• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

Rich countries should subsidise Brazil and other countries to curb deforestation of rain forests

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
3,905
See Norway worries over Brazil deforestation, pays $70 million to... and
Rain forests' absorption of carbon dioxide is critical to preventing global warming,so preserving those forests which are under threat from expansion of agriculture should be the top environmental priority. In a practical measure to preserve Brazil's forests, both Norway and Germany have funded a programme for this.
It shouldn't be left to Norway and Germany alone to fund such programmes. All advanced economies with per capita incomes at advanced country levels should join in the funding, with their contributions based partly on their carbon dioxide emissions.
Such funding may seem like crass bribery but if that's what's needed to prevent potentially catastrophic global warming, so be it.
Many agricultural interests in Brazil and Indonesia believe their forests clearances should follow in the path of historical clearances that occured elsewhere in the world for agriculture and they don't believe their forests should be the exception, especially given very low incomes in rural areas.
 
Last edited:


benroe

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
10,552
See Norway worries over Brazil deforestation, pays $70 million to... Rain forests' absorption of carbon dioxide is critical to preventing global warming,so preserving those forests which are under threat from expansion of agriculture should be the top environmental priority. In a practical measure to preserve Brazil's forests, both Norway and Germany have funded a programme for this.
It shouldn't be left to Norway and Germany alone to fund such programmes. All advanced economies with per capita incomes at advanced country levels should join in the funding, with their contributions based partly on their carbon dioxide emissions.
Such funding may seem like crass bribery but if that's what's needed to prevent potentially catastrophic global warming, so be it.
Many agricultural interests in Brazil and Indonesia believe their forests clearances should follow in the path of historical clearances that occured elsewhere in the world for agriculture and they don't believe their forests should be the exception, especially given very low incomes in rural areas.
I could understand why tropical environments should be protected and their bio diversity saved from loggers and farmers, but the global picture shows that tropical deforestation is being more than replaced by reforestation ( 2.24 million square kilometers—an area the size of Texas and Alaska combined—over the past 35 years ) in subtropical, temperate, boreal, and polar regions. This is because we no longer use anywhere as much paper as we did before computers.
 

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,643
Brazil is a wealthy country, there is no reason for a carrot when a stick will be more effective.
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
3,905
I could understand why tropical environments should be protected and their bio diversity saved from loggers and farmers, but the global picture shows that tropical deforestation is being more than replaced by reforestation ( 2.24 million square kilometers—an area the size of Texas and Alaska combined—over the past 35 years ) in subtropical, temperate, boreal, and polar regions. This is because we no longer use anywhere as much paper as we did before computers.
I've read that natural reforestation from increased carbon dioxide has reached its limits.
We still use massive amounts of paper records despite computerisation.
 
Last edited:

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
3,905
Brazil is a wealthy country, there is no reason for a carrot when a stick will be more effective.
Brazil's incomes per capita are low.
What's the stick?
The natural resources exports from deforestation are hard to identify and smuggling would defeat efforts to block them. A lot of that production would be consumed domestically.
 
Last edited:

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,643
A lot of that production would be consumed domestically.
Sure it will but if export markets are restricted, either they will reduce cutting the forests or food costs will fall domestically.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,146
I've read that reforestation from increased carbon dioxide has reached its limits.
We still use massive amounts of paper records despite computerisation.
If 'tis co2 you're worried about trees are only playing around and absorb less of it in the increased heat. I don't believe in the co2 global warming theory anyway and I'd much prefer that efforts should be directed at warming rather than at co2 but nonetheless if you absolutely insist then there's this
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
3,905

McTell

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
6,203
Twitter
No
Like Norway, brazil has oil and plans to drill for lots more. It's called Petrobras.

So why would we pay them for anything?
 

Maximus Cynicus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
1,091
In the dark recesses of my memory, I seem to recall a scheme involving Debt for Equity swaps some years ago. If I remember correctly, (say) Brazilian debt being bought from a Bank at a deep discount. Pulling figures outa the air say 100,000 Cruzeiros debt were bought for 70%. The 100k woud then be used to purchase an area of rainforest from the Brailian government. Brazilian government debt reduced + bank realizes cash + area of rainforest saved. Anyone else come across this?
 

Patslatt1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 18, 2009
Messages
3,905
It's got to be easier to build one of them than planting 40m trees. We'd need 25000 of them for the trillion. Planting a trillion trees would need millions of workers and plant and the rest not to mention finding stable countries with the room and inclination. Forget the trees I'd say.
See Tree Planting Guide: 3 Methods of Planting Trees | Davey Blog This article estimates the time to plant a sapling as 15 to 30 minutes but in a mechanised project the time could be cut to a lot less. A trillion trees at 15 minutes a sapling is a 250 billion man hours and spread over 10 years, 25 billion hours a year. On a 40 hour week and 47 weeks a year, a tree planter would work 1,880 hours a year. So this workforce would be 25 billion divided by 1,880 or 13.3 million. In mechanised operations, the tree planting workforce might be reduced to half that. The tree planters would need to be supported in the wilds by other workers looking after logistics.
Compared to the populations of billions whose lives could be severely disrupted by global warming, paying say 10 million workers for the trillion tree project over a decade seems a relatively small price to pay.
 

Ireniall

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2011
Messages
8,146
See Tree Planting Guide: 3 Methods of Planting Trees | Davey Blog This article estimates the time to plant a sapling as 15 to 30 minutes but in a mechanised project the time could be cut to a lot less. A trillion trees at 15 minutes a sapling is a 250 billion man hours and spread over 10 years, 25 billion hours a year. On a 40 hour week and 47 weeks a year, a tree planter would work 1,880 hours a year. So this workforce would be 25 billion divided by 1,880 or 13.3 million. In mechanised operations, the tree planting workforce might be reduced to half that. The tree planters would need to be supported in the wilds by other workers looking after logistics.
Compared to the populations of billions whose lives could be severely disrupted by global warming, paying say 10 million workers for the trillion tree project over a decade seems a relatively small price to pay.
Yes-not impossible to be sure. But I think that too many political , social and ethnic problems would likely arise in apportioning location , costs and employment decisions not to mention the ten year time frame. On the other hand the US could probably build the capture plants along the Mexican border and Trump would have his wall-just kidding
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top