Amazon rain forest fires

pinno

Sign the petition at Change.org

https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-burni ... rainforest

Donate to WWF:

https://www.wwf.org.uk/updates/5-ways-h ... rainforest

Tweet Boris Johnson:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson?ref_sr ... r%5Eauthor

Email the Brazilian embassy:

cultural.london@itamaraty.gov.br

Post on facebook.

But don't do nothing.

robert88

I have not done nothing.

Stevo_666

Looks like France and Ireland are threatening to scupper the EU - Mercosur trade deal over Brazil's lack of action - fair play to them. Whether Bolsonaro will back down and do something is another question however.

shirley_basso

Macron posted something on Facebook and the responses are absolutely absurd.

https://www.facebook.com/EmmanuelMacron ... =3&theater

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

Macron posted something on Facebook and the responses are absolutely absurd.

https://www.facebook.com/EmmanuelMacron ... =3&theater

Can you summarise for those of us not on FB.

Pretty blunt language from Macron, calling Bolsonaro a liar. Expressions of concern from Johnson but I wonder whether it will amount to anything more.

sungod

bolsonaro is pure school of trump, doesn't care about the environment, nor human rights or global opinion, he's been shafting the indigenous people for ages

it would be good if the eu/others cancel/postpone trade/other cooperation with his regime, but that won't make him change behaviour, he'll just use it to whip up his supporters

shirley_basso

rjsterry wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

Macron posted something on Facebook and the responses are absolutely absurd.

https://www.facebook.com/EmmanuelMacron ... =3&theater

Can you summarise for those of us not on FB.

Pretty blunt language from Macron, calling Bolsonaro a liar. Expressions of concern from Johnson but I wonder whether it will amount to anything more.

Macron:
Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rain forest - the lungs which produces 20% of our planet’s oxygen - is on fire. It is an international crisis. Members of the G7 Summit, let's discuss this emergency first order in two days! #ActForTheAmazon

Comments:


NO...it is NOT your house...neither yours nor anybody else's house in the world...it is MY HOUSE and the #amazon state belongs to #Brazil and all Brazilians (National Sovereignty). Please take care of your country and clean your seaside region and french sea because the marine plankton is the real LUNG OF THE WORLD not #amazonforest or the #amazon...our national army forces and intelligence are already in charge of such criminal fires...please take care of french issues and european problems...


"This is NOT ours.

That is BRAZIL....

And Brazil can take care of amazon way better then Europe took care of their forests."

"The Amazon is not the "lung of the world" but the algae in the oceans, which produce most of the oxygen on Earth.
Because the Amazon is an "adult" forest it produces exactly the oxygen it consumes, any basic biology class explains it.
Brazil is doing its homework and reducing deforestation unlike Venezuela and Bolivia but the French President wants to give moral lessons in Brazil for purely commercial reasons, because if it were true concern he would begin to repair the damage historically done in African countries."

Etc etc

pinno

The O2 production/absorption argument is equally absurd.
The land will be used for cattle ranching and Soya to feed the cattle. 2 harvest of Soya and the soil is infertile plus, the cattle produce methane.
Regardless of anyone's views on climate change and the global impact the Amazon has, you can throw the argument back to them and say that preservation of habitat and ecosystems is critical.

shirley_basso

They're just Brazilian / South American loons who someone think Macron is making colonialist claims when he said 'our'.

Plus the photo used is actually quite ancient so feeds conspiracy theorists.

rjsterry

Shirley Basso wrote:

They're just Brazilian / South American loons who someone think Macron is making colonialist claims when he said 'our'.

Plus the photo used is actually quite ancient so feeds conspiracy theorists.

Thanks SB. The trouble is the 20% of oxygen statistic isn't true. That's not to say Macron is wrong to take a strong line but he needs to get his facts straight. Otherwise it makes it very easy to dismiss him as a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about.

cycleclinic

I am not sure what the best way to encourage countries like brazil to take better care of the amazon forest. grandstanding does not work and populists are in charge all over the world. Populist have a very different view of the world and see it as something to be exploited for its riches. Asking Brazil to take care of its forests is a bit like asking the brazilians not to be human. the sad truth is human civilisation (in particular the european civilisation that has conolised the world and created its economic system) does not live in harmony with nature. some small tribal groups do manage to live in harmony with there environment but there society is not structured around growing and become richer. When when all people lived in tribal communties humans have been making species extincts, it what we have done since we have been human.

Its difficult to ask other to change if we dont make the changes ourselves. And before anyone thinks the going veggie will help, just think soya is grown in brazil on forest cleared land. If we were really serious about taling climate change we wuld stop buying beef burgers (I know beef is nice) and stop driving cars including electric ones. We would also stop building using concrete and fired bricks or at least reduce there use to where there is no choise like big infractsture and build houses from materials that require less energy to produce and that better insulators. These materials exist already.

Pross

Am I the only one surprised to discover how easily rain forests burn considering how wet the areas are? I can't imagine it's like California, Australia or Spain where the vegetation has dried out through weeks or months without significant rainfall; there's usually a couple of hours of torrential downpour every day. Trees there must take fairly regular lightning strikes and yet I can't recall hearing stories of natural forest fires occurring.

cycleclinic

Its the dry season in brazil and forest fires are a way f nature clearing the under growth. The big trees normally survive.

rick_chasey

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshe ... 1678bd5bde

"Why everything they say about the amazon, including that it's the lungs of the world, is wrong"

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.

I was curious to hear what one of the world’s leading Amazon forest experts, Dan Nepstad, had to say about the “lungs” claim.

“It’s bullshit,” he said. “There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.”

