How much money is made from the farmland from deforested regions... how much from the lumber and how much from the reuse of the land? How many countries are trading with Brazil for consuming those goods?

It's a big problem, but without some input from trade partners globally and/or other support, I'm not sure what the solution really is. Also, not just in Brazil, but other areas with grasslands that have seen desertification, countering that is very important. It may be necessary to support global efforts to increase diverse planting to portions of agricultural lands to at least try to preserve them. Grazing and crop rotations as well.

Efforts for more diverse use of agriculture as well. More barley and buckwheat, less soy and corn. Less monoculture in the crops, seed varieties of crops we already grow to increase diversity in agriculture. Of course, moving away from Monsonto controlled models, which should mean reverting policy on patents regarding genetic markers and traits.

Right now, too much of the food supply is from mega farms with no diversity and lots of chemical pesticides and resistant strains of crops that are killing off bee populations. I'm not so much against GMO crops as a practice, but definitely need some genetic diversity in the practice. We have the ability to feed the world, we need to start concentrating on doing it better.

The only real solution will be for wealthy nations paying Brazil to not exploit their natural resources, which seems like a very very high ask for all parties involved.

Otherwise we'll see the continued destruction for at least another 30-40 years until there's a global demographic peak.

We're also going to see the destruction of the Canadian Boreal forest as temperatures rise makes such land viable for industrial farming.

You can donate to charities that directly purchase rainforest. Rainforesttrust.org is one. They can purchase an acre of land for around 10 dollars.

Right now the main issue is that last year they only received 15 million in donations. Not nearly enough to stop the problem.

Having looked into it only briefly, how are these "owned" acres policed?

The article says that people are illegally clearing land they don’t own.

No, the Canadian forest would basically reclaim as much land from the tundra where it's currently to cold for trees as it would lose to agriculture. I expect it to be more or less a wash. Also the same goes for Russia's boreal forests.

why not just sanction or tariff beef exports? Seems like a simpler solution.

I wonder if there are any NGOs one could reasonably give money for that.

Most countries just don't have a rainforest although it's in interest of most to maintain the existing ones.

Canada (and the Boreal in particular)is absolutely huge. I'm not convinced that much of this land is any more economically viable than the copious amounts of "undeveloped" wilderness to the south.

Plus, climate change is also about variability. Much of this land could see wild extremes of weather, sounds risky for agriculture.

"The planet is fine."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHgJKrmbYfg

The money is not made on the lumber, but on agriculture.

I recently read that, most of the deforested regions are used for low-density cattle (0.5 cow / hectare), which gets transformed into beef, mainly for export.

As a Brazilian, I'm trying to imagine the logistical costs of running any type of large scale export oriented agriculture business in the Amazon. There is no railroad, no paved roads, no electricity, no workforce (human density is lower than 1 per square Km, let alone work aged humans), nothing. There's a lot of dense forest and water. Feeding cattle in large scale must be a huge expensive challenge in the Amazon region. Processing meat and moving it to ports, an insanely expensive work due to the lack of basic infrastructure. On the flip side, there are other regions in the country with at least 3 decades of accumulated expertise in animal protein production for the international market, good infrastructure, including proximity to sea ports. I don't see how a serious globally competitive animal protein group could make the decision to run business in such an isolated infra deprived area. It would be like someone from the Silicon Valley deciding to run a tech business in Antarctica for the sole reason the datacenter could be kept cooler at a lower cost using what nature has to offer in abundance in that region: cold weather. Amazon offers cheap land and water (period), but that is not enough to make a profitable animal protein business.

You don't have to "imagine" there are the pictures from the satellites which can be compared with the older:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HusBCLws0Q

https://youtu.be/L9zWDtDKDS8?t=45

Interesting. Do you have videos showing cattle, warehouses, trucks etc.? With so much devastation, it must be easy to land helicopters anywhere out there and film the whole thing from close distance.

> Do you have videos showing cattle, warehouses, trucks etc.?

No. And I surely agree with you that the explanations are probably broad generalizations. I have no idea how those that do it earn money in any specific case, but deforestation is really happening across the globe and definitely in Amazon forests too.

https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/maps/amazon_deforesta...

Here is one description:

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/Deforestat...

"This pattern follows one of the most common deforestation trajectories in the Amazon. Legal and illegal roads penetrate a remote part of the forest, and small farmers migrate to the area. They claim land along the road and clear some of it for crops. Within a few years, heavy rains and erosion deplete the soil, and crop yields fall. Farmers then convert the degraded land to cattle pasture, and clear more forest for crops. Eventually the small land holders, having cleared much of their land, sell it or abandon it to large cattle holders, who consolidate the plots into large areas of pasture."

