zen Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) The world is slowly losing one of its extremely valuable assets ... Can we get Amazon Forests back? ... on similar sentiments, I had a thread on Forest Cover - India PS Edited June 14, 2021 by zen speedheat 1
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 6 minutes ago, zen said: The world is slowly losing one of its extremely valuable assets ... Can we get Amazon Forests back? ... on similar sentiments, I had a thread on Forest Cover - India An alternative view: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/?sh=19332f65bde0 The increase in fires burning in Brazil set off a storm of international outrage last week. Celebrities, environmentalists, and political leaders blame Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, for destroying the world’s largest rainforest, the Amazon, which they say is the “lungs of the world.” Singers and actors including Madonna and Jaden Smith shared photos on social media that were seen by tens of millions of people. “The lungs of the Earth are in flames,” said actor Leonardo DiCaprio. “The Amazon Rainforest produces more than 20% of the world’s oxygen,” tweeted soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo. “The Amazon rain forest — the lungs which produce 20% of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire,” tweeted French President Emanuel Macron. And yet the photos weren’t actually of the fires and many weren’t even of the Amazon. The photo Ronaldo shared was taken in southern Brazil, far from the Amazon, in 2013. The photo that DiCaprio and Macron shared is over 20 years old. The photo Madonna and Smith shared is over 30. Some celebrities shared photos from Montana, India, and Sweden. To their credit, CNN and New York Times debunked the photos and other misinformation about the fires. “Deforestation is neither new nor limited to one nation,” explained CNN. “These fires were not caused by climate change,” noted The Times.
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: An alternative view: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/26/why-everything-they-say-about-the-amazon-including-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/?sh=19332f65bde0 IMO, Amazon deforestation is a serious concern (what/how celebrities tweet about it is out of scope). If such practises continue, I am not sure what % of the forest and the wild life diversity can we get back. Organizations such as NASA are tracking deforestation: Information on the lawless heart of Amazon is available:
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) Point was not about the celebrities (although that is how the article led in). It was about the exaggeration of the problem - like calling the Amazon "the lungs of the earth." and saying we are choking the earth. The point is about these doomsdayers using not just exaggerated but even false information to drive the narrative. Like false photographs. And the insistence that the fires were caused by climate change, although it is clear that these particular fires were not. (Some fires are. Some aren't. Lying about it to drive a narrative, however noble the intent is, is not okay). Of course, we must preserve the amazing biodiversity of the Amazon. Of course deforestation there and everywhere else must be limited. At the same time, we must consider farmers who produce food for people; their livelihoods are at stake and must be balanced with land sparing. Unfortunately, the same people who stand up for the Amazon forest are also at the forefront of oppose technologies that will allow for more food and clean-energy production on less land and thus the ability to spare more land for the wild. Edited June 14, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 We also have to take into account the compounding nature of the problem. Say I have 100 acres of forest. I clear 20%. With 20% gone, 80% remains. Over the next few years, say I clear another 10%, therefore now we have 70% left (Forest cleared is actually 10/80= 12.5%). Every acre lost, compounds the problem exponentially (not linearly like what most ppl are used to thinking in)
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: Of course, we must preserve the amazing biodiversity of the Amazon. Of course deforestation there and everywhere else must be limited. At the same time, we must consider farmers who produce food for people; their livelihoods are at stake and must be balanced with land sparing. Unfortunately, the same people who stand up for the Amazon forest are also at the forefront of oppose technologies that will allow for more food and clean-energy production on less land and thus the ability to spare more land for the wild. I talked about the need to understand the compounding effect of every acre lost in my previous post ... Losing an extremely valuable asset that has served and is to serve the planet (which includes not just humans) is the big picture scenario here ... Humans beings cannot hold the world as a hostage for their limitless needs ... We need to say planet first
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, zen said: I talked about the need to understand the compounding effect of every acre lost in my previous post ... Losing an extremely valuable asset that has served and is to serve the planet (which includes not just humans) is the big picture scenario here ... Humans beings cannot hold the world as a hostage for their limitless needs ... We need to say planet first Planet is not going anywhere. It is hubris to say that we must save the planet. We are extremely insignifcant. Long after humans are extinct, the earth will be merrily spinning on its axis making its rounds around the sun, and other creatures will still be there adapting to new realities. What we must save are the natural resources for ourselves, so that humanity - our descendants - thrive for the longest possible time. We must save these resources because they all matter in keeping the earth habitable for life, including our own. Edited June 14, 2021 by BacktoCricaddict coffee_rules and rkt.india 1 1
rkt.india Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 10 minutes ago, zen said: I talked about the need to understand the compounding effect of every acre lost in my previous post ... Losing an extremely valuable asset that has served and is to serve the planet (which includes not just humans) is the big picture scenario here ... Humans beings cannot hold the world as a hostage for their limitless needs ... We need to say planet first As BTC said planet isn't going anywhere. It was there when there were no humans and will always remain. We are just another creature.
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: Planet is not going anywhere. It is hubris to say that we must save the planet. We are extremely insignifcant. Long after humans are extinct, the earth will be merrily spinning on its axis making its rounds around the sun, and other creatures will still be there adapting to new realities. What is being discussed keeping is the shape/health of the planet intact even for future generation ... For e.g. a broken planet, turned into a desert, can exist, but it would lost a lot of diversity Quote What we must save are the natural resources for ourselves, so that humanity - our descendants - thrive for the longest possible time. We must save these resources because they all matter in keeping the earth habitable for life, including our own. Even for such a selfish agenda, Amazon needs to be protected ... There are reports that suggest that a 20-25% deforestation level, the forest could collapse ... There is no alternative view
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 1 minute ago, rkt.india said: As BTC said planet isn't going anywhere. It was there when there were no humans and will always remain. We are just another creature. What is implied is the state, shape and the diversity of the planet ... For e.g. a broken planet, turned into a desert, can exist, but it would lost a lot of diversity
rkt.india Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 1 minute ago, zen said: What is implied is the state, shape and the diversity of the planet ... For e.g. a broken planet, turned into a desert, can exist, but it would lost a lot of diversity Earth has not always been same. It has seen continuous changes from ice age to present.
