> there should be some compensation given under the form of a tax to keep the forest alive, I don't think that would be ecological blackmail at all.

Norway has already been providing Brazil financial assistance linked to Amazon forest preservation since 2008, and is now reacting to the current events:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/22/norway-i...

Norway provides 1 billion, the soy market alone is 27 billion, not much of an incentive. A lot more countries would have to provide a lot more money for this to work.

They don't seem to understand that without the rainforest they would be trying to plant stuff in a desert. The whole economic aspect is moot, the forest provides the rain to plant so they burn deforest to plant more. But agribusiness doesn't want to hear it.

It was the beginning, but our extreme right president doesn't like it because it gives money to NGO. For him all NGOs are communist.

https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/scienceandhea...

The fact that the causes are complex and that there's a global aspect to it does not detract from the fact that it is absolutely imperative to preserve the Amazon. And - Brazil can do a much better job of it - at least as good as last year.

As for the cattle and Soy export - you're right in that they are major contributors. But again - that was true last year as well. Also, it is up to Brazil to shape its economy so that no more land is cleared. Farming can be intensified (not sure how much, for Soy, but it definitely can); and beef production should just be indirectly capped through prevention of clearing. In fact, one might argue that there should be a re-forestation effort, but I'm not sure enough about that to make the argument proper.

And - what about the importance of those exports, you might ask? Brazil's economy should evolve - if even through protectionist measures of some sort - so as to be somewhat more self-reliant in terms of production. Japan did it, China did it, so can Brazil. Also, let's look at its imports:

    Mineral fuels including oil: US$26.2 billion (14.5% of total imports)
    Electrical machinery, equipment: $21.8 billion (12%)
    Machinery including computers: $19.1 billion (10.5%)
    Vehicles: $14 billion (7.7%)
    Organic chemicals: $10.6 billion (5.8%)
    Ships, boats: $9.9 billion (5.4%)
    Fertilizers: $8.6 billion (4.8%)
    Plastics, plastic articles: $7.3 billion (4%)
    Pharmaceuticals: $7.2 billion (4%)
    Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $5.5 billion (3%)

What it can and should do is, therefore:

* Transition to renewable energy.

* Develop and expand industry, particularly of land and sea vehicles, machinery.

* Transition from plastic to renewable/recyclable materials which can be produced locally.

Of course this is not easy to do, but it's definitely possible.

I'm not excusing Brasil (I don't come from there), my main point was that it's just not Brasil's "fault" for not taking care of the forest, a lot of countries have a ton of responsibility: China and the west for example.

If anything, these type of articles come at a suspicious time so close to the signing of the Mercosur trade deal, because yes the forest is burning but according to Nasa not more and not less than in other years.

Which is bad and should be stopped, but why are we talking about it so much now? It reeks of political manipulation.

I don't like that at all but well if it forces some sort of immediate action and concession from Brasil it's better than nothing, but it does not tackle the underlying issues.

If people want to do something about it, the most important thing is to stop eating the main end product of the Amazonia burning which is meat.

Not necessarily only from Brasil, because they export the crops for cattle feed globally. I'm talking about meat in general.

There's a lot of ways to try and solve this, good and bad, and if Brazil was a super rich country, just strong arming them or shaming them into fixing their shit would probably be morally justifiable but...they're not. By far the easiest way is to give them positive incentive to care about the amazon as much as the rest of the world cares for it. It would be a heck of a lot easier to toss a ton of cash their way, and tell them "if you fuck it up, all of this money is going away". It's not a perfect solution, but logistically speaking, it's by far the easiest that may work.

If you manage to give as much money they would get using the land to produce minerals and soy beans, there is no reason they don't choose too.

The funding they provided in the past it is irrelevant compared to the sou bean production on deforested land.

Past actions of our ignorant and destructive ancestors does not exist current behavior. We should know better by now.

Those same people created colonial empires, held slaves and engage in all sorts of nefarious deeds. None of these should be considered acceptable in this day and age.

Other countries should indeed have put in financial effort to make sure this ecosystem is preserved. It might be too late now.

> It might be too late now.

Why this? Are you expecting some unavoidable global phenomenon to take the forest down?

At certain levels of deforestation the Amazon rainforest ecosystem is believed to break down, turn into savannah:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaat2340

Those fires are way too localized to do something like this.

It is particularly funny to see Europe trying to scold Brazil's actions, given that many of the social and economical issues that the country faces are direct consequences of European colonialism exploitation.

Lets be honest here: having a florest jsut for having a florest, does no good. The amazon needs to be exploited for its natural resources, otherwise may as well not exist, but if gonna do it, we need to do it rigth.

And burning the florest to plant soil or grazing land is a shit way to do it.

And in the end, if having a florest in place helps people make money, they will start working harder in preserving it.

Is like legal elephant hunting. My looks barbaric to some (i really dislike it), but is the only reason that there still elephants today, and people who used to hunt them for the preys, now help preserve because they make more money of rich tourist that pay big bucks to shoot an animal.

Just by staying there, the Amazon is a natural resource. The lungs of the planet.

"We just need to figure some way for the Brazilians to make money off of it."

If Jair Bolsonaro is sufficiently Trump or Kim like, he could call it tribute.

The whole lungs of the planet is kind of overated. The amazon florest by itself produces a lot of CO2. It whothever have important role regulating the local climate.