As the name of the area depicted is stated in this case: "The state of Rondônia in western Brazil — once home to 208,000 square kilometers of forest (about 51.4 million acres), an area slightly smaller than the state of Kansas — has become one of the most deforested parts of the Amazon" you can do your own research starting from there.

Also:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...

"The Amazon rainforest is the world’s largest, but in the last 40 years at least 20% of it has been destroyed. The Amazon basin covers nine countries in South America, with 60% of it in Brazil, and for a decade local photographer Rodrigo Baleia has documented the beauty and destruction of the region from above"

Which is sad, because you don't need deep deforestation to introduce grassland for grazing. Also, I'm consistently curious why other grassland ruminants aren't more popularized, some of which imho taste better.

As to another comment on going vegan, it's just not an option for me... that doesn't mean I don't want more responsible means of farming.

This is the main reason I became a vegetarian.

> Less monoculture in the crops, seed varieties of crops we already grow to increase diversity in agriculture.

Less people on planet Earth consuming like there is no tommorow

Loss of the Amazon would be a major tipping point in ecological collapse: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/how-c...

In one model if the Amazon were deforested the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains declines by half. There are global impacts for all of this.

No sources, but something tells me we are already past the tipping point.

A morbid thought I've been struggling with a lot lately.

As we continue to pass point of no return scenarios, will there be an increasing collective of people that flip to believing there is no hope, and adopting a congruent lifestyle?

Could an increasing collective of people sharing this narrative, that we've entered the palliative era of humanity, be the last factor for our ultimate failure as we navigate this tricky problem of scaling our species for a planet?

Does the process of giving up, on the individual level, accelerate a 'bank run' scenario on the planet?

I devote a small minority of my constant focus to remaining calm and trying to not give in, and I am increasingly fatigued and tempted to join the much easier position that it's already too late. But I don't want to see who I turn into once I adopt that position.

Until we find an economic solution, this trend will just continue. Unfortunately, people only want to profit at all costs and governments usually want to be enablers of that, so the economy grows and they can have more votes in the next election.

I think the real question is: can equivalent money to logging/beef be made from tropical forests? If we can come up with an answer to that, maybe we can revert this trend.

If carbon was priced to reflect its negative externalities the Amazon [Rain Forest] wouldn’t have to generate money because clearing it for agriculture would be prohibitively expensive.

Perhaps the rest of the world should be sending money to the rainforest areas to represent the value to the world climate that they provide.

Absolutely; pay a dividend to people that comes out of the revenue of the carbon tax.

I'd imagine people wouldn't really pay for a permit to cut trees, the forest would just accidentally get burned or something like that.

If we'd make it not economically useful to burn it down, because agricultural products were less profitable, that would work, probably.

Cattle ranching in the Amazon is the main responsible for deforestation, responsible for about 65% of the land deforested.

So a simple economic solution to the problem is to stop buying so much beef and the deforestation would reduce drastically. Why would they continue to chop the forest down if they have no economic incentive to do so?

The excessive consumption of animal products in the west is the main reason why this "3 football fields" a minute thing is going on.

What incentive mechanism are you proposing? (Real question, not rhetorical)

Generally, when people ask for an economic solution, they’re looking for a proposal to change behavioral incentives, rather than proclamation of the desirability of someone’s pet cause (as noble as it may be).

The incentive to keep deforesting is to provide cheap beef meat mostly for western countries which can pay the most.

By reducing the amount of meat consumed in the west, there would be no reason to keep chopping down the forest, it's expensive.

In the west we would need a meat tax like it has been proposed in several countries, this alone we would reduce demand for beef and reduce the rate that the forest is getting chopped.

Only if it hurts on people's pockets will anything change, if it doesn't and it goes down for long enough, and the climate keep changing like it has it's going to end up as it as always ended when multiple groups of people are competing for resources: war.

High tariffs on Brazilian beef are an idea.

Stop eating meat could be one of answers.

So is "stop having more than 2 children".

Another one is "stop buying things you don't really need".

But yeah, good luck convincing people to get behind that.

It's also going to make those you convince of this less genetically fit than those who ignore the advice. So the people who choose to have ten kids are going to be more represented in the population a hundred years from now.

Arguments like this are insane because complex behavior like lifestyle choice is not 100% (or probably even 50%) genetic. It’s like saying that the only way to have more people coding is for coders to have kids. Complete bullshit.

In principle there is a selection pressure against it if it's even 1% genetic. But that pressure might not be strong enough to have a large effect very soon (especially when very few people today seem to be actively motivated to have as many children as would be physically possible for them).