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 Just now, rkt.india said: Earth has not always been same. It has seen continuous changes from ice age to present. That is understood ... what is being discussed is the impact of human actions on it, which has resulted in not only global warming but extermination of many species ... It is as if the planet is fighting a virus
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 Just now, zen said: That is understood ... what is being discussed is the impact of human actions on it, which has resulted in not only global warming but extermination of many species ... It is as if the planet is fighting a virus What will you tell the farmers in that area?
coffee_rules Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 15 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: Planet is not going anywhere. It is hubris to say that we must save the planet. We are extremely insignifcant. Long after humans are extinct, the earth will be merrily spinning on its axis making its rounds around the sun, and other creatures will still be there adapting to new realities. What we must save are the natural resources for ourselves, so that humanity - our descendants - thrive for the longest possible time. We must save these resources because they all matter in keeping the earth habitable for life, including our own.
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 Just now, coffee_rules said: Woe to the adults who have used this child to advance their own exaggerated doomsday scenarios.
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 8 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: What will you tell the farmers in that area? As a starting point, no more deforestation, use of environmentally friendly methods to conduct their business ... in the mid term, creating a plan to reclaim a sizeable % of the lost land ... and eventually, finding a way to resettle the farmers I would recommend that you watch/rewatch the vox video posted in the OP Edited June 14, 2021 by zen
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 Videos that create more awareness on such issues:
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, zen said: As a starting point, no more deforestation, use of environmentally friendly methods to conduct their business ... in the mid term, creating a plan to reclaim a sizeable % of the lost land ... and eventually, finding a way to resettle the farmers I would recommend that you watch/rewatch the vox video posted in the OP I watched it. What do you mean by environmentally friendly methods? If you reclaim the land and resettle farmers, where else would they go to grow a crop that is well-adapted to those conditions? How about you and I get resettled somewhere because the land on which our houses are sitting was a forest 100 years ago? If the world wants soy, someone will grow it. The only way to accomplish climate objectives including saving rainforests is for the world to accept new ag technologies that yield more on less land. Since 1960, Brazil has reduced its per capita land use for agriculture from 2.11 ha per capita to 1.14 ha per capita. On a per-person basis, farmers are sparing more land than ever. If they went to indigenous production methods, they will only deforest more. Global deforestation peaked in the 1980s. Since then, global forest land has been growing. Thanks to farmers embracing yield-increasing technologies. https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation?country=#global-deforestation-peaked-in-the-1980s-can-we-bring-it-to-an-end coffee_rules 1
zen Posted June 14, 2021 Author Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 33 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said: I watched it. What do you mean by environmentally friendly methods? If you reclaim the land and resettle farmers, where else would they go to grow a crop that is well-adapted to those conditions? How about you and I get resettled somewhere because the land on which our houses are sitting was a forest 100 years ago? The important issue is protecting the amazon, an extremely valuable asset for the planet, not growing the crop, for e.g. soyabean is grown in multiple countries If you watched the video, you would know that the farmers were invited to come to Amazon, they are not indigenous ppl This is the least imp factor from a strategic perspective of long term health of the planet ... the farmers can easily be compensated heavily Quote If the world wants soy, someone will grow it. The only way to accomplish climate objectives including saving rainforests is for the world to accept new ag technologies that yield more on less land. Since 1960, Brazil has reduced its per capita land use for agriculture from 2.11 ha per capita to 1.14 ha per capita. On a per-person basis, farmers are sparing more land than ever. If they went to indigenous production methods, they will only deforest more. That is already discussed in the video, which talks about food production while providing growth #s ... with the information laid out, we are moving beyond that Quote Global deforestation peaked in the 1980s. Since then, global forest land has been growing. Thanks to farmers embracing yield-increasing technologies. https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation?country=#global-deforestation-peaked-in-the-1980s-can-we-bring-it-to-an-end The Amazon situation, the focus of the topic, is again already summarized in the video ... if you watched it, you would know about the new threats, which is what this thread aims to carry forward ... Also I spoke about compounding nature of the problem and a 20-25% deforestation level could be catastrophic ... The fight to save Amazon could be on a war footing (not trivialized by farmer issues, etc.) Edited June 14, 2021 by zen
BacktoCricaddict Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, zen said: The important issue is protecting the amazon, an extremely valuable asset for the planet, not growing the crop, for e.g. soyabean is grown in multiple countries If you watched the video, you would know that the farmers were invited to come to Amazon, they are not indigenous ppl This is the least imp factor from a strategic perspective ... they can easily be compensated heavily That is already discussed in the video, which talks about food production ... with the information laid out, we are moving beyond that The Amazon situation is again already summarized in the video ... if you watched it, you would know about the new threats, which is what this thread aims to carry forward ... Also I spoke about compounding nature of the problem and a 20-25% deforestation level could be catastrophic ... The fight to save Amazon could be on war footing (not trivialized by farmer issues, etc.) You would of course not say that if your life depended on it. Read "The wizard and the prophet" by Charles Mann. I stand by my opinion that overall forestation is more important than Amazon forestation, And that overall forestation on earth is going up for 40 yrs. thanks to intensification of agriculture and decreasing the overall footprint of food production so that land can be spared for the wild. That is how we move forward - thread goal met.
Recommended Posts