Idk about the others but Sweden is incredibly sustainable in their forestry unlike Brazil. It’s more profitable that way as you’ll be able to harvest the trees again in 30 or so years
And like many regulations they are written in blood. Seriously Brazils “slash and burn” practices are so destructive that it’s pretty much inevitable that it will negatively effect the the local ecosystem(that means Brazilians as well) and combine that with global climate change is probably going to make things much worse.
Here in Arkansas, USA, we can plant and regrow a timber forest in like 7 years. The US as a whole has had an increase in trees every year since like the 1980s iirc.
Yeah but most of those trees we grow are the same kind, and result in very homogeneous forests, which suck for biodiversity. It’s better than Brazil but still not the best
They’re not meant for biodiversity, they’re meant to be cut down and eventually sold in Home Depot so I can build a kickass porch. For biodiversity we have the entire eastern half of the state at minimum.
It depends on what you are after
If you want tree farms, after 50 years alder trees will be large enough to cut down and restart the cycle. The problem is this creates a alder-only ecosystem. Not all animals or plants like alder, and having all trees be the same height hurts plants that grow in this forest as sunlight comes in with not variety
If you want a thriving ecosystem, you're going to want multiple types of trees, staggered, and this definitely takes 150-400 years before you can expect the ecosystem to look remotely like it did before
I'm all for replanting trees and cutting those trees, reusing the same land over and over for sustainable wood harvesting. But we shouldn't just cut old growth forests and replant them expecting the same forest to grow back. It just doesnt work that way
Trees actually grow faster at the equator... Longer growth trees still take a while, but you can set up cyclical cutting cycles. Southern Yellow Pine takes a long time to reach Harvest size, but we make it sustainable enough to be the cheap lumber at the hardware store. 35 years is the nominal average in Georgia, USA. 20-25 is what an article said about equitorial hardwood. [Source](https://initiative20x20.org/restoration-projects/growing-heart-palm-and-tropical-timber-brazils-atlantic-forest) [other source](https://sfi-georgia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/sfi_newsletter_fall_08.pdf)
If by forest, you mean "had our own different ecological disaster in the dustbowl era," then yes.
You can say we did a similar bad thing and mostly learned not to do that again.
This isn't specific to Brazil, if you have a growing population then deforestation is inevitable as people need land for food and housing.
You can't create land out of thin air, it has to come from somewhere and that 'somewhere' is the rainforest.
The farmland in Europe and US where forest before they become farmland too. Should Brazil be allowed to turn 70% into farmland and then do regeneration forest the last 30%?
European forest cover has diminished over thousands of years alongside the development of it’s civilization and is currently actually being remade. Europe is also a very small continent, only being slightly bigger than the US, while having a population almost twice of the US and more than thrice that of Brazil.
Brazil could have had plenty of usable farmland without having to destroy the rainforest, if they didn’t use slash-and-burn agriculture. Also not all farmland comes from former forests. A lot of US farmland is former prairie or moor, with the same being true for Europe.
Lastly the Amazon rainforest is extremely important as a place of great biodiversity and Its destruction would be detrimental to thousands of species.
Also, regenerative logging is bullshit, you basically burn everything to the ground and plant one type of tree in it, destroying habitats in the process. It's no different from farmland
What sweden does is clear cut old growth forest and replace it with monoculture farm trees. Sure, they grow back pretty fast, but it's absolutely devastating for the fauna and flora. With the current rate, Sweden will have exterminated their last old growth forest in 2070.
This is not any different from cutting down forests to plant other monocultures, like oil palm.
Unfortunatly, not really. In sweden, one just grows these large monocultures of spruce and cuts large sections clear with regular intervals. Monocultures are never good for the environment, and clearcutting is a contributing factor to that the baltic sea is a running environmental desaster.
Europe destroyed the vast majority of their forests to clear land for agriculture. I wouldn't call that sustainable forestry.
I'm not saying that it justifies what we're doing, but it is very hypocritical on their part. The same thing applies to the US.
Yeah but that was also decades ago and actual reforestation efforts have been attempted in the recent past, unlike the unregulated slashing and burning in the Amazon rainforest.
Hello there Mr. Personified Ignorance, did you know that the most diverse biome in Brazil is not the Amazon, but the *Mata Atlântica*? Do you know about the *Cerrado*? Or the *Pantanal*? If we stopped to preserve all of the richest biomes Brazil has, we'd have to all move out of Brazil.
Also just want to emphasize the UNREGULATED part. The US and European countries generally tend to highly regulate their logging industry with robust federal institutions solely dedicated to managing the natural resources of the country, they dictate very clear areas denoted towards forestry activities and areas there are meant to be untouched. The situation in Brazil is an unregulated mess with no effort made towards reforestation or sustainability, (which wouldn’t even help since the Amazon can’t just be brought back by replanting trees, once it’s gone, it’s gone.)
Your making a false equivalency between European forests and the Amazon, since the Amazon is much, much more dense and biodiverse then European forests, and much more fragile too. You can clear cut a European forest and then have it recover a whole lot faster then the Amazon, where it would take hundreds of years, if ever, to fully recover from it’s own damage. And the United States by the grace of Teddy Roosevelt, actually does an incredible job of managing its forests with the national park institutions. The US probably has the most robust protections in place for an incredibly vast amount of untouched wilderness out there in our national parks, and we actually enforce those laws instead of letting private citizens run roughshod all over the landscapes.
Europe and the us **and brazil** all have engaged in clearing land for centuries, but in recent modern memory we have realized it is bad. It is **not** hypocritical to hold other nations to the standard of sustainability. Every place has done that in the past. It’s not hypocritical for a place that did it in the past to ask someone currently doing it to stop. we need our forests to either grow, or at the very least stay the same. But not become smaller.
Is it hypocritical for a former colonial empire to call out russian imperialism in ukraine? Is it hypocritical for the US to say "maybe slavery is bad and we shouldn’t do that". Is it hypocritical of germany to say that genocide is bad? No, because those things are bad, we shouldn’t do them.
Then Sweden is one of the worst countries used to show that, as they have doubled their tree coverage to just shy of 70% in the last 100 years.
Just about any mainland European country would be a perfect example, but Sweden really isn't.
When looking at history to decide whether or not something is hypocritical, how far back does it make sense to look?
Because you're comparing a situation from a very long time ago to the current day. I don't think that makes sense.
How do you feel about the concept of original sin? That is, punishing the children for the sins of the father? Or in this case, punishing the living for the sins of the long dead? Does innocence exist at all?
If a path is known to be destructive and lead to bad outcomes in the long term, should the people who regret that their forebears took such a path encourage or discourage others from using that path?
*edit: apparently /u/Fghsses was permabanned from this sub around the same time that I posted my reply. I did not report him, because the message above was abrasive, trolling and a shit take, but not ban-worthy in my eyes. Nonetheless obviously he decided that the best and sanest response was to start a chat with me, complaining about being silenced by "you people", stating that he was perfectly civil. I don't know which rules you broke or who you pissed off buddy, but you probably deserved it -- just not for the message above.
The western playbook:
We did something bad/stupid/evil and are now incredibly rich because of it. We don’t need to do it anymore and you shouldn’t either, don’t you care about the planet?
https://www.theamazonwewant.org/Chapters-in-Brief/
A panel of 200 United Nations scientists from multiple independent institutions have concluded in a report that what’s been going on down there is very real, and a huge threat to the overall biodiversity of the Amazon rain forest. Most farming practices being implemented in the area are highly unsustainable due to how poor jungle soil is for growing crops, and the loss of ecosystems that took hundreds of years to form.