Plants use respiration to convert nutrients from the soil into energy. They use photosynthesis to convert light into chemical energy, which can later be used in respiration.

We're not the only mugs who use the internet, clearly.

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

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/#4e1678bd5bde

"Why everything they say about the amazon, including that it's the lungs of the world, is wrong"

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.

I was curious to hear what one of the world’s leading Amazon forest experts, Dan Nepstad, had to say about the “lungs” claim.

“It’s bullshit,” he said. “There’s no science behind that. The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen but it uses the same amount of oxygen through respiration so it’s a wash.”

Plants use respiration to convert nutrients from the soil into energy. They use photosynthesis to convert light into chemical energy, which can later be used in respiration.

We're not the only mugs who use the internet, clearly.

Isn't the bigger issue that trees help absorb CO2?

rick_chasey

Article lays out in some detail what is actually happening re forest/rain forest fires.

It's not clear cut, (who knew), but the backlash is odd given what seems to actually be going on.

Would suggest it is more an indicator of where popular opinion is re-climate change (currently *it's a massive problem but I want someone else to blame so they can solve it for me*) in the West, rather than anything else.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

Article lays out in some detail what is actually happening re forest/rain forest fires.

It's not clear cut, (who knew), but the backlash is odd given what seems to actually be going on.

Would suggest it is more an indicator of where popular opinion is re-climate change (currently *it's a massive problem but I want someone else to blame so they can solve it for me*) in the West, rather than anything else.

I was just about to post a link to that article... think you've hit it with the "blame somebody else" bit. There's a strong whiff of people looking for deplorables to dump on.

TheBigBean

Korea has been extremely successful with its reforestation plan. Perhaps Europe and the US could follow its lead.

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

Korea has been extremely successful with its reforestation plan. Perhaps Europe and the US could follow its lead.

You mean something like this?


You would hardly know from all the hysteria that the total amount of forest in rich countries has been increasing for quite some time. Or that the total amount of green vegetation in the world is increasing.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Korea has been extremely successful with its reforestation plan. Perhaps Europe and the US could follow its lead.

You mean something like this?


You would hardly know from all the hysteria that the total amount of forest in rich countries has been increasing for quite some time. Or that the total amount of green vegetation in the world is increasing.

It's a nice graphic but it's more an illustration of just how much forest had been removed by the start of the 20th century. And it's not as if there isn't massive room for further improvement.

TheBigBean

What rjsterry said. Plus, (R.o.) Korea increased its volume of forest ten fold in forty years. That graph doesn't look remotely comparable.

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

increased its volume of forest ten fold in forty years

Good plan, I'm sure the UK will look lovely when it's 130% forested.

TheBigBean

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

increased its volume of forest ten fold in forty years

Good plan, I'm sure the UK will look lovely when it's 130% forested.

Best not to try at all then if the maths doesn't work at a ten fold multiple.

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

increased its volume of forest ten fold in forty years

Good plan, I'm sure the UK will look lovely when it's 130% forested.

Best not to try at all then if the maths doesn't work at a ten fold multiple.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Do you seriously think that's what I'm implying?

FWIW the UK's area has increased in the last 10 years and Korea's has decreased. If nothing else, that says that it's a bit facile to compare the two.

TheBigBean

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

increased its volume of forest ten fold in forty years

Good plan, I'm sure the UK will look lovely when it's 130% forested.

Best not to try at all then if the maths doesn't work at a ten fold multiple.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Do you seriously think that's what I'm implying?

FWIW the UK's area has increased in the last 10 years and Korea's has decreased. If nothing else, that says that it's a bit facile to compare the two.

A stat that completely ignores the reforestation period when there were huge, successful, public campaigns to plant more trees.

rjsterry

A statistic just spotted while reading about trees

"The UK was the second largest net importer (imports less exports) of forest products in 2016, behind China"

bompington

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

increased its volume of forest ten fold in forty years

Good plan, I'm sure the UK will look lovely when it's 130% forested.

Best not to try at all then if the maths doesn't work at a ten fold multiple.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Do you seriously think that's what I'm implying?

FWIW the UK's area has increased in the last 10 years and Korea's has decreased. If nothing else, that says that it's a bit facile to compare the two.

A stat that completely ignores the reforestation period when there were huge, successful, public campaigns to plant more trees.

Listen, I'm not denying the impressive achievement, or claiming that the UK's is in any way comparable: as I have already said, the situations are entirely different.
So you don't need to keep the argument going for any reason apart from your personal compulsion to win the internet.

If reforestation is important - and I think most would agree that it is - then the Koreans have done a great job, the UK isn't doing badly, and we can all be happy.

rjsterry

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

bompington wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

increased its volume of forest ten fold in forty years

Good plan, I'm sure the UK will look lovely when it's 130% forested.

Best not to try at all then if the maths doesn't work at a ten fold multiple.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Do you seriously think that's what I'm implying?

FWIW the UK's area has increased in the last 10 years and Korea's has decreased. If nothing else, that says that it's a bit facile to compare the two.

A stat that completely ignores the reforestation period when there were huge, successful, public campaigns to plant more trees.

Listen, I'm not denying the impressive achievement, or claiming that the UK's is in any way comparable: as I have already said, the situations are entirely different.
So you don't need to keep the argument going for any reason apart from your personal compulsion to win the internet.

If reforestation is important - and I think most would agree that it is - then the Koreans have done a great job, the UK isn't doing badly, and we can all be happy.

No. This is Cake Stop. Nobody goes away happy.

TheBigBean

bompington wrote:

So you don't need to keep the argument going for any reason apart from your personal compulsion to win the internet.

Doctor, heal thyself.

bompington

See what I mean?