nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Brazilian Rainforest?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Could Ireland afford to pay the Brazilians to keep these fires in check? Could we pay €1 billion to them to fix the situation?

I know it would cost us loads. But it could be well worth it for the future stability of our planet.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

wiggle16

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Oh him. Well yeah he's a gobsh*te but still, I just find the hypocrisy ridiculous giving out about them destroying their environment when we've already done it in most of Europe.

It might be hypocrisy but it's a distraction to point fingers. Europe's forests were cut down centuries ago when the environmental effects were not known. It's besides the point now.

The idea that replanting forest in Europe is a solution is myopic. Temperate forest cannot store as much carbon, and produces less oxygen and rain. It is also only active for six to eight months of the year depending on the latitude and only has peak growth for three of those. We should be replanting it but it can't compete with rainforest.

Bolsonaro has crossed the line from corruption to cartoonish supervillainy. He's a tropical Trump.

Thelonious Monk

^^^ I know. He's despicable. Still think we should be doing more in Europe though.

Xcellor

So oxygen quotas will be a bit hard to police.

Hows about quotas on carbon producing foods. The so called responsible nations should lead by example. Rank all foods based calorific content versus carbon produced. Everyone gets a quota and if you exceed that you pay extra taxes. Extra taxes raised go to Brazil + developing nations to restore rainforests.

Problem solved! :cool:

rossie1977

Even if every square inch of Europe was forest it wouldn't match the Brazilian rainforest in size. And as said the forests we could grow wouldn't be rainforest.

A rainforest is a unique ecosystem teeming with life. I have been lucky enough to visit a smaller version in South of Brazil.

Raconteuse

railer201 wrote: »

If any other species of animal had caused environmental damage such as global warming, pollution of the seas with plastics, destruction of rain forests - we would have culled them ages ago.

Strange there's not much of a mention that we are the problem.

Huh? There's always mention that humans are the problem. Who else would it be?

We just can't go culling humans!

Graces7

rossie1977 wrote: »

Even if every square inch of Europe was forest it wouldn't match the Brazilian rainforest in size. And as said the forests we could grow wouldn't be rainforest.

A rainforest is a unique ecosystem teeming with life. I have been lucky enough to visit a smaller version in South of Brazil.

It is a precious resource we need to protect . To think world not local

Graces7

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed TM. The single most significant thing someone can do for the environment is to have one less, or no kids, but basically that doesn't work with our current economic model. The current consumerist model requires more people to make the stuff we don't need and more people to buy it(and while it has many benefits to those within such a system the lions share goes to a minority). This is why so many politicians and other vested interests are gung ho for increasing population either locally or by importing people from elsewhere.

When I say the stuff we don't need I mean in the sense of the sheer scale of turnover that goes on today. Take the humble fridge in your kitchen. It is well within our capabilities to build a fridge that would last at least a lifetime, that could be maintained over that time. But no, they're "designed" from the get go to be replaced say every ten years. Repair and spare parts are usually only available as an option within that product cycle, if not less. Same goes for cookers, washing machines, every white good in the average home. The motorcar another example that could be made to last significantly longer, yet save for a brief period where cars could last a long time, after earlier days where reliability was a constant worry, now we're going back to a high churn in turnover where the economically useful life of the average car is tied into how long the PCP/Lease lasts and repair is becoming more difficult except through the manufacturer's network. Making all cars electric will have some positive effect, but not nearly as much as some seem to think, or is being advertised.

Wise words that at least some of us heed. My fridge and freezer are at least 20 years old and I did not replace my car when it died .. never got the washing machine plumbed in . You soon adapt.

suicide_circus

Oh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well, maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys!

quokula

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Oh him. Well yeah he's a gobsh*te but still, I just find the hypocrisy ridiculous giving out about them destroying their environment when we've already done it in most of Europe.

It's not like it's native tribes doing it - it's people of European descent who travelled to the Americas from Europe centuries ago to start plundering their natural resources when much of this continent was already being exploited.

i.e. it's not one rule for Europeans and one rule for others - it's just a matter of time and our knowledge of ecosystems and saying enough is enough before we pass the point of no return.

Graces7

Raconteuse wrote: »

Huh? There's always mention that humans are the problem. Who else would it be?

We just can't go culling humans!

But humans can adapt and stop the damage or help repair it, and we can think global not local. Stop being insular.

Dakota Dan

railer201 wrote: »

If any other species of animal had caused environmental damage such as global warming, pollution of the seas with plastics, destruction of rain forests - we would have culled them ages ago.