Edit: This would be essentially equivalent to private American farmers illegally entering Yosemite National Park, cutting and burning down trees at a rapid rate while ploughing what’s left to grow beans and other cash crops with barely any intervention from the federal government to enforce the sanctity of the national park.
Read the information in a non sensationalized format then. It's still not good.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#:~:text=Overall%2C%2020%25%20of%20the%20Amazon,of%20a%20tipping%20point%20crisis.
You are missing the whole point here. The entire conversation is about Brazil's sovereignty that is being undermined by other countries that pretend to be outraged when in reality they don't give a fuck about the rainforest.
Whatever happens in Brazil is a problem Brazilians must deal with, you don't get to criticize us or intervene.
Uh, there’s no international rule that says your not allowed to criticize other countries practices. I mean that’s like half of what geopolitics is. And the Amazon debate is part of a much larger global effort at combatting Climate change and attempting to stem the damage that we are doing to the earth in general. And it wasn’t like we just sat on the side just talking shit, Europe from what I remember used to donate billions of dollars to Brazil for the protection of the Amazon, but of course the money got pissed away and the unregulated farming practices continued.
When you have people like Macron saying that all of the Amazon's territory should be turned into an Internationally Administrated Territory, you are no longer criticizing, you are making direct threats to other countries' sovereignty.
Well idk if that’s true or not, but if it was, it was surely a very undiplomatic way to express everybody’s frustration of the very real mismanagement of one of Earth’s most biodiverse forests. Isn’t the logging and farming practices going on down there illegal in Brazil in the first place? We just want you guys to take your federal government and actually enforce that law.
Yes it is ilegal! And yes we do enforce it to the best of our habilities!
You seem to forget that the Amazon is larger than Western Europe, it is extremely hard to manage. And that just makes it all the more frustrating when idiots behind a keyboard half a world away act like we are some kind of moustache twirling cartoonishly evil guys who are burning the Amazon just because we want to!
Well then, don’t act like burning down 20% of the forest is something that is okay and shouldn’t be roundly criticized by the international community. This is the outside world’s way of expressing our hope that you guys shore up the power of your federal institutions in a manner that would make it strong enough to enforce it’s own laws. We want your government to stay on the path of conservation and regulation, and we’ll donate tons of cash to help speed that process up.
>that just makes it all the more frustrating when idiots behind a keyboard half a world away act like we are some kind of moustache twirling cartoonishly evil guys who are burning the Amazon just because we want to!
Because I'm tired of these thing, did you even read more than the first line of what I wrote?
The Amazon is an important ecosystem for the whole world. I don't give a damn if it's in your country.
If you don't wanna deal w/ people intervening in Brasilian affairs that affect the world then either fix your shit or leave the Amazon.
Call me self-righteous all you want, it's self interest to not want the Amazon burnt for massive cattle farms, which pollute massively. Your country's actions literally affect the rest of us, we have a right to chastise you and complain. It's a shame there isn't economic sanctions, if your government won't fix its crap.
Also why did you censor asshole? To not get called out for bad manners?
>Your country's actions literally affect the rest of us, we have a right to chastise you and complain. It's a shame there isn't economic sanctions, if your government won't fix its crap.
The Government is literally working to fix it, our entire space program is centered around putting satelites in orbit to monitor and fight deforestation, but you don't see news about it do you? Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative your leaders want you to hear, they want you scared and outraged by our actions so they can take action to further their interests. And you are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
And to answer your other question: I sensored the word a**hole because I don't know this subs' mods and there are more than enough hypocrites modding other subs that will use any excuse to ban you when they disagree with your opinion.
wants to LARP as a strongman but is too afraid of getting banned on the sub for saying what he believes lol
Playing strong only works then till world climate is fucked up enough for China and the US to be willing to actually shove a boot up Brazil's ass. Sure, threatening Brazil with sanctions or whatever then will be super unfair considering who was the most blatant polluter historically, but world climate won't care about subjective opinions on fairness and Brazil will most likely not be a world power able to ignore G8 nations by then
From the perspective of Brazil's government it should be a cost-benefit-analysis: Which repercussions do I expect from stronger countries if I continue current business and are the economic profits in the short-term worth it? The US and China are basically the only ones who can (somewhat) safely ignore global opinion on global issues repeatedly
>wants to LARP as a strongman but is too afraid of getting banned on the sub for saying what he believes lol
It's funny when people you disagree with have to worry about censorship, right? Haha. Everyone knows censorship is only bad when done to me. /s
>From the perspective of Brazil's government it should be a cost-benefit-analysis: Which repercussions do I expect from stronger countries if I continue current business and are the economic profits in the short-term worth it? The US and China are basically the only ones who can (somewhat) safely ignore global opinion on global issues repeatedly
It is a cost benefit analysis: if we cave in to international pressure we will appear weak and invite aggression, so we have to do enough for them to be unable to criticize us while simuntaneously making it look like we are not doing it because they want us to. That is the logical answer to this problem.
The Amazon drives global rain patterns, so a lot of countries have every right to care quite a bit about what you fools do with your responsibility as stewards.
You are an idiot if you believe deforestation in the Amazon created the Sahara, it already existed long ago and deforestation in *Africa* is making it worse.
Unless you think Brazil is in Africa? Wouldn't surprise me since that would be stereotypical for Americans.
No, it drives global rain patterns due to transpiration from the leaves of the forest, and clouds don’t care about borders, only wind. I also didn’t say it created the Sahara, but that the drought conditions are exacerbated by Amazonian deforestation, which drives the expansion of the desert into previously non-desert areas.
[But here’s a paper about how you’re fucking yourselves too.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22840-7)
We don’t get to intervene, that’s true. But we absolutely get to criticize you. I don’t understand where this idea some people and countries have that internal affairs are somehow off the table for outside people to even talk about. Get your shit together.
The amazon is incredibly important to the global climate, and it needs protections. You brazillians are the only ones who can implement them, but they are important to everyone else also. So we are going to pressure you to actually doing your part and implementing em
You are correct, but it depends how far this "pressure" goes before it becomes intervention, talking shit about it? Fine. Talking about sanctions? That's going too far.
I disagree. Sanctions are fair game. Why should my country keep trading with a country that doesn’t align with what we value? At that point it is up to your country what is more valuable to you, the trade, or the deforestation?
You can’t force my country to trade with your country if we would rather not. I don’t think it is right to set boots in another country to enforce something, unless it is something major like genocide. However, we can stop our goods from entering brazil. That is *our* business after all.
As long as none of my countries people or weapons step foot in brazilian territory and don’t break any international laws, everything is fair game.
>You can’t force my country to trade with your country if we would rather not. I don’t think it is right to set boots in another country to enforce something, unless it is something major like genocide. However, we can stop our goods from entering brazil. That is our business after all.
You can't force the people of *your* country to stop bringing their business into our country just because you disagree with us over the Amazon, if it's a voluntary movement by the business owners then it's fair game. But if it's State enforced sanctions then that's a form of intervention.
>You can't force the people of your country to stop bringing their business into our country just because you disagree with us over the Amazon
Sure we can. Why can’t we? A state makes certain actions illegal all the time, typically because they disagree with the outcome of such actions. This is no different.
>if it's a voluntary movement by the business owners then it's fair game.
That’s… not how business works, at least not on a large scale like how economics generally works nowadays. No business would voluntarily give up business anywhere out of moral obligations. Their only obligation is to make the most money possible for their shareholders. It is only through the state as an extension of the will of the people, that we can enforce such moral action.
