Brazil Lifts Protection of Rainforests.

[Big Orange]

Oh dear, I doubt the rainforest protection laws were that strenuously enforced by the state and adhered to by companies in Brazil to begin with, but still a troubling development:

Brazil moves to ease rainforest protection laws

Brazil has taken a big step towards passing laws that will loosen restrictions on the amount of Amazon rainforest that farmers can destroy, after its lower house of Parliament voted in favour of updating the country's 46-year-old forest code.

In a move conservationists describe as disastrous, the nation's congress backed a bill relaxing laws on the deforestation of hilltops and the amount of vegetation farmers must preserve.

The law also gives partial amnesties for fines levied against landowners who have illegally destroyed tracts of rainforest.

The legislation, which must be passed by the Brazilian Senate and approved by President Dilma Rousseff, aims to help owners of smaller farms and ranches compete with under-regulated rivals in countries such as the United States and Argentina.

Under Brazil's forest code passed in 1965, 80 per cent of all property in the Amazon basin is supposed to be left as untouched forest. In other parts of the country, that figure ranges from 20 to 35 per cent, depending on the ecosystem of the region.

Farmers breaching the regulations have been required to pay large fines and plant trees to bring their landholdings up to required standards.

But the system is scrappily enforced and only 10 per cent of landowners are believed to be in complete compliance with the rules.

Under the new code, forest illegally cleared between 1965 and 2008 will be exempted from regulation. Farmers will, for the first time, be allowed to count land along rivers and lakes as part of their legal preserves, and strict rules governing deforestation of hilltops and slopes will be relaxed.

"It's a disaster. It heightens the risk of deforestation, water depletion and erosion," said Paulo Gustavo Prado, head of environmental policy at Conservation International-Brazil.

He believes the bill will result in the loss of 10 per cent of Brazil's remaining rainforest.

Philip Fearnside, of the Government's National Institute for Amazon Research, said the "amnesty" for farmers who broke the law before 2008 would result in further illegal deforestation.

"The proposed amnesty upholds a long tradition in Brazil of legalising the illegal."

Link

[Jon]

I wonder how much longer these rainforests have left now... there're some appalling timelapse videos out there of deforestation. Is there no kind of considerable public resistance to moves like this over there?

[Kodiak]

I wonder how much longer these rainforests have left now... there're some appalling timelapse videos out there of deforestation. Is there no kind of considerable public resistance to moves like this over there?

I lived in Amazonas for 2 years and the general consensus from the common people seemed to be "look, these forests are HUGE and we only want to use a little bit more land. What harm could that do?" Also IIRC there are large stores of oil/natural gas/mineral wealth in the rain forests. In other words, not a whole lot of public resistance that I saw. People felt the rainforests were important, but not so important that they shouldn't be used to feed families.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I wonder how much longer these rainforests have left now... there're some appalling timelapse videos out there of deforestation. Is there no kind of considerable public resistance to moves like this over there?

I lived in Amazonas for 2 years and the general consensus from the common people seemed to be "look, these forests are HUGE and we only want to use a little bit more land. What harm could that do?" Also IIRC there are large stores of oil/natural gas/mineral wealth in the rain forests. In other words, not a whole lot of public resistance that I saw. People felt the rainforests were important, but not so important that they shouldn't be used to feed families.

I have read a lot of reports from that area and you are rather spot on in the feelings of the people there. I am sadly of the asumption that someday in the next 20years or so, these countries will wake up one morning and say "What do you mean they are GONE? They are so big, surely they can't ALL be gone"

[Darth Fanboy]

I lived in Amazonas for 2 years and the general consensus from the common people seemed to be "look, these forests are HUGE and we only want to use a little bit more land. What harm could that do?" Also IIRC there are large stores of oil/natural gas/mineral wealth in the rain forests. In other words, not a whole lot of public resistance that I saw. People felt the rainforests were important, but not so important that they shouldn't be used to feed families.

Using "just a bit more" now and then using "just a bit more" later when they don't keep their population under control and finally we lose one of the greatest natural wonders this planet has ever seen. They ARE so important that they shouldn't be used to feed families and that needs to be stressed. How many more concessions does the environment have to make before enough is enough?

If the government stepped in and strictly said, "Okay we will designate this much more land and that's it" then strictly enforced said law until the end of time then fine, but this is absolutely fucking ridiculous. The mineral/oil deposits make matters worse.

