> Better though would be to make it in Brazil's interest to protect the Amazon. We all benefit from it being intact, so we should all chip in to create an economic incentive for the county of Brazil to maintain it.

It's really a sad little pretzel of hell that we (supposedly) need to create economic incentives for every human on Earth to not squander their local resources for short term gain when it is in fact economic incentives that got that ball rolling downhill in the first place. But yeah, I guess we'll find a way to throw globalism and money at a problem created by globalism and money.

I agree it's unfortunate. I don't know of any alternatives to globalism and capitalism that aren't worse though.

But it's important to recognize where capitalism fails (tragedy of the commons situations, negative externalities) and address those.

> Better though would be to make it in Brazil's interest to protect the Amazon. We all benefit from it being intact, so we should all chip in to create an economic incentive for the county of Brazil to maintain it.

Something like this exists in the Amazon Fund. Unfortunately it seems like it has broken down lately:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-norway...

Someone above stated they were just near the Amazon, they saw someone's privately owned lot got invaded with bulldozers. I'm not sure if private ownership is the answer, the Amazon is extremely huge.

Its not enough to own it, you have to actually have armed security on the ground to protect it. People are killed in Brazil trying to defend the forest from illegal logging and clearing.

I think the state should take on that role, but there needs to be a strong inventive for them to want to protect it.