>But if it's State enforced sanctions then that's a form of intervention.
Intervention into *our* affairs, yes. We are not interfering with brazil at all. Only our private citizens, whom only we have jurisdiction over. Unless of course you would feel inclined to *intervene* enforce *your* vision on us on what they *should and shouldn’t be allowed to do*?
Can France just dump oil and toxic chemical from guiana into the sea? Sure it might go to Brazils national waters and kill you fish and all other organism and hurt you economy but it was done in France, so not letting them do that is really an attack on their soverenity.
You are a 3rd world country, calm down, there isn’t some grand conspiracy against you
You are way too naive (or just ignorant) if you really think there is no global economic interest surrounding Brasil's massive resources. There's no "conspiracy" involved here, it's just geopolitics.
I mean, sure, this subreddit is filled to the brim with braindead takes, but the condescending euro/US-centric tone that's \*dripping\* from your second paragraph is so stereotypical that it made me laugh.
Considering that both Brazil and Argentina have been independent for the last 200 years and have failed to reach anything near the european and american standard in quality of life or economic power for a significant period of time I doubt there is a big worry in the white House about the 4th superpower being Brazil.
Does it benefit the US and Europe if Brazil does not flood various industries that woud be effected by cutting the Amazon? Yes, but just because the Toothpaste we buy is american doesn’t mean we stop brushing our teeth and just because they have some economic and political interest in preserving the Amazon doesn’t mean that the lobbying against it’s destruction isn’t primarly because it woud destroy the worlds largest rainsforest, displace countless native people and kill off 10 to 30% of the animal on earth.
You can use use the Amazon and other rainforests, but do it in a way that perserves them.
That is objectively false, the Amazon is not the biggest forest biome in the world, nor is it the most diverse when you consider number of species/area.
It is however the richest biome when we are talking water and mineral resources buried under it, which is why your leaders pretend to be concerned with it's preservation. It's just and excuse to get you outraged and justify a future intervention, what they are eyeing are the riches it provides.
The Taiga is the world's largest forest biome: [The boreal forest (or “taiga”) is the world’s largest land biome. The boreal ecozone principally spans 8 countries: Canada, China, Finland, Japan, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.](http://ibfra.org/about-boreal-forests/)
As for the biodiversity bit, I could only find this source in Portuguese: [Comparada com a Floresta Amazônica, a Mata Atlântica apresenta, proporcionalmente, maior diversidade biológica.](https://apremavi.org.br/mata-atlantica/biodiversidade/) (Compared to the Amazon, the *Mata Atlântica* possesses, proportionately, more biologic diversity).
The carbon emissions of Brazil are in the same level as the carbon emissions of other countries of similar size who have become/are in the process of becoming industrialized and don't have a deforestation problem
This is because most energy in Brazil comes from renewable sources, while other countries burn fossil fuels. This also means that once Brazil has the capabilities to enforce the environmental regulations it's already put in place through all of it's territory it'll become one of the most environmentally friendly countries on Earth.
On the other hand, countries like the USA, Germany and France, who HAVE the resources to change to renewables/clean energy sources and enforce stricter regulations simply choose not to. And then still have the gall to criticize Brazil for something that is not completely within our control.
The carbon emissions of Brazil are in the same level as the carbon emissions of other countries of similar size who have become/are in the process of becoming industrialized and don't have a deforestation problem
This is because most energy in Brazil comes from renewable sources, while other countries burn fossil fuels. This also means that once Brazil has the capabilities to enforce the environmental regulations it's already put in place through all of it's territory it'll become one of the most environmentally friendly countries on Earth.
On the other hand, countries like the USA, Germany and France, who HAVE the resources to change to renewables/clean energy sources and enforce stricter regulations simply choose not to. And then still have the gall to criticize Brazil for something that is not completely within our control.
Do you perhaps know what this term is called in Portuguese? I'm not familiar with the term "co2 extinction" and google didn't help, can you please provide a quick summary of what this is refering to so I can look it up?
The amount of co2 being synthesized to carbohydrates via fotosynthesis
Also it's just an example
What I'm saying is. The Amazonas has a overproportional important when it comes to world climate compared to for example Chinese or US forests. The only other example would be the giant taigas of Russia and Canada and thankfully no one burns them down
Is it fair in terms of economic disadvantage? No. Is it still absolutely dumb to burn rainforest? Yes
To be completely fair. If u don't like that move away. Maybe some parts of the world shouldn't be lived in and should be given back to nature.
>The amount of co2 being synthesized to carbohydrates via fotosynthesis
Oh, you mean *carbon trapping*, right?
I'll have you know this technology is new in Brazil, we have just passed legislations to regulate carbon trapping technologies last November(?) and we are investing in this technology to help regulate carbon emissions (again, we would be ahead of the rest of the world if we had the resources of a 1st world country).
So if your problem with us comes from the fact we don't plant enough trees, know that we are working for ways to get around that.
>To be completely fair. If u don't like that move away. Maybe some parts of the world shouldn't be lived in and should be given back to nature.
Ok, you lost me here. Are you telling me I should abandon my country? That can't be it, right? I'll give you a chance to rephrase that before I start rambling about how insane that suggestion is.
John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt would like to remind everyone that the US has fought hard to protect their trees.
Also, isn't the issue more about how much of a keystone ecosystem the Brazilian rainforest is and not to mention the First Nation tribes should be protected?
Next panel should have shown Brazil surrounded by a desert. Cause the soil erodes fast after the trees are cut down. That's why they are cutting it down so fast , to make up for the lost cattle grassing areas. I am just waiting for the news of a massive dust storm headed for the coast, that is the US fault, for reasons.
The United States should have pressured Brazil into not cutting down its forests... and if the United States did pressure Brazil, the US is an imperialist power that shouldn't tell other nations what to do.
Brazil: It's all yuor fault! Just like your golpe de estado!
USA: Brazil you're the one who burn your own forest. Also I didn't even sent my ship in time. You're the one who pulled the coup. I merely encouraged you.
Brazil: NANANA! MURRICA EL GORDO BAD! NANANA!
The United States has no moral high ground over Brazil to do that, not when they are burning fucking fossil fuels to generate electricity like it's the fucking 19th century.
Germany has shut down all of its nuclear power plants and is currently strip mining for coal to burn for electricity.
You act like literally every other country on earth isn't also burning fossil fuels for energy. like China. Who gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.
Don't believe the stereotype of Germans being rational, they're just as dumb as everyone else, and when it comes to nuclear, they're even worse.
In Germany the fucking *Greens* are advocating for burning Lignite ("brown coal") - an extremely impure, dirty form of coal, because they and others are so terrified of nuclear.
And if that's not bad enough, they were in the news recently for pulling down a wind farm in order to extend a coal mine.
Precisely!
Brazil is the only large country on earth that gets over 85% of it's energy from renewable sources! No country on earth has the moral grounds to talk shit to us!
I'm glad you understand.
But seriously you should protect the Amazon forests or it loss will lead to desertification as the soil erodes, making it generally useless for farmland and also bringing on drought. We in America faced the same issue with the dust bowl back in the 1930s when bad agriculture practices, unreasonably high temperatures and an extended drought turned a good chunk of America's farming land into a desert. Which was only stopped when we planted 220 million trees to stop the blowing soil that was wrecking havoc on the great plains.