Strange there's not much of a mention that we are the problem. There's just too many of us and the situation has become unsustainable without damaging the planet at the same time.

Bang, you’re dead.

Graces7

careless sherpa wrote: »

That is true and it starts at the very top with the departments and organisations speaking out if both sides of their mouths. There is a massive problem with the removal of peat for export for gardening with the main destination being the UK, the Netherlands and Germany. A lot of this is done on an absolutely enormous scale and without permit but continues unabated. There is an entire bog in north Longford that has been entirely stripped on peat back to blue clay and is now a lake. Seems like these should be the first to be targeted but nothing seems to be done

mouse v elephant. agree re any industrial stripping of turf but even so. and caring about one does not exclude caring about the other. not either or.. all part of the same issue

Dakota Dan

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We've no wilderness in Ireland and very few national parks. Pretty much the whole island is farms, towns, cities and dispersed housing. How is that in the least bit underpopulated???

Did you ever go to Kerry west Cork or up the west coast? Obviously not.

jmayo

InTheShadows wrote: »

Fires in the rainforest has been happening for years how about we leave well enough alone and mind our own business

All man created.
AFAIK fires don't take hold in rainforest naturally.
It is not like temperate forests, bush or savana.

Xcellor wrote: »

They are clearing the amazon for rearing cattle and food to feed cattle.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/americas/brazil-beef-amazon-rainforest-fire-intl/index.html

The argument used in Ireland when the topic of beef farming being unsustainable and damaging to the environment is that the cows and grass are good and the grasslands absorb carbon. So is cutting down the rain forest to grow grass as bad as everyone is suggesting. ?

I hope you are not one of those who will be bleating about Irish farming being bad and subscribing to the idea that we should cull our national herds and stop beef production.

I know there is one poster on this thread who constantly beats that drum.

The thing is if we cut our production overnight someone else way less suitable will fill the gap in the market.
We are not hacking down rainforest to create farms for either direct rearing of animals or crops for animals.
Our forests are long gone and besides they never had the carbon lockin that rainforest has.

And guess one of the ones chomping at the bit to get their beef into EU and Britain post Brexit ?
Yep good old Brazil where they have removed millions of acres of forest already to boost agriculture.

And before I am greeted with the usual howls about how our agriculture is one of our main causes of greenhouse gases and is using food imports from other less environmentally friendly areas, I do concede those points.

We have feck all industry so of course our agriculture outputs are big part of our overall outputs.

And we are much better at rearing animals from an environmental point than most other nations so until everyone stops eating meat and stops using dairy products why not continue to do what we are good at and keep one of our only true indigenous success stories in business.
One thing that could be done is cut the import of foodstuffs for animals.

The more we produce and sell might mean the less market share for an ex rainforest ranch in Brazil.

In fact every environmentalist and green ideologue should be mass protesting the signing of Mercosur trade deal.

railer201

Raconteuse wrote: »

Huh? There's always mention that humans are the problem. Who else would it be?

We just can't go culling humans!

So if we know what the problem is why are we not doing the obvious to solve it ? The odd part about culling is that we may wipe ourselves out by default through oxygen deficiency in the atmosphere if we keep burning down forests.

Humans do have the means to control their populations. We don't live forever and having children or smaller families is optional. We don't have long to decide on this one as on present form the world's population will increase to 15 billion over the next 50/60 years from its present level of 7.5 billion.

kneemos

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We've no wilderness in Ireland and very few national parks. Pretty much the whole island is farms, towns, cities and dispersed housing. How is that in the least bit underpopulated???

Number of people per square metre presumably.

We are pretty much unique in the world regarding a declining population until recently. If not for the famine we would be twenty or thirty million.

Thelonious Monk

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Did you ever go to Kerry west Cork or up the west coast? Obviously not.

Was in kerry recently. Climbed the reeks.

Graces7

kneemos wrote: »

Number of people per square metre presumably.

We are pretty much unique in the world regarding a declining population until recently. If not for the famine we would be twenty or thirty million.

famine reinforced by the Catholic Church recruiting many thousands of young women into Orders...met one old Franciscan Sister whose family of seven were all priests and nuns and that was fare from unusual

cj maxx

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Could Ireland afford to pay the Brazilians to keep these fires in check? Could we pay €1 billion to them to fix the situation?

I know it would cost us loads. But it could be well worth it for the future stability of our planet.