So are "driving without seat belts", "buying a house in a flood plane without insurance", "smoking tobacco".

All 3 have been curbed quite dramatically with a combination of regulation, graduated penalties and education. Yes there are gaps in enforcement, and these behaviors haven't been completely eradicated of course -- but dramatically curbed, nonetheless.

There's no reason the same can't happen with the current (wildly excessive) habit of read meat consumption.

You’re being down voted, but you raise a valid point. We are helpless. Even our first world governments are helpless to save the amazon. It’s just so damn sad.

What should we do? Have the US military take over the Amazon river basin, declare it a human-free zone, forcefully evict all people from the site, and let it grow back? We're not helpless, we're just not totalitarian conquerors.

I heard a story/statement once, that every time a bunch of smart people got together to think about solving the world problems, they all pretty much came up with the same solution: eugenics and birth control.

Both of these are controversial subjects at best.

Have you seen the TV show Utopia? Basically a group of people decide it's in the humanity's best interest to wipe out 90% of the population with viruses. Rather grim, but understandable in a way.

While in the domain of Sci-Fi, the solution I liked better was the idea from "Forever peace" by John Haldeman, where human evolution is propelled to the next step by increasing mutual empathy through technology. The Internet might be a small step in that direction.

We probably don't need to impose birth control, population is stabilizing and will probably decrease after peaking.

The faster we get people out of poverty, girls educated, and reduce child mortality, the faster we stop population growth.

The population is not stabilizing. The growth rate is stabilizing. We're still adding almost 100m new humans to the roster every year. We're going to hit 8 billion in 3 years (ahead of predictions made 20 years ago), and then 9 billion 12 years after that. People love to talk about the birth rate is falling in developed countries and how we're going to have a population peak here Real Soon Now. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the world human population in 2100 is greater than the population in 2090 (a horrific mass killer like the Bubonic Plague or nuclear war notwithstanding).

The growth rate is approaching zero though. Year after year.

And yet year after year there are 80m+ more people being added. If the rate of change of the rate is slow enough it doesn't matter that it's going down, the population is still increasing at a breathtaking pace, and we'll have to have a population collapse to get back to anything sustainable.

Is this the question? Could rainforests produce enough "economic value" to justify their existence?

There needs to be a new international law that classifies nations who deliberately destroy nature as "at war". The idea is simple: Wrecking your local environment is not a local action. It affects the entire planet and should be seen tantamount to war. This will likely pretty much put a lot of nations into the war section... Then negotiations can continue from there.

While military action is not feasible and in this case counterproductive, aggressive sanctions might help. Sanctioning these nations back into stone age if they don't change their course...

Right now, there is no accepted means to stop this from happening.

This made me feel sad - what's a good charity to donate $500 to?

As mentioned above, https://www.rainforesttrust.org/ seems to be a good one.

Cool, just donated some benjamins - https://imgur.com/a/ZOuZMXA

Thank you! I wish some conscious billionaires got together and bought up as much land as possible and titled it the local indigenous populations. Why is this not a thing yet?

No doubt Jair Bolsonaro hasn't helped. However, this has been going on for a long, long, __long__ time. Tipping point or not, such spin on who's accountable is irresponsible.

I remember in the 90's there was a drive to buy Amazon forest to prevent deforestatio. A lot of people bought (i didnt). I wonder if it still stands or if it was a scam.

I’m interested in this but not knowledgeable.

What is a “tipping point” in this context? The article doesn’t say.

How does the overall size of a forest affect its ability to re-expand? Wouldn’t this happen at the edges once those are no longer maintained, regardless of the overall size?

Does “unrecoverable” mean “via natural processes”? Wouldn’t it be possible for human intervention to reforest?

Thx.

It feels like we've reached the end of the old land ownership model. If you were destroying something on your land that supplied my breathable air, I would have no choice but to stop you, even though I recognize your right to the land.

That's called a third party negative externality. Even libertarians are fine with state intervention.

But what if a state is causing the negative externality and the third party is all other states? (Thanks btw, I hadn't come across that term.)

Then the other states beat up the bad one.

If you buy palm oil, you're complicit.

I thought you were digressing to Indonesian forests, but TIL Brazil wants the palm oil money too: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jun/29...

I didn't even have to check. Anywhere warm and moist, land is being cleared for palm oil.

Completely off topic, but it took me more than 2 minutes and more than just one comment before I understood the word Amazon correctly. I though about some Jeff bezos announcement about deforestation.

Hopefully this creates a lot of wealth and amazing businesses in Brazil. Why should they not be able to use their land to make profit?

Keep up.