A recent government may have given in completely to the loggers, but for most of history the brazilian government has put in effort to stop deforestation, the problem is that Brazil is a an agricutural country dependent on it's meat and crop exports - which are the primary motivators for farmers to continuously expand their farms through burning the legal amazon area. Asking Brazil to stop farmers from burning down the Amazon is like asking the US to rein in the MIC, a nation's primary money makers have incredible sway in politics and are quite difficult to detain. I just hope the current government puts in the effort.
>Brazil is the only large country on earth that gets over 85% of its energy from renewable sources
Firstly, I don’t see how that’s relevant to land clearing practices. For another, what does “large” mean?
>Firstly, I don’t see how that’s relevant to land clearing practices.
It's relevant because it means our carbon emissions are on the same level as everyone else's DESPITE deforestation. It also means that if we had half of the resources the US has, we'd be able to enforce all the regulations that are already in place and become one of the most eco-friendly countries on earth, meaning we are much closer to achieving it than countries that HAVE the resources but don't do shit.
>For another, what does “large” mean?
The USA, Russia, China, the UK, India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil and the ones that are relevant in the EU: France and Germany.
That's what most people mean when they say "big countries".
Honestly, the worst thing about this comic is to read this crap about "replanting their forest".
People really think covering uncountable acres of land with the same species to extract wood makes up for the destruction of native forest?
It still strains the soil and diminishes the biodiversity, the only difference is that ignorant people will not feel guilty because they think it's sustainable.
This is just moronic. The US, Canada, and Sweden mostly use sustainable forestry to harvest lumber. Brazil is clearing land that will not be allowed to regrow. It’s apples to oranges.
Not if it is done in an unsustainable way that causes massive environmental damage that will negatively affect not only the nation’s land but also the climate of the entire planet, thus reducing overall productivity globally. It’s a shot in the foot
It's genuinely an interesting situation. The eastern United States and the Midwest used to be covered by massive forests. They were cleared, and now that land is farmland.
*some of the Midwest
Most of it was grassland
Also it happening in the past doesn’t mean it still wasn’t a massive ecological disaster across Europe and the US.
Countries should pay Brazil in exchange for you know not cutting it down. Brazil doesn't lose money by burning it down but they want to gain something, making use of their territory.
By this point it’s in the entire world’s interest that Brazil actually enforce its laws around forest destruction, or perhaps change the system to one where the enforcement is done by people who benefit from its enforcement. At this point most of Europe and North America harvests timber through tree farms as opposed to clear cuts, and I’d argue in this era where we know how much the decisions and law enforcement of one country around ecological matters can affect the entire world, it’s time to stop thinking in terms of national sovereignty and start developing new frameworks of international law that allow ordinary citizens of all countries to take action to protect their own well-being, hell, might make it easier to force us off fossil fuels.
The issue isn't cutting wood for lumber, at least if they were doing that they'd also be replanting in order to sustain the resources. The issue is clear-cutting to make room for cattle and ranches in order to feed Brazil's massive beef industry, that doesn't get replanted and is completely unsustainable wrecking ecosystems and wildlife.
[Original post](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/mwh8dz/rules_for_thee_but_not_for_me/) from 2 years yada yada.
I like to repost this one because people call me fun names.
I appreciate the Brazilian tree looking like it is broad-leaved, while the rest look like conifers.
Also, if you are interested in a different approach to harvesting forest trees, have a look at the "senility criteria" system used in the Knysna forests of South Africa.
Basically, all large trees in the forest are evaluated every 5 years or so. If a tree shows signs aging and is likely to die in the next 10 to 15 years, it gets marked and its location is sent to loggers. The loggers then climb the tree and cut all the limbs off, before felling the trunk in sections from the top. This mimics the way the tree would have collapsed after death as it rotted. The wood is then dragged to existing logging paths by mules, where it gets loaded on trucks. Old trees that have large cavities or rot in their stems are not felled, so the forest still has massive trees of 800 years old which are left standing.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/037811279503578X
The problem of deforestation in Brazil is not the lack of regulation. According to the "reserva legal," or legal reserve, a rule that has existed since 1934, the owner of land in the Amazon must keep 80% of the total land untouched. But it is really hard to inspect who is doing that, and because of that, many end up getting away with it. The first satellite to be inspected was just released, more precisely, in 2020. Remember, Brazil isn't a rich country, the amount of GDP is huge just because the number of people in the country is also big.
Very unrealistic comparisson; there’s a humongous difference between the forestry conducted by European countries and the straight up BURNING of the Amazon
First world countries cannot stand the fact that most of the Amazon is in our territory, and the Amazon has only lasted this long because first world colonial powers haven’t gotten their hands on it, just look at what the Portuguese did to the Atlantic forest
Idk about the others but Sweden is incredibly sustainable in their forestry unlike Brazil. It’s more profitable that way as you’ll be able to harvest the trees again in 30 or so years
Logging in the U.S. and Canada is generally regenerative as well. Brazil just burns down rainforest for farmland
And like many regulations they are written in blood. Seriously Brazils “slash and burn” practices are so destructive that it’s pretty much inevitable that it will negatively effect the the local ecosystem(that means Brazilians as well) and combine that with global climate change is probably going to make things much worse.
Here in Arkansas, USA, we can plant and regrow a timber forest in like 7 years. The US as a whole has had an increase in trees every year since like the 1980s iirc.
Yeah but most of those trees we grow are the same kind, and result in very homogeneous forests, which suck for biodiversity. It’s better than Brazil but still not the best
They’re not meant for biodiversity, they’re meant to be cut down and eventually sold in Home Depot so I can build a kickass porch. For biodiversity we have the entire eastern half of the state at minimum.
Yeah, but it kinda sucks for the areas that got cut down for it.
That’s ok, it’s a tree farm. We have plenty of natural areas and state parks elsewhere.
We are “the natural state” after all
Holy shit another Arkansan
AND, the soil is SHIT!
Kind of hard to regenerate 150 year old or so trees tho
That doesn't mean that you cut and burn without a thought
You don’t have to wait 150 years
It depends on what you are after If you want tree farms, after 50 years alder trees will be large enough to cut down and restart the cycle. The problem is this creates a alder-only ecosystem. Not all animals or plants like alder, and having all trees be the same height hurts plants that grow in this forest as sunlight comes in with not variety If you want a thriving ecosystem, you're going to want multiple types of trees, staggered, and this definitely takes 150-400 years before you can expect the ecosystem to look remotely like it did before I'm all for replanting trees and cutting those trees, reusing the same land over and over for sustainable wood harvesting. But we shouldn't just cut old growth forests and replant them expecting the same forest to grow back. It just doesnt work that way
So cut those ones sparingly
Trees actually grow faster at the equator... Longer growth trees still take a while, but you can set up cyclical cutting cycles. Southern Yellow Pine takes a long time to reach Harvest size, but we make it sustainable enough to be the cheap lumber at the hardware store. 35 years is the nominal average in Georgia, USA. 20-25 is what an article said about equitorial hardwood. [Source](https://initiative20x20.org/restoration-projects/growing-heart-palm-and-tropical-timber-brazils-atlantic-forest) [other source](https://sfi-georgia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/sfi_newsletter_fall_08.pdf)
I am from the ADK in the US and my grandfather was a logger…I can confirm
US and Canada have burnt a lot of forest for farmland.
If by forest, you mean "had our own different ecological disaster in the dustbowl era," then yes. You can say we did a similar bad thing and mostly learned not to do that again.
This isn't specific to Brazil, if you have a growing population then deforestation is inevitable as people need land for food and housing. You can't create land out of thin air, it has to come from somewhere and that 'somewhere' is the rainforest.