The future of the planet depends on it but I heard on TV that , even more than the Amazon, algae in the oceans produce more oxygen. So looking after them should be joint 1st on the to do for Earth list

Raconteuse

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

We've no wilderness in Ireland and very few national parks. Pretty much the whole island is farms, towns, cities and dispersed housing. How is that in the least bit underpopulated???

Ireland has a tiny population relative to its size. It's too small to have a wilderness but of course there are swathes of isolated regions. How would state parks make a difference? There is either isolation or there isn't.

England (not Britain, just England) has well over 50 million people - and even England has isolated parts.

Graces7 wrote: »

But humans can adapt and stop the damage or help repair it, and we can think global not local. Stop being insular.

You must be mixing me up with someone else because nothing I said contradicted the above.

Raconteuse

railer201 wrote: »

So if we know what the problem is why are we not doing the obvious to solve it ? The odd part about culling is that we may wipe ourselves out by default through oxygen deficiency in the atmosphere if we keep burning down forests.

Humans do have the means to control their populations. We don't live forever and having children or smaller families is optional. We don't have long to decide on this one as on present form the world's population will increase to 15 billion over the next 50/60 years from its present level of 7.5 billion.

And people with the know-how ARE having fewer children.

[Deleted User]

I'm not totally convinced by the overpopulation argument.. yes the population is increasing dramatically but what is the actual relationship between that increase and the increase in resource use? I'd have a sneaking suspicion that the extra people in the poorer regions of the planet are having a smaller effect than our own western over consumption. Even the amount of unnecessary waste we produce could easily provide for a lot of extra people

kneemos

Raconteuse wrote: »

Ireland has a tiny population relative to its size. It's too small to have a wilderness but of course there are swathes of isolated regions. How would state parks change this?

England (not Britain, just England) has well over 50 million people - and even England has isolated parts.

You must be mixing me up with someone else because nothing I said contradicted the above.

England is mostly green fields, despite the huge population. Mostly urban though,less in the way of one off houses and small towns and villages.

railer201

InTheShadows wrote: »

Yet FG's stated policy is to increase the population of this country by 1 million by 2030.

Like you said the elephant in the room is populations that are unsustainable and a lot of that is people in Africa, the middle East, India etc.. breeding like bunnies and wanting the middle class lifestyle we are all told we deserve. Yet it's never mentioned by MSM it's almost like there is an agenda.....oh wait a minute...

That's it in a nut-shell and the elephant is getting bigger as the years pass by.

Those extra 1 million people will engage in exactly the same carbon producing activities as the rest of us. The country's carbon footprint is increased by 20% as a result. So we'd better getting weaving on all those carbon reducing activities just to stand still - maybe.

ToBeFrank123

Too many people eating red meat apparently is the problem.

There's not much we can do.

The EU dictate environmental restrictions for European farmers and consumers, then propose the Mercosur deal with Brazil and similar when they knew rainforest burning would be encouraged by the deal.

Much like phasing out single use plastics, we need to phase out our dependence on anything that comes from the Amazon rainforest.

Not that counties like China will give a damn, or the US!

Xcellor

riffmongous wrote: »

I'm not totally convinced by the overpopulation argument.. yes the population is increasing dramatically but what is the actual relationship between that increase and the increase in resource use? I'd have a sneaking suspicion that the extra people in the poorer regions of the planet are having a smaller effect than our own western over consumption. Even the amount of unnecessary waste we produce could easily provide for a lot of extra people

Most of the poorer nations get the bulk of their calories from plants. They certainly aren't eating brazillian steak. If they were we'd be in even bigger problems...

ToBeFrank123

The EU needs to cancel the Mercosur deal asap.

Its just more globalisation nonsense. They sell us environmentally unfriendly beef, grown in former jungle or reared on soy from former jungle, then transported thousands of miles overseas, where it displaces beef grown relatively environmentally friendly and locally. And in turn we're selling them more polluting cars and the like, also across thousands of miles.

A more environmentally unfriendly deal I can't think of.

careless sherpa

Graces7 wrote: »

mouse v elephant. agree re any industrial stripping of turf but even so. and caring about one does not exclude caring about the other. not either or.. all part of the same issue

Indeed, but bogs are a massive carbon trap and stopping the industrial stripping of peat like that is something that could happen immediately and have an immediate impact. The fact that it continues does not auger well

kneemos

careless sherpa wrote: »

Indeed, but bogs are a massive carbon trap and stopping the industrial stripping of peat like that is something that could happen immediately and have an immediate impact. The fact that it continues does not auger well

Burn peat or oil?

At least peat is local

Feisar

Could the rest of the world rent the rainforest from Brazil and we would leave it like set aside.