is arrogant, is to expect them to sit on a resource that would benefit them (short term) and not exploit it so that we can benefit (long term) and not expect to have to pay for that restraint. I wonder if the G7 will move from posturing and hand-wringing to constructive proposals that would make the rain forests a valuable resource to protect?

VRD

[richlist]

Apart from the G7 showing arrogance towards Brazil's rainforest.....let's look at the facts.

Most of the G7 countries were covered in forests at one time but they all got cut down to create the wealth that they enjoy today. So, it's not right for them to ask Brazil not to cut theirs down to create wealth.

Many in Brazil suffer from real poverty and farming some land offers them a chance to escape it. The rich countries have produced millions of cars which now threaten the climate and they want the Brazillian lungs of the forest to fix it.

No way.......grow your own trees.

[Leothebear]

Apart from the G7 showing arrogance towards Brazil's rainforest.....let's look at the facts.

Most of the G7 countries were covered in forests at one time but they all got cut down to create the wealth that they enjoy today. So, it's not right for them to ask Brazil not to cut theirs down to create wealth.

Many in Brazil suffer from real poverty and farming some land offers them a chance to escape it. The rich countries have produced millions of cars which now threaten the climate and they want the Brazillian lungs of the forest to fix it.

No way.......grow your own trees.

I don't dispute your argument other than the fact that the G7 forests you mention were destroyed at times when mankind was completely ignorant of the long term effects of deforestation. We know better now. If you'd read my post I was suggesting that the G7 nations help poorer nations positively to conserve their forests yet making them a valued and productive resource. I do agree G7 nations should also grow their own.

[richlist]

If you'd read my post I was suggesting that the G7 nations help poorer nations positively to conserve their forests yet making them a valued and productive resource.

I don't think there are many poor farmers in Brazil that would agree that help generated by the G7 is heading in their direction.

If the world thinks the Rainforest is essential then it should provide real resources to enable the country to prosper and keep it......otherwise as sure as eggs is eggs Brazil will do want Brazil wants.

[Leothebear]

If you'd read my post I was suggesting that the G7 nations help poorer nations positively to conserve their forests yet making them a valued and productive resource.

I don't think there are many poor farmers in Brazil that would agree that help generated by the G7 is heading in their direction.

If the world thinks the Rainforest is essential then it should provide real resources to enable the country to prosper and keep it......otherwise as sure as eggs is eggs Brazil will do want Brazil wants.

Yeah - that's partly why I said it'd never happen.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

If you'd read my post I was suggesting that the G7 nations help poorer nations positively to conserve their forests yet making them a valued and productive resource.

I don't think there are many poor farmers in Brazil that would agree that help generated by the G7 is heading in their direction.

If the world thinks the Rainforest is essential then it should provide real resources to enable the country to prosper and keep it......otherwise as sure as eggs is eggs Brazil will do want Brazil wants.

Yeah - that's partly why I said it'd never happen.

I read something the other day which absolutely bowled me off my feet. And it seriously made me think about this kind of subject. Because I think we in the developed world aren't really committed to reducing our output of carbon. Especially if we can buy our way out of it by paying someone else to keep their forests in tact.

I'm sure this isn't a simple black and white subject. Perhaps though it's a close as you can get.

Uplands peat bogs. These babies are in abundance in the UK. But we have interfered with them.

So what you say. Well these store carbon. And they are far more efficient than any Amazonian Rainforest at doing so. I seem to recall reading that 50% of the carbon dioxide on the planet is stored in these places. The plants that live on them absorb Co2 and die. When they die they do not release the Co2. And they store layer upon layer.

And we have some huge areas of upland peat bogs. So why don't we direct our thoughts at keeping them functioning?

RSPB-led study reveals extent of upland burning in Scotland: Burning found in over half of conservation areas assessed
http://ww2.rspb.org.uk/our-work/rspb-ne ... s-assessed
The UK has 10-15 per cent of the world’s blanket bog peatlands. Locking in 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon[1], upland deep peat is the largest carbon store in the UK[2]. Eighty per cent of the UK’s blanket bog is in Scotland[3] and of the 1-km squares assessed in Scotland for the study, 28 per cent of those with burning present were classified as overlying deep peat.

I think what I may be saying is we need to look closer to home and clean the brown stuff off our own doorstep before we try and blackmail others into supporting our dilemma.

AiY

[vrdiver]

I think what I may be saying is we need to look closer to home and clean the brown stuff off our own doorstep before we try and blackmail others into supporting our dilemma.