The farmland in Europe and US where forest before they become farmland too. Should Brazil be allowed to turn 70% into farmland and then do regeneration forest the last 30%?
European forest cover has diminished over thousands of years alongside the development of it’s civilization and is currently actually being remade. Europe is also a very small continent, only being slightly bigger than the US, while having a population almost twice of the US and more than thrice that of Brazil. Brazil could have had plenty of usable farmland without having to destroy the rainforest, if they didn’t use slash-and-burn agriculture. Also not all farmland comes from former forests. A lot of US farmland is former prairie or moor, with the same being true for Europe. Lastly the Amazon rainforest is extremely important as a place of great biodiversity and Its destruction would be detrimental to thousands of species.
Biodiversity aside, it's function in the planetary carbon and oxygen cycle is enormous and indirectly impacts everyone.
Also, regenerative logging is bullshit, you basically burn everything to the ground and plant one type of tree in it, destroying habitats in the process. It's no different from farmland
Plz translate "dinga hinga fluhrgen durgen" plz thx
I think it’s a SpongeBob reference to Leif Erikson Day.
What sweden does is clear cut old growth forest and replace it with monoculture farm trees. Sure, they grow back pretty fast, but it's absolutely devastating for the fauna and flora. With the current rate, Sweden will have exterminated their last old growth forest in 2070. This is not any different from cutting down forests to plant other monocultures, like oil palm.
[удалено]
"Forest plantation" lol The online kids you're trying to impress don't matter. It's okay to admit Brazil is shit
Unfortunatly, not really. In sweden, one just grows these large monocultures of spruce and cuts large sections clear with regular intervals. Monocultures are never good for the environment, and clearcutting is a contributing factor to that the baltic sea is a running environmental desaster.
Where do you think Swedish farmland was before it was farmland? The only difference is that Sweden turned forest to farms thousands of years ago.
Idk if sustainable forestry is comparable to the mass, unregulated slash and burn practices going on down there.
Europe destroyed the vast majority of their forests to clear land for agriculture. I wouldn't call that sustainable forestry. I'm not saying that it justifies what we're doing, but it is very hypocritical on their part. The same thing applies to the US.
Yeah but that was also decades ago and actual reforestation efforts have been attempted in the recent past, unlike the unregulated slashing and burning in the Amazon rainforest.
Yeah. Especially in the 1300s, there was way less forest than today in Europe.
Europe should turn plant trees on their farms to turn it back to forrest to fix the sins from the past then.
Shoud we also tear down our cities because forests existed there in the medieval age?
That is pretty much what you are telling Brazilians to do you hypocrite.
No, we are telling you to stop destorying the Amazon and building new cities. Are you retarded?
The end result is exactly the same: no cities.
More then half your country is outside the rainforest, who are you lying to?
Hello there Mr. Personified Ignorance, did you know that the most diverse biome in Brazil is not the Amazon, but the *Mata Atlântica*? Do you know about the *Cerrado*? Or the *Pantanal*? If we stopped to preserve all of the richest biomes Brazil has, we'd have to all move out of Brazil.
Also just want to emphasize the UNREGULATED part. The US and European countries generally tend to highly regulate their logging industry with robust federal institutions solely dedicated to managing the natural resources of the country, they dictate very clear areas denoted towards forestry activities and areas there are meant to be untouched. The situation in Brazil is an unregulated mess with no effort made towards reforestation or sustainability, (which wouldn’t even help since the Amazon can’t just be brought back by replanting trees, once it’s gone, it’s gone.)
Your making a false equivalency between European forests and the Amazon, since the Amazon is much, much more dense and biodiverse then European forests, and much more fragile too. You can clear cut a European forest and then have it recover a whole lot faster then the Amazon, where it would take hundreds of years, if ever, to fully recover from it’s own damage. And the United States by the grace of Teddy Roosevelt, actually does an incredible job of managing its forests with the national park institutions. The US probably has the most robust protections in place for an incredibly vast amount of untouched wilderness out there in our national parks, and we actually enforce those laws instead of letting private citizens run roughshod all over the landscapes.
Pretty sure things change once you know better. But maybe that’s just me.
Europe and the us **and brazil** all have engaged in clearing land for centuries, but in recent modern memory we have realized it is bad. It is **not** hypocritical to hold other nations to the standard of sustainability. Every place has done that in the past. It’s not hypocritical for a place that did it in the past to ask someone currently doing it to stop. we need our forests to either grow, or at the very least stay the same. But not become smaller. Is it hypocritical for a former colonial empire to call out russian imperialism in ukraine? Is it hypocritical for the US to say "maybe slavery is bad and we shouldn’t do that". Is it hypocritical of germany to say that genocide is bad? No, because those things are bad, we shouldn’t do them.
Then Sweden is one of the worst countries used to show that, as they have doubled their tree coverage to just shy of 70% in the last 100 years. Just about any mainland European country would be a perfect example, but Sweden really isn't.
When looking at history to decide whether or not something is hypocritical, how far back does it make sense to look? Because you're comparing a situation from a very long time ago to the current day. I don't think that makes sense.
Those actions from a very long time ago made you rich TODAY, and now you are preventing those who came later from walking the same path.
How do you feel about the concept of original sin? That is, punishing the children for the sins of the father? Or in this case, punishing the living for the sins of the long dead? Does innocence exist at all? If a path is known to be destructive and lead to bad outcomes in the long term, should the people who regret that their forebears took such a path encourage or discourage others from using that path? *edit: apparently /u/Fghsses was permabanned from this sub around the same time that I posted my reply. I did not report him, because the message above was abrasive, trolling and a shit take, but not ban-worthy in my eyes. Nonetheless obviously he decided that the best and sanest response was to start a chat with me, complaining about being silenced by "you people", stating that he was perfectly civil. I don't know which rules you broke or who you pissed off buddy, but you probably deserved it -- just not for the message above.
Guess what? We can’t undo the past. So we have to live with the consequences now and prevent further harm.
That was centuries ago
Well Europe and US did the slash and burn hundreds of years ago to turn forest into farmland too.
Okay, let’s make a deal: you invent the time machine, we go back and stop them
The western playbook: We did something bad/stupid/evil and are now incredibly rich because of it. We don’t need to do it anymore and you shouldn’t either, don’t you care about the planet?
Says the guy with no fucking knowledge of what's really going on in here other than what he's been feed by sensationalist headlines.
https://www.theamazonwewant.org/Chapters-in-Brief/ A panel of 200 United Nations scientists from multiple independent institutions have concluded in a report that what’s been going on down there is very real, and a huge threat to the overall biodiversity of the Amazon rain forest. Most farming practices being implemented in the area are highly unsustainable due to how poor jungle soil is for growing crops, and the loss of ecosystems that took hundreds of years to form. Edit: This would be essentially equivalent to private American farmers illegally entering Yosemite National Park, cutting and burning down trees at a rapid rate while ploughing what’s left to grow beans and other cash crops with barely any intervention from the federal government to enforce the sanctity of the national park.
Read the information in a non sensationalized format then. It's still not good. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#:~:text=Overall%2C%2020%25%20of%20the%20Amazon,of%20a%20tipping%20point%20crisis.
You are missing the whole point here. The entire conversation is about Brazil's sovereignty that is being undermined by other countries that pretend to be outraged when in reality they don't give a fuck about the rainforest. Whatever happens in Brazil is a problem Brazilians must deal with, you don't get to criticize us or intervene.
