1 2 > 
 
   
 

How can we help fight the fires in the Amazon? The UN?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
25 August 2019 08:21
 

Lots of big fires in the Amazon right now. It would appear that the governments in the affected areas are in way over their heads. Could the UN mobilize to help fight these fires?

Fires in the Amazon

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3401
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
25 August 2019 09:07
 
icehorse - 25 August 2019 08:21 AM

Lots of big fires in the Amazon right now. It would appear that the governments in the affected areas are in way over their heads. Could the UN mobilize to help fight these fires?

Fires in the Amazon

Yes, it certainly seems reasonable that the UN and/or other international governments/organizations could mobilize to help fight these fires.  As is quoted in the article, “Any help is welcome in respect to the fires”.

International criticism can be useful to put pressure on Brazil’s government, but there is also a need for diplomacy and to not threaten another country’s sovereignty.  The current crisis must be dealt with, but there must also be recognition of the problems that led to this crisis and sensible long-term solutions, such as international aid, incentives and programs that will lead to better land use and economic growth for these countries.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
25 August 2019 09:10
 
Jan_CAN - 25 August 2019 09:07 AM
icehorse - 25 August 2019 08:21 AM

Lots of big fires in the Amazon right now. It would appear that the governments in the affected areas are in way over their heads. Could the UN mobilize to help fight these fires?

Fires in the Amazon

Yes, it certainly seems reasonable that the UN and/or other international governments/organizations could mobilize to help fight these fires.  As is quoted in the article, “Any help is welcome in respect to the fires”.

International criticism can be useful to put pressure on Brazil’s government, but there is also a need for diplomacy and to not threaten another country’s sovereignty.  The current crisis must be dealt with, but there must also be recognition of the problems that led to this crisis and sensible long-term solutions, such as international aid, incentives and programs that will lead to better land use and economic growth for these countries.

Hey! We agree!

I think the rest of the world should subsidize the countries who are stewards of the Amazon.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8627
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
25 August 2019 11:37
 
icehorse - 25 August 2019 09:10 AM
Jan_CAN - 25 August 2019 09:07 AM
icehorse - 25 August 2019 08:21 AM

Lots of big fires in the Amazon right now. It would appear that the governments in the affected areas are in way over their heads. Could the UN mobilize to help fight these fires?

Fires in the Amazon

Yes, it certainly seems reasonable that the UN and/or other international governments/organizations could mobilize to help fight these fires.  As is quoted in the article, “Any help is welcome in respect to the fires”.

International criticism can be useful to put pressure on Brazil’s government, but there is also a need for diplomacy and to not threaten another country’s sovereignty.  The current crisis must be dealt with, but there must also be recognition of the problems that led to this crisis and sensible long-term solutions, such as international aid, incentives and programs that will lead to better land use and economic growth for these countries.

Hey! We agree!

I think the rest of the world should subsidize the countries who are stewards of the Amazon.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fires-are-political/596776/

“The Amazon is burning. There have been more than 74,000 fires across Brazil this year, and nearly 40,000 fires across the Amazon, according to Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research. That’s the fastest rate of burning since record-keeping began, in 2013. Toxic smoke from the fires is so intense that darkness now falls hours before the sun sets in São Paulo, Brazil’s financial capital and the largest city in the Western Hemisphere.”

40,000 fires burning now, with new ones being set by farmers and ranchers as we speak.  https://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/smoke-from-amazon-fires-shroud-sao-paulo-in-darkness-67029061785

“We are the first generation to know we are destroying our planet and the last one that can do anything about it,” Tanya Steele, Chief Executive at WWF said.”

https://www.plantbasednews.org/news/humans-destroying-planet-and-one-generation-save-it

You would think it would be against international law to destroy the planet, but it isn’t.  The average Westerner has a carbon footprint 32 times that of a Third World person.
Americans use twice the energy of Europeans.  Gas is twice the price in Europe so more people use public transportation and bicycles.