But these things don't have to be either / or decisions.

I wholeheartedly agree we should do much more at home, but that isn't a prerequisite for taking action to preserve the Amazonian rainforest.

Just because we are messing our bit up doesn't mean it's OK for others to mess their bit up. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

It does weaken our moral stance, I'll grant you, but this argument has always been running between the developed and developing countries. We polluted and burned coal etc. so they should be allowed to.... Except that we now know more about the impact, and there are more of us making a bigger impact, which will become even bigger as more people move towards "middle class" aspirations.

VRD

[swill453]

Uplands peat bogs. These babies are in abundance in the UK. But we have interfered with them.

So what you say. Well these store carbon. And they are far more efficient than any Amazonian Rainforest at doing so. I seem to recall reading that 50% of the carbon dioxide on the planet is stored in these places.

I think you misremember, that figure is way off. It's estimated that 93% of the world's carbon dioxide is stored in the oceans https://www.fomin.org/en-us/Home/News/a ... Ocean.aspx

Scott.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

I think what I may be saying is we need to look closer to home and clean the brown stuff off our own doorstep before we try and blackmail others into supporting our dilemma.

But these things don't have to be either / or decisions.

I wholeheartedly agree we should do much more at home, but that isn't a prerequisite for taking action to preserve the Amazonian rainforest.

Just because we are messing our bit up doesn't mean it's OK for others to mess their bit up. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

It does weaken our moral stance, I'll grant you, but this argument has always been running between the developed and developing countries. We polluted and burned coal etc. so they should be allowed to.... Except that we now know more about the impact, and there are more of us making a bigger impact, which will become even bigger as more people move towards "middle class" aspirations.

VRD

Excellent point yes. I shall change my position accordingly to - we should also remember to clean the [expletive deleted] of our own doorstep at the same time as we raise concerns about another countries lack of diligence. The ultimate point I was making, albeit quite badly is we are in this together and I am not convinced the developed world (us - "me") have quite accepted our responsibilities in full. I think we've convinced ourselves we are above reproach. And we have to remember we are in an economic paradise compared to many around the world. And I suspect it's that which is the huge dichotomy for the reduction of Co2. And yes you're right ... we have lost the moral high-ground. And I would suggest we also have deeper pockets than most of those clearing the rainforests and we should be prepared to use that resource effectively.

AiY

[vrdiver]

...we are in this together...

Ah, yes. but if "we" can get "the others" to foot the bill, how much nicer for "us"...

I can't fault your argument or implicit suggestion that those with the means to do so should contribute more towards solving the problem. I am a bit pessimistic that it will actually happen that way, and therefore that the damage will be a lot worse than it needed to be.

VRD

[richlist]

Just a reminder........we are losing rainforest at a rate of a football pitch a minute. Since this time yesterday that's 1440 football pitches worth of rainforest.

By this time next week ......when nothing will have been done ......we will have lost another 10080 football pitches.

If the world want to take a year to fix the problem that's 524000 football pitches.

Looks like we are all doomed.

Better start planting trees now instead of arguing the toss on internet forums !

[sg31]

I've planted 8 trees and removed one rotten one this year. Do I get a gold star?

[gryffron]

Except that we now know more about the impact... like the tribe where everybody ate their seed-corn, apart from the last family, now that they understand the consequences it seems reasonable to ask the last people who have this resource to use it properly, even if all the demands are coming from the fat, well fed people to the thin hungry people...

Reasonable? Isn't this the classic communist arguement. I squandered all my money while you invested, so now you have more than me I expect you to share.

I think Mr Brazilian president is on safe ground with his voters here. If I were a destitute Brazilian peasant I'd be pretty miffed about Westerners sitting in their air conditioned luxury cars preaching to me about pollution and resources.

[richlist]

It's all a terrible shame but what upsets me more than the demise of the Rainforest is that so many people in the 5th largest economy in the world just don't understand why Brazil is doing it.

[XFool]

But the US energy department said banning incandescent bulbs would be bad for consumers because of the higher cost of more efficient bulbs.

Interesting. Question there is: Is the higher initial cost of efficient bulbs offset over their lifetime in saved electricity costs due to that efficiency?

Anybody know the answer?

[swill453]

Question there is: Is the higher initial cost of efficient bulbs offset over their lifetime in saved electricity costs due to that efficiency?

Cost to you, or cost to the planet?

Scott.