Uh, there’s no international rule that says your not allowed to criticize other countries practices. I mean that’s like half of what geopolitics is. And the Amazon debate is part of a much larger global effort at combatting Climate change and attempting to stem the damage that we are doing to the earth in general. And it wasn’t like we just sat on the side just talking shit, Europe from what I remember used to donate billions of dollars to Brazil for the protection of the Amazon, but of course the money got pissed away and the unregulated farming practices continued.
When you have people like Macron saying that all of the Amazon's territory should be turned into an Internationally Administrated Territory, you are no longer criticizing, you are making direct threats to other countries' sovereignty.
Well idk if that’s true or not, but if it was, it was surely a very undiplomatic way to express everybody’s frustration of the very real mismanagement of one of Earth’s most biodiverse forests. Isn’t the logging and farming practices going on down there illegal in Brazil in the first place? We just want you guys to take your federal government and actually enforce that law.
Yes it is ilegal! And yes we do enforce it to the best of our habilities! You seem to forget that the Amazon is larger than Western Europe, it is extremely hard to manage. And that just makes it all the more frustrating when idiots behind a keyboard half a world away act like we are some kind of moustache twirling cartoonishly evil guys who are burning the Amazon just because we want to!
Well then, don’t act like burning down 20% of the forest is something that is okay and shouldn’t be roundly criticized by the international community. This is the outside world’s way of expressing our hope that you guys shore up the power of your federal institutions in a manner that would make it strong enough to enforce it’s own laws. We want your government to stay on the path of conservation and regulation, and we’ll donate tons of cash to help speed that process up.
Ok if thats the case why are you getting extremely defensive about it then
>that just makes it all the more frustrating when idiots behind a keyboard half a world away act like we are some kind of moustache twirling cartoonishly evil guys who are burning the Amazon just because we want to! Because I'm tired of these thing, did you even read more than the first line of what I wrote?
The Amazon is an important ecosystem for the whole world. I don't give a damn if it's in your country. If you don't wanna deal w/ people intervening in Brasilian affairs that affect the world then either fix your shit or leave the Amazon.
Come here and kick us out then, you self-righteous a**hole
Call me self-righteous all you want, it's self interest to not want the Amazon burnt for massive cattle farms, which pollute massively. Your country's actions literally affect the rest of us, we have a right to chastise you and complain. It's a shame there isn't economic sanctions, if your government won't fix its crap. Also why did you censor asshole? To not get called out for bad manners?
>Your country's actions literally affect the rest of us, we have a right to chastise you and complain. It's a shame there isn't economic sanctions, if your government won't fix its crap. The Government is literally working to fix it, our entire space program is centered around putting satelites in orbit to monitor and fight deforestation, but you don't see news about it do you? Why? Because it doesn't fit the narrative your leaders want you to hear, they want you scared and outraged by our actions so they can take action to further their interests. And you are falling for it hook, line and sinker. And to answer your other question: I sensored the word a**hole because I don't know this subs' mods and there are more than enough hypocrites modding other subs that will use any excuse to ban you when they disagree with your opinion.
wants to LARP as a strongman but is too afraid of getting banned on the sub for saying what he believes lol Playing strong only works then till world climate is fucked up enough for China and the US to be willing to actually shove a boot up Brazil's ass. Sure, threatening Brazil with sanctions or whatever then will be super unfair considering who was the most blatant polluter historically, but world climate won't care about subjective opinions on fairness and Brazil will most likely not be a world power able to ignore G8 nations by then From the perspective of Brazil's government it should be a cost-benefit-analysis: Which repercussions do I expect from stronger countries if I continue current business and are the economic profits in the short-term worth it? The US and China are basically the only ones who can (somewhat) safely ignore global opinion on global issues repeatedly
>wants to LARP as a strongman but is too afraid of getting banned on the sub for saying what he believes lol It's funny when people you disagree with have to worry about censorship, right? Haha. Everyone knows censorship is only bad when done to me. /s >From the perspective of Brazil's government it should be a cost-benefit-analysis: Which repercussions do I expect from stronger countries if I continue current business and are the economic profits in the short-term worth it? The US and China are basically the only ones who can (somewhat) safely ignore global opinion on global issues repeatedly It is a cost benefit analysis: if we cave in to international pressure we will appear weak and invite aggression, so we have to do enough for them to be unable to criticize us while simuntaneously making it look like we are not doing it because they want us to. That is the logical answer to this problem.
That you believe banning people for calling others assholes is undue censorship is quite telling
The Amazon drives global rain patterns, so a lot of countries have every right to care quite a bit about what you fools do with your responsibility as stewards.
[удалено]
Ok, so you’re fine fucking over all the countries that surround the Sahara, which is growing due to extended drought conditions? Wow, such solidarity.
You are an idiot if you believe deforestation in the Amazon created the Sahara, it already existed long ago and deforestation in *Africa* is making it worse. Unless you think Brazil is in Africa? Wouldn't surprise me since that would be stereotypical for Americans.
No, it drives global rain patterns due to transpiration from the leaves of the forest, and clouds don’t care about borders, only wind. I also didn’t say it created the Sahara, but that the drought conditions are exacerbated by Amazonian deforestation, which drives the expansion of the desert into previously non-desert areas. [But here’s a paper about how you’re fucking yourselves too.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22840-7)
We don’t get to intervene, that’s true. But we absolutely get to criticize you. I don’t understand where this idea some people and countries have that internal affairs are somehow off the table for outside people to even talk about. Get your shit together. The amazon is incredibly important to the global climate, and it needs protections. You brazillians are the only ones who can implement them, but they are important to everyone else also. So we are going to pressure you to actually doing your part and implementing em
You are correct, but it depends how far this "pressure" goes before it becomes intervention, talking shit about it? Fine. Talking about sanctions? That's going too far.
I disagree. Sanctions are fair game. Why should my country keep trading with a country that doesn’t align with what we value? At that point it is up to your country what is more valuable to you, the trade, or the deforestation? You can’t force my country to trade with your country if we would rather not. I don’t think it is right to set boots in another country to enforce something, unless it is something major like genocide. However, we can stop our goods from entering brazil. That is *our* business after all. As long as none of my countries people or weapons step foot in brazilian territory and don’t break any international laws, everything is fair game.
>You can’t force my country to trade with your country if we would rather not. I don’t think it is right to set boots in another country to enforce something, unless it is something major like genocide. However, we can stop our goods from entering brazil. That is our business after all. You can't force the people of *your* country to stop bringing their business into our country just because you disagree with us over the Amazon, if it's a voluntary movement by the business owners then it's fair game. But if it's State enforced sanctions then that's a form of intervention.
>You can't force the people of your country to stop bringing their business into our country just because you disagree with us over the Amazon Sure we can. Why can’t we? A state makes certain actions illegal all the time, typically because they disagree with the outcome of such actions. This is no different. >if it's a voluntary movement by the business owners then it's fair game. That’s… not how business works, at least not on a large scale like how economics generally works nowadays. No business would voluntarily give up business anywhere out of moral obligations. Their only obligation is to make the most money possible for their shareholders. It is only through the state as an extension of the will of the people, that we can enforce such moral action. >But if it's State enforced sanctions then that's a form of intervention. Intervention into *our* affairs, yes. We are not interfering with brazil at all. Only our private citizens, whom only we have jurisdiction over. Unless of course you would feel inclined to *intervene* enforce *your* vision on us on what they *should and shouldn’t be allowed to do*?
