Bad News From the Rainforest
After three years of declining rates of deforestation in the Amazon, Brazilian officials acknowledged that deforestation is occurring at three times last year’s rate. In addition to its biodiversity implications, deforestation in the Amazon is the important secondary source of global warming. And what we really need is not to slow the rate of deforestation, but actually halt it and partially reverse it. In some respects, figuring out how to get the job done is an even bigger challenge than curbing carbon emissions simply because enforcement and compliance issues are difficult to figure out.
Still, one clear step in the right direction would be to have an American administration that’s prepared to acknowledge that the problem is real. Instead, the Bush administration will leave office with the most shameful part of a very shameful record probably being their eight years of not just failing to act, but actively obstructing action — screwing around with the EPA and international meetings, new subsidies for oil and gas companies, etc. — while the planet boils around them.
27 Responses to “Bad News From the Rainforest”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 30th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Yes, this is actually really, really disturbing.
I wonder how much of this increased deforestation is for the purposes of growing palm oil or sugar cane as biofuel.
In spite of my distaste for _many_ aspects of the liberal agenda, particularly on social and personal morality, I’m convinced that _the_ biggest issue is the environment, and that is probably going to determine my vote.
What is Mr. Obama’s plan to protect and remediate habitat destruction in the tropics and here in the United States, either by direct or indirect means, and is it significantly better than McCain’s? Help me out here, I am not trying to be sarcastic.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Two years ago I would have said pretty confidently that the primary driver of rainforest destruction in South America was the concentration of land ownership among a rapacious oligarchy. And that if you wanted to protect the rain forest, the thing to do was to expropriate the large landowners and create an independent smallholder peasantry and lots of farmers’ cooperatives. This would solve the problem because 1) in Latin America, small farmers tend to use their land more sustainably and with more of an eye towards long-term quality and 2) concentration of land forces landless farmers to try and clear marginal bits of rain forest.
That reason is still partly valid, but less so than two years ago, because of the biofuel boom. Biofuels make sense in certain limited conditions and in certain places, but they assuredly are a very bad idea when they encourage massive habitat destruction.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Venezuela looks to be one of the few countries where deforestation rates have actually decreased a bit- from 1.2% per year in the 1990s to 0.6% today. I doubt that they are going to get much credit for that from either McCain or Obama though.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1801
September 30th, 2008 at 8:04 am
“the most shameful part of a very shameful record”
oh man–tough call. really tough. like trying to pick the absolutely best beatles song.
why can’t reasonable people disagree? after all, the competition for “most shameful act by the bush criminal syndicate” is really stiff.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:10 am
So what the world will need to do is figure out a way to pay the countries with tropical forests not to cut them down. Any other solution is unworkable.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:16 am
“Instead, the Bush administration will leave office with the most shameful part of a very shameful record…”
Let’s review how this happened—
Electoral Vote in 2000: Bush 271; Gore 266
Vote in NH: Bush 273,59; Gore 266,348; Nader 22,198
Give Gore NH’s 4 EVs and NO BUSH for 8 years!!
Do you suspect that some of those GREEN Party voters NOW wish they voted differently? (If not, could one say that because someone’s feelings were offended they decided to screw the environment?) I believe the expression is -
” hoisted on one’s own petard”
Every VOTE Counts—Don’t Waste It!
September 30th, 2008 at 8:27 am
DTM,
If by “the world” you mean rich countries like the US, then that is correct.
Pursuing other energy sources besides biofuels (possibly nuclear), sharing technical knowledge about sustainable agricultural practices with developing countries, and some foreign aid for sustainable agriculture and forestry will help alleviate the problem, but ultimately we are also going to have to shell out some big bucks for preserving rain forest habitats, if we are really interested in preserving them. Now, which party is up to the task of telling American voters that their taxes are going to be raised so that we can pay Chavez to preserve the Venezuelan rain forest?
September 30th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Hector’s on a roll here. And kudos to Matt on the post – environmental news has been bleak to terrifying lately, and it’s good to see liberal generalist bloggers spreading the news around.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Hector,
Yep, I think the payments will more or less have to be distributed on the basis of ability to pay, which means most of the payments being provided by richer countries like the U.S., members of the EU, and Japan. But maybe China and Russia too.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am
More shameful than torturing people (innocent and guilty)? I guess you may be right, given the global implications (we might turn Earth into Venus) and the distributional consequences (all your Bangladesh is belong to the ocean).
September 30th, 2008 at 11:38 am
After three years of declining rates of deforestation in the Amazon,
Which mean George Bush has had some success,
Brazilian officials acknowledged that deforestation is occurring at three times last year’s rate.
which means that putting Democrats in charge of Congress, is bad for the rain forest.
No, not really.
But jesus christ, not every problem in the world is George Bush’s fault, (or even America’s fault)
I don’t agree with Hector’s politics, but at least he acknowledges that the problems (and solutions) to environmental issues in South America primarily depend on *south americans*. And I happen to agree with the him that it is likely a good part of the reversal in forestation stats is biofuels as Brazil has declared ‘energy independence’ a few years ago. And if anything the US is ameliorating its effect by *not* cutting the tariff on imported ethanol as has been proposed; a cut in this would no doubt increase sugar ethanol production in Brazil.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
The same government reports here in Brazil pointed the finger at another Brazilian federal agency, Incra, as a major player in deforestation. Incra’s job? Redistributing land to landless farmers.
September 30th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Cisco,
Er, yes, that’s the point. Successive Brazilian governments have found it politically more feasible to deal with the demands of landless peasants by giving them parcels of (publicly owned) land in the rain forest, or giving them rights to whatever land they can clear. Rather than giving them access to the more productive lands in the Centre-West (savannah) or South (temperate to subtropical) zones which would be better suited to long-term agricultural use, but which are under the control of large and influential landowners.
People should not be farming the Amazon. It doesn’t make sense either from an economic or an ecological point of view- there are good reasons why the human population of that region was traditionally very low, although it was probably higher than we used to think. It would make more sense to give landless workers access to land in the south or centre-west, which are already fairly productive areas.Unfortunately that would require a political will to break up large landholdings, which the central government has historically not possessed.
October 6th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Yes, this was definitely bad news in the effort to address deforestation in Brazil. It seemed like Brazil had started to turn the corner over the last three years, but this recent upswing is troubling.
This story came on the heels of the announcement from the Brazilian government that it would commit to hold net forest loss to zero by 2015 I did a post on this announcement at: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/illegal_blogging_and_climate_change.html.
So, a sort of good news, bad news week for Brazilian deforestation emissions.
Of course we’ll have to see what actions the Brazilian government puts on the ground to meet this goal. And as you point out, just think what could be achieved with new leadership in the US.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:46 am
levitraIncredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:27 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:07 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 16th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
sry i just know how to write my name in arabic
) anyway however in arabic when i read some thing like that i just say “raee” i donot know how to say it in english . thanks
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
buy viagra online
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Generally Ido not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this post really forced me to do so! really nice article.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:07 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:05 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:17 am
Incredible site! viagra
April 10th, 2009 at 2:45 am
This is quite a hot info. I think I’ll share it on Facebook.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:52 am
IMp7N8 rlrquaaybzpg, [url=http://qbrackyxqeys.com/]qbrackyxqeys[/url], [link=http://mdfimodlmhtm.com/]mdfimodlmhtm[/link], http://npajfhijfzse.com/