How’s this for a role model for the kids of the 63 million people who voted for Trump?  https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a27836/donald-trump-carbon-footprint/

You know what they say: small hands, huge carbon footprint. Or perhaps they should. President Donald Trump isn’t just enacting policies that will almost certainly negatively impact the planet, but his personal choices prove to be wildly anti-environmental too. Climate scientists say his private planes, sprawling mansions, luxury golf courses, and preference for well-done steaks amount to a carbon footprint that dwarfs that of most Americans, adding insult to injury for citizens reeling after Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Everyone has their own carbon footprint, an approximation of the carbon dioxide their lifestyle produces. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the less heat can escape into space, and the higher the average global temperature, which leads to rising sea levels, more droughts, and more intense hurricanes, among other consequences. Americans emit, on average, 20 tons each of carbon dioxide a year, nearly five times the worldwide average. People who drive cars have a higher footprint than those who take public transit; those who own six luxury residences emit more than those who live in just one.

“Trump will go down as the person responsible for the most carbon emissions in the world,” says Aaron Huertas, founder of Science Communication Media, where he consults with local and state officials on planning for sea-level rise. Here, the reasons why:  (see article)

[ Edited: 25 August 2019 12:29 by unsmoked]
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 August 2019 18:05
 

According to the NY Times:

The number of fires identified by the agency in the Amazon region so far this year, 40,341, is about 35 percent higher than the average for the first eight months of each year since 2010.

The decade before that included several years in which the number of fires identified during the first eight months was far higher.

Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year’s crops and pasture.

Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rain forest, but land that had already been cleared of trees and set for agricultural use. [Emphasis added]

So while the current situation is concerning, it’s certainly not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the media coverage of the fires. Why? Probably in part because Jair Bolsonaro, the new president, is considered by many to be the “Brazilian Trump,” and this is an opportunity to criticize him.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
26 August 2019 19:33
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 August 2019 06:05 PM

According to the NY Times:

The number of fires identified by the agency in the Amazon region so far this year, 40,341, is about 35 percent higher than the average for the first eight months of each year since 2010.

The decade before that included several years in which the number of fires identified during the first eight months was far higher.

Natural fires in the Amazon are rare, and the majority of these fires were set by farmers preparing Amazon-adjacent farmland for next year’s crops and pasture.

Much of the land that is burning was not old-growth rain forest, but land that had already been cleared of trees and set for agricultural use. [Emphasis added]

So while the current situation is concerning, it’s certainly not unprecedented. What is unprecedented is the media coverage of the fires. Why? Probably in part because Jair Bolsonaro, the new president, is considered by many to be the “Brazilian Trump,” and this is an opportunity to criticize him.

Ideas like “concerning” or “unprecedented” seem to me to miss the mark. Our sole focus should be to protect our spaceship.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
26 August 2019 21:34
 

Really? Our “sole focus?” To the exclusion of everything else? Doesn’t it bother you that the media is being a little disingenuous in the sense that the mitigating factors identified in the Times article are almost never mentioned? Doesn’t that make you feel a little like a marionette, dancing to whatever tune your favorite media outlet plays for you? Just like your counterparts on the right?

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
26 August 2019 21:44
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 August 2019 09:34 PM

Really? Our “sole focus?” To the exclusion of everything else? Doesn’t it bother you that the media is being a little disingenuous in the sense that the mitigating factors identified in the Times article are almost never mentioned? Doesn’t that make you feel a little like a marionette, dancing to whatever tune your favorite media outlet plays for you? Just like your counterparts on the right?

Yeah really, our sole focus. I don’t care that the media is being disingenuous. I don’t feel I’m being played.

I think you’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if these are your concerns.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8627
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
27 August 2019 10:46
 
icehorse - 26 August 2019 09:44 PM
Antisocialdarwinist - 26 August 2019 09:34 PM

Really? Our “sole focus?” To the exclusion of everything else? Doesn’t it bother you that the media is being a little disingenuous in the sense that the mitigating factors identified in the Times article are almost never mentioned? Doesn’t that make you feel a little like a marionette, dancing to whatever tune your favorite media outlet plays for you? Just like your counterparts on the right?