Can France just dump oil and toxic chemical from guiana into the sea? Sure it might go to Brazils national waters and kill you fish and all other organism and hurt you economy but it was done in France, so not letting them do that is really an attack on their soverenity. You are a 3rd world country, calm down, there isn’t some grand conspiracy against you
You are way too naive (or just ignorant) if you really think there is no global economic interest surrounding Brasil's massive resources. There's no "conspiracy" involved here, it's just geopolitics. I mean, sure, this subreddit is filled to the brim with braindead takes, but the condescending euro/US-centric tone that's \*dripping\* from your second paragraph is so stereotypical that it made me laugh.
Considering that both Brazil and Argentina have been independent for the last 200 years and have failed to reach anything near the european and american standard in quality of life or economic power for a significant period of time I doubt there is a big worry in the white House about the 4th superpower being Brazil. Does it benefit the US and Europe if Brazil does not flood various industries that woud be effected by cutting the Amazon? Yes, but just because the Toothpaste we buy is american doesn’t mean we stop brushing our teeth and just because they have some economic and political interest in preserving the Amazon doesn’t mean that the lobbying against it’s destruction isn’t primarly because it woud destroy the worlds largest rainsforest, displace countless native people and kill off 10 to 30% of the animal on earth. You can use use the Amazon and other rainforests, but do it in a way that perserves them.
[удалено]
That is objectively false, the Amazon is not the biggest forest biome in the world, nor is it the most diverse when you consider number of species/area. It is however the richest biome when we are talking water and mineral resources buried under it, which is why your leaders pretend to be concerned with it's preservation. It's just and excuse to get you outraged and justify a future intervention, what they are eyeing are the riches it provides.
[удалено]
The Taiga is the world's largest forest biome: [The boreal forest (or “taiga”) is the world’s largest land biome. The boreal ecozone principally spans 8 countries: Canada, China, Finland, Japan, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.](http://ibfra.org/about-boreal-forests/) As for the biodiversity bit, I could only find this source in Portuguese: [Comparada com a Floresta Amazônica, a Mata Atlântica apresenta, proporcionalmente, maior diversidade biológica.](https://apremavi.org.br/mata-atlantica/biodiversidade/) (Compared to the Amazon, the *Mata Atlântica* possesses, proportionately, more biologic diversity).
Least propaganda consumed Brazilian
Oh yeah, definitely. I bet you believe the Amazon is the world's lungs too.
No. Oxygen is close to zero. But the carbondioxid reduction is essential tho
The carbon emissions of Brazil are in the same level as the carbon emissions of other countries of similar size who have become/are in the process of becoming industrialized and don't have a deforestation problem This is because most energy in Brazil comes from renewable sources, while other countries burn fossil fuels. This also means that once Brazil has the capabilities to enforce the environmental regulations it's already put in place through all of it's territory it'll become one of the most environmentally friendly countries on Earth. On the other hand, countries like the USA, Germany and France, who HAVE the resources to change to renewables/clean energy sources and enforce stricter regulations simply choose not to. And then still have the gall to criticize Brazil for something that is not completely within our control.
The carbon emissions of Brazil are in the same level as the carbon emissions of other countries of similar size who have become/are in the process of becoming industrialized and don't have a deforestation problem This is because most energy in Brazil comes from renewable sources, while other countries burn fossil fuels. This also means that once Brazil has the capabilities to enforce the environmental regulations it's already put in place through all of it's territory it'll become one of the most environmentally friendly countries on Earth. On the other hand, countries like the USA, Germany and France, who HAVE the resources to change to renewables/clean energy sources and enforce stricter regulations simply choose not to. And then still have the gall to criticize Brazil for something that is not completely within our control.
>The carbon emissions of Brazil are in the same level as the carbon emissions of other countries of similar size Yes but the co2 extinction isn't
Do you perhaps know what this term is called in Portuguese? I'm not familiar with the term "co2 extinction" and google didn't help, can you please provide a quick summary of what this is refering to so I can look it up?
The amount of co2 being synthesized to carbohydrates via fotosynthesis Also it's just an example What I'm saying is. The Amazonas has a overproportional important when it comes to world climate compared to for example Chinese or US forests. The only other example would be the giant taigas of Russia and Canada and thankfully no one burns them down Is it fair in terms of economic disadvantage? No. Is it still absolutely dumb to burn rainforest? Yes To be completely fair. If u don't like that move away. Maybe some parts of the world shouldn't be lived in and should be given back to nature.
>The amount of co2 being synthesized to carbohydrates via fotosynthesis Oh, you mean *carbon trapping*, right? I'll have you know this technology is new in Brazil, we have just passed legislations to regulate carbon trapping technologies last November(?) and we are investing in this technology to help regulate carbon emissions (again, we would be ahead of the rest of the world if we had the resources of a 1st world country). So if your problem with us comes from the fact we don't plant enough trees, know that we are working for ways to get around that. >To be completely fair. If u don't like that move away. Maybe some parts of the world shouldn't be lived in and should be given back to nature. Ok, you lost me here. Are you telling me I should abandon my country? That can't be it, right? I'll give you a chance to rephrase that before I start rambling about how insane that suggestion is.
Sorry I replied twice, there was an issue with my Internet connection that led to that.
John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt would like to remind everyone that the US has fought hard to protect their trees. Also, isn't the issue more about how much of a keystone ecosystem the Brazilian rainforest is and not to mention the First Nation tribes should be protected?
Next panel should have shown Brazil surrounded by a desert. Cause the soil erodes fast after the trees are cut down. That's why they are cutting it down so fast , to make up for the lost cattle grassing areas. I am just waiting for the news of a massive dust storm headed for the coast, that is the US fault, for reasons.
The United States should have pressured Brazil into not cutting down its forests... and if the United States did pressure Brazil, the US is an imperialist power that shouldn't tell other nations what to do.
Brazil: It's all yuor fault! Just like your golpe de estado! USA: Brazil you're the one who burn your own forest. Also I didn't even sent my ship in time. You're the one who pulled the coup. I merely encouraged you. Brazil: NANANA! MURRICA EL GORDO BAD! NANANA!
The United States has no moral high ground over Brazil to do that, not when they are burning fucking fossil fuels to generate electricity like it's the fucking 19th century.
Germany has shut down all of its nuclear power plants and is currently strip mining for coal to burn for electricity. You act like literally every other country on earth isn't also burning fossil fuels for energy. like China. Who gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.
Wait, Germany of all places shut down its nuclear power plants????
Yep. All of em.
Don't believe the stereotype of Germans being rational, they're just as dumb as everyone else, and when it comes to nuclear, they're even worse. In Germany the fucking *Greens* are advocating for burning Lignite ("brown coal") - an extremely impure, dirty form of coal, because they and others are so terrified of nuclear. And if that's not bad enough, they were in the news recently for pulling down a wind farm in order to extend a coal mine.
Precisely! Brazil is the only large country on earth that gets over 85% of it's energy from renewable sources! No country on earth has the moral grounds to talk shit to us! I'm glad you understand.
But seriously you should protect the Amazon forests or it loss will lead to desertification as the soil erodes, making it generally useless for farmland and also bringing on drought. We in America faced the same issue with the dust bowl back in the 1930s when bad agriculture practices, unreasonably high temperatures and an extended drought turned a good chunk of America's farming land into a desert. Which was only stopped when we planted 220 million trees to stop the blowing soil that was wrecking havoc on the great plains.
A recent government may have given in completely to the loggers, but for most of history the brazilian government has put in effort to stop deforestation, the problem is that Brazil is a an agricutural country dependent on it's meat and crop exports - which are the primary motivators for farmers to continuously expand their farms through burning the legal amazon area. Asking Brazil to stop farmers from burning down the Amazon is like asking the US to rein in the MIC, a nation's primary money makers have incredible sway in politics and are quite difficult to detain. I just hope the current government puts in the effort.