[AniThyng]

I just couldn't resist asking what the "First World Human Way" would have us do in this unfortunate situation

Much like China, it's probably unfortunate that environmentalist movements would not be able to counter consumerist/economic movements until it's far too late. A first world quality of life isn't going to be had in an idyllic Avatar like existence,that much is true.

[Kodiak]

I lived in Amazonas for 2 years and the general consensus from the common people seemed to be "look, these forests are HUGE and we only want to use a little bit more land. What harm could that do?" Also IIRC there are large stores of oil/natural gas/mineral wealth in the rain forests. In other words, not a whole lot of public resistance that I saw. People felt the rainforests were important, but not so important that they shouldn't be used to feed families.

Using "just a bit more" now and then using "just a bit more" later when they don't keep their population under control and finally we lose one of the greatest natural wonders this planet has ever seen. They ARE so important that they shouldn't be used to feed families and that needs to be stressed. How many more concessions does the environment have to make before enough is enough?

If the government stepped in and strictly said, "Okay we will designate this much more land and that's it" then strictly enforced said law until the end of time then fine, but this is absolutely fucking ridiculous. The mineral/oil deposits make matters worse.

Family size is key, especially in northern Brazil, where the average is 4-6 kids. There's already a lot of resentment from the people toward the government and the amount of "privileges" indigenous tribes seem to get in the rainforest that the people in charge may not want to push it.

[Big Orange]

And some thug(s) hired by somebody in the logging industry has also recently whacked a well meaning environmental activist and even his wife in northern Brazil.

[Spekio]

Yeah, we are hoping for a veto from the president. The idea was that small land owners could benefit from the reform, but seriosuly, who are they kidding?

There's some serious talk about challenging it in Supreme Court, but alas...

[Eulogy]

If I actually had hope for the rabbits, I'd say that much of their problems could be solved by many decades of judicious use of emigration, birth control and condoms.

But I don't have any hope. Brazil will fucking implode before what's left of the rainforests can recover, and the rabbits will be wondering why there were too many mouths to feed all throughout it.

[Spekio]

Eulogy

Dude, you do know that our population growth is the lowest in decades, and only going down, right? 4-6 kids only in the north-northeast of our continental sized country, and only the really poor people.

Its not about that, really, its about big farmers who want more land.

[Eulogy]

So how long until Greenpeace gets on the farmers' asses?

[Guardsman Bass]

Eulogy

Dude, you do know that our population growth is the lowest in decades, and only going down, right? 4-6 kids only in the north-northeast of our continental sized country, and only the really poor people.

Its not about that, really, its about big farmers who want more land.

I was wondering about that myself. How much of it is being cut down by the small farmers, and how much by the big farming/mining/logging/ranching businesses?

Strong job growth in the cities would probably draw most of the small farmers away from cutting down rain forest, but not so much the bigger business concerns.

[Spekio]

Eulogy
OHOHOHOHO

Oh you.

Bass

We had many problems with rural exodus, most of the favelas held people who came to the cities looking for a better life in the cities.

The biggest enemy to the environement is the cows. Brazil wants to export meat, so they are lobbying for that. As far as political interests go, we are screwed.

Our only hope is that our Constitution wants to protect the environement, so we can challenge it in court, bur first there was some talk about a Veto from Dilma.

[AniThyng]

OHOHOHOHO

Oh you.

Is this funny because big business doesn't care, or also because it *is* the cities that benefit economically by despoiling the hinterland?

[Tanasinn]

Its not about that, really, its about big farmers who want more land.

Not surprising, really. Corporate vermin here in the U.S. use the same bag of tricks when lobbying for things the public might give to a poor dirt farmer out of pity but wouldn't dream of handing over to a mega-farm.

[Majin Gojira]

If every person in Brazil then takes an acre of land from the Rainforest per yer...

The Amazon Rainforest will be gone in 7 years, if everyone wants to take "Just a little bit more" like that.

We're doomed.

[Sea Skimmer]

Brazilian government policy with regard to developing the Amazon basin has been bankrupt and idiotic for forty years now; I doubt it will change anytime soon. It’s not even about saving the forest, it’s the simple reality that the way they’ve gone about development and farming is completely destructive to the land, thus the constant pressure for more, and by most estimates actually makes the government loose money in the long run (more and more roads ect.. built to reach ever more ruined land). But with the coastal cities being mega slums, it’s easy to see why a policy of encouraging people to move deep into the rainforest is pursued.