Yeah really, our sole focus. I don’t care that the media is being disingenuous. I don’t feel I’m being played.

I think you’re rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if these are your concerns.

Reference to the Titanic is a good analogy.  While the lifeboats are being lowered, I think ASD wants the captain to ask the orchestra to play a different song - something the passengers (who can’t get on a lifeboat) can sing as the ship goes down -  ‘KEEP THE HOME FIRES BURNING’?  No, that was written about 4 years later.  How about the gospel song, “Where you going to run to when the world’s on fire”?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4fzTPoS-sA

“With each passing day, the destruction worsens.”  -  Amazon native tribesman -  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upU1hlPXBpY

 
 
EN
 
Avatar
 
 
EN
Total Posts:  21577
Joined  11-03-2007
 
 
 
27 August 2019 14:10
 

I understand Brazil has refused $20 million from G7 countries to assist.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 August 2019 14:28
 

As long as you continue to pin your hopes on reducing carbon emissions, two things are guaranteed:

1. Anthropogenic climate change, to whatever extent it’s happening, will continue to happen unabated.

2. You’ll keep losing elections to climate change deniers like Trump.

Most human beings aren’t willing to sacrifice their present well-being for their own future well-being, let alone the well-being of future generations. Believing otherwise is a pipe dream.

I’ve come to agree with something GAD (I think it was GAD) said years ago: instead of trying to reduce carbon emissions—which really is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic—we should focus instead on technology to remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. Admittedly a long shot, but I have more faith in science than in human beings.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 August 2019 14:34
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 27 August 2019 02:28 PM

As long as you continue to pin your hopes on reducing carbon emissions, two things are guaranteed:

1. Anthropogenic climate change, to whatever extent it’s happening, will continue to happen unabated.

2. You’ll keep losing elections to climate change deniers like Trump.

Most human beings aren’t willing to sacrifice their present well-being for their own future well-being, let alone the well-being of future generations. Believing otherwise is a pipe dream.

I’ve come to agree with something GAD (I think it was GAD) said years ago: instead of trying to reduce carbon emissions—which really is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic—we should focus instead on technology to remove carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. Admittedly a long shot, but I have more faith in science than in human beings.

Sadly, I suspect you and GAD are correct. I recently heard of some research into machines that would make gazillions of tiny bubbles in big patches of the ocean. These patches of bubbles would help reflect sunshine back out of the atmosphere. Whether or not THAT project would work, I’d agree that we should be putting everything we have into the kind of tech you’re describing.

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 August 2019 14:50
 

Artificial photosynthesis seems like a possibility. The linked article talks about using it to produce fuel, but it seems to me that if it were made efficient enough, it might even be a viable way to put a dent in the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 August 2019 14:57
 

I think I read that MIT recently announced they think they might have fusion power ready to go in 15 years. That’s another example of where we should be throwing subsidies. Why not divert all the subsidies we give to fossil fuel corps to fusion R&D?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6754
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
27 August 2019 14:59
 
EN - 27 August 2019 02:10 PM

I understand Brazil has refused $20 million from G7 countries to assist.

That’s because the fires there were started deliberately. They don’t want to put them out.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
27 August 2019 15:15
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 27 August 2019 02:59 PM
EN - 27 August 2019 02:10 PM

I understand Brazil has refused $20 million from G7 countries to assist.

That’s because the fires there were started deliberately. They don’t want to put them out.

Right. As I understand it, they’re clearing the land to raise cattle. And of course, that’s extremely short sighted, even locally, because the soil isn’t robust enough to sustain cattle for very long. So, the rest of the world ought to subsidize them so that they have strong economic incentives to protect the rain forests.

 
 
 1 2 >