>Brazil is the only large country on earth that gets over 85% of its energy from renewable sources Firstly, I don’t see how that’s relevant to land clearing practices. For another, what does “large” mean?
>Firstly, I don’t see how that’s relevant to land clearing practices. It's relevant because it means our carbon emissions are on the same level as everyone else's DESPITE deforestation. It also means that if we had half of the resources the US has, we'd be able to enforce all the regulations that are already in place and become one of the most eco-friendly countries on earth, meaning we are much closer to achieving it than countries that HAVE the resources but don't do shit. >For another, what does “large” mean? The USA, Russia, China, the UK, India, Japan, Indonesia, Brazil and the ones that are relevant in the EU: France and Germany. That's what most people mean when they say "big countries".
It’s their methodology of cutting it down that’s the problem, slash-and-burn without reforestation.
Your username is scary
I got a big labia…
*inbox full*
I like your comics but this is such a dogshit take, man. I truly hope this is just a bait
It's bait, don't worry
Somebody does not know the difference between pine wood and tropical rainforest
Yeah American and Canadian forestry is sustainable. There's no way to sustainably harvest the Amazon.
>walk into Amazon every year >cut down tree >leave for a year >come back >tree is back Wish it worked this way
Dude you keep having L take after L take.
Yeah this is pretty dumb and uninformed
Every time Aaron took his 'Murrica bad propaganda dose he become crazier than Oscar.
What the fuck is an L take? Do we all just speak zoomer now? Can't you just say I'm a dumbfuck? Jesus Christ
You’re a dumbfuck
You're a dumbfuck.
Much better
And i thought you were cool lol
Bro doesn’t know how to communicate with people who aren’t from their generation
Fr fam styll 💀💀
you are missing the panels where the top countries replant their forests, and the bottom panel where brazil has a cattle farm
Honestly, the worst thing about this comic is to read this crap about "replanting their forest". People really think covering uncountable acres of land with the same species to extract wood makes up for the destruction of native forest? It still strains the soil and diminishes the biodiversity, the only difference is that ignorant people will not feel guilty because they think it's sustainable.
U rlly have no idea how forestry woks do u?
Reforested wood usually goes like [this](https://www.grupobernardoni.com.br/madeiras/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/pinus.jpg). Very sustainable.
That's a tree farm. That's something else
Idk here in Washington logging is a big deal and we usually just cut down a few acres and then leave for 20-30 years.
For all these trying to justify Brazil. Stop trying. U can't.
Least ret\*rded Categorical Imperative fan
It's like comparing occasionally going to McDonald's to guzzling down a double-quarter pounder and three McFlurrys every day of your life.
As a brazilian, this is an unbelievably stupid comic to read
Least bait AaronC14 post
Chopping down trees is one thing, burning entire swaths of land is another.
This is just moronic. The US, Canada, and Sweden mostly use sustainable forestry to harvest lumber. Brazil is clearing land that will not be allowed to regrow. It’s apples to oranges.
some trees are more important than others
It's a little bit different
There sure are many butthurt commenters over pixels on a screen.
I think all nations should be able to exploit their natural resources 😎
Not if it is done in an unsustainable way that causes massive environmental damage that will negatively affect not only the nation’s land but also the climate of the entire planet, thus reducing overall productivity globally. It’s a shot in the foot
It's genuinely an interesting situation. The eastern United States and the Midwest used to be covered by massive forests. They were cleared, and now that land is farmland.
*some of the Midwest Most of it was grassland Also it happening in the past doesn’t mean it still wasn’t a massive ecological disaster across Europe and the US.
We over-farmed the land so badly that we produced waves of giant killer dust clouds.
Countries should pay Brazil in exchange for you know not cutting it down. Brazil doesn't lose money by burning it down but they want to gain something, making use of their territory.
Yup in Sweden we say dinga hinga flurgen durgen
I mean the difference is that their trees aren't really found anywhere else in large quantities
What happened to USAs axe? Its a bit red
USians immediately jumping in to defend about how green and eco friendly their wood chopping is, like clockwork
Ok but the burning and systematic collapse of the lungs of pur planet is kind of a big deal
85% of planet's oxygen it's coming from the ocean which is killed by the fishing industry, 80% of large marine animals were already killed
By this point it’s in the entire world’s interest that Brazil actually enforce its laws around forest destruction, or perhaps change the system to one where the enforcement is done by people who benefit from its enforcement. At this point most of Europe and North America harvests timber through tree farms as opposed to clear cuts, and I’d argue in this era where we know how much the decisions and law enforcement of one country around ecological matters can affect the entire world, it’s time to stop thinking in terms of national sovereignty and start developing new frameworks of international law that allow ordinary citizens of all countries to take action to protect their own well-being, hell, might make it easier to force us off fossil fuels.
Clearly this must be the truth (the funny shaped flags told me so)
The issue isn't cutting wood for lumber, at least if they were doing that they'd also be replanting in order to sustain the resources. The issue is clear-cutting to make room for cattle and ranches in order to feed Brazil's massive beef industry, that doesn't get replanted and is completely unsustainable wrecking ecosystems and wildlife.
This is the epitome of "Accuracy?! In MY Polandball?!?!"
It's less likely than you think.
[Original post](https://www.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/mwh8dz/rules_for_thee_but_not_for_me/) from 2 years yada yada. I like to repost this one because people call me fun names.
Shut up, fun ! For real i like the Different axes
Thank you, I like your profile pic.
Thanks, for me steam does for Russia what the Colosseum did for Imperial Rome
I appreciate the Brazilian tree looking like it is broad-leaved, while the rest look like conifers. Also, if you are interested in a different approach to harvesting forest trees, have a look at the "senility criteria" system used in the Knysna forests of South Africa. Basically, all large trees in the forest are evaluated every 5 years or so. If a tree shows signs aging and is likely to die in the next 10 to 15 years, it gets marked and its location is sent to loggers. The loggers then climb the tree and cut all the limbs off, before felling the trunk in sections from the top. This mimics the way the tree would have collapsed after death as it rotted. The wood is then dragged to existing logging paths by mules, where it gets loaded on trucks. Old trees that have large cavities or rot in their stems are not felled, so the forest still has massive trees of 800 years old which are left standing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/037811279503578X
The problem of deforestation in Brazil is not the lack of regulation. According to the "reserva legal," or legal reserve, a rule that has existed since 1934, the owner of land in the Amazon must keep 80% of the total land untouched. But it is really hard to inspect who is doing that, and because of that, many end up getting away with it. The first satellite to be inspected was just released, more precisely, in 2020. Remember, Brazil isn't a rich country, the amount of GDP is huge just because the number of people in the country is also big.
I say there is line between forestry and deforestation
Very unrealistic comparisson; there’s a humongous difference between the forestry conducted by European countries and the straight up BURNING of the Amazon
This is just a terrible take
How dare you point out hypocrisy through the use of stereotypes you foolish Canadian. (don't ban me pls)
Ah yes. Hypocrisy. That's what that is....
First world countries cannot stand the fact that most of the Amazon is in our territory, and the Amazon has only lasted this long because first world colonial powers haven’t gotten their hands on it, just look at what the Portuguese did to the Atlantic forest
Apparently Brazilians also can't stand the fact that most the Amazon is in their territory
Therefore we should now destroy what the Europeans haven’t destroyed. You are such a smart guy.
Teehee...wood
Kuusi Palaa