It's a big problem, but without some input from trade partners globally and/or other support, I'm not sure what the solution really is. Also, not just in Brazil, but other areas with grasslands that have seen desertification, countering that is very important. It may be necessary to support global efforts to increase diverse planting to portions of agricultural lands to at least try to preserve them. Grazing and crop rotations as well.
Efforts for more diverse use of agriculture as well. More barley and buckwheat, less soy and corn. Less monoculture in the crops, seed varieties of crops we already grow to increase diversity in agriculture. Of course, moving away from Monsonto controlled models, which should mean reverting policy on patents regarding genetic markers and traits.
Right now, too much of the food supply is from mega farms with no diversity and lots of chemical pesticides and resistant strains of crops that are killing off bee populations. I'm not so much against GMO crops as a practice, but definitely need some genetic diversity in the practice. We have the ability to feed the world, we need to start concentrating on doing it better.
Otherwise we'll see the continued destruction for at least another 30-40 years until there's a global demographic peak.
We're also going to see the destruction of the Canadian Boreal forest as temperatures rise makes such land viable for industrial farming.
Right now the main issue is that last year they only received 15 million in donations. Not nearly enough to stop the problem.
Most countries just don't have a rainforest although it's in interest of most to maintain the existing ones.
Plus, climate change is also about variability. Much of this land could see wild extremes of weather, sounds risky for agriculture.
I recently read that, most of the deforested regions are used for low-density cattle (0.5 cow / hectare), which gets transformed into beef, mainly for export.
As to another comment on going vegan, it's just not an option for me... that doesn't mean I don't want more responsible means of farming.
Less people on planet Earth consuming like there is no tommorow
In one model if the Amazon were deforested the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains declines by half. There are global impacts for all of this.
As we continue to pass point of no return scenarios, will there be an increasing collective of people that flip to believing there is no hope, and adopting a congruent lifestyle?
Could an increasing collective of people sharing this narrative, that we've entered the palliative era of humanity, be the last factor for our ultimate failure as we navigate this tricky problem of scaling our species for a planet?
Does the process of giving up, on the individual level, accelerate a 'bank run' scenario on the planet?
I devote a small minority of my constant focus to remaining calm and trying to not give in, and I am increasingly fatigued and tempted to join the much easier position that it's already too late. But I don't want to see who I turn into once I adopt that position.
I think the real question is: can equivalent money to logging/beef be made from tropical forests? If we can come up with an answer to that, maybe we can revert this trend.
If we'd make it not economically useful to burn it down, because agricultural products were less profitable, that would work, probably.
So a simple economic solution to the problem is to stop buying so much beef and the deforestation would reduce drastically. Why would they continue to chop the forest down if they have no economic incentive to do so?
The excessive consumption of animal products in the west is the main reason why this "3 football fields" a minute thing is going on.
Generally, when people ask for an economic solution, they’re looking for a proposal to change behavioral incentives, rather than proclamation of the desirability of someone’s pet cause (as noble as it may be).
Another one is "stop buying things you don't really need".
But yeah, good luck convincing people to get behind that.
While military action is not feasible and in this case counterproductive, aggressive sanctions might help. Sanctioning these nations back into stone age if they don't change their course...
Right now, there is no accepted means to stop this from happening.
What is a “tipping point” in this context? The article doesn’t say.
How does the overall size of a forest affect its ability to re-expand? Wouldn’t this happen at the edges once those are no longer maintained, regardless of the overall size?
Does “unrecoverable” mean “via natural processes”? Wouldn’t it be possible for human intervention to reforest?
Thx.
