132
This will be good news only when we start hearing about reforestation rates exceeding deforestation. Till then it's just various levels of bad.
Agreed, but at least it's not as bad as it was.
And also when we hear about the heads of logging companies serving long jail sentences for all the deaths of indigenous people they've been directly complicit in.
Let’s hear about reforestation in Europe and Asia. You guys destroyed your forests hundreds of years ago…
It's being done in Europe since decades actually and probably in other places. Not sure though whether the figures are true, and or how they are calculated. But I'd say slowly Europe is getting there.
Forest and nature destruction, started actually thousands of years ago What has changed though the last couple hundreds years is an extreem population boom.
The first polluted river in the world is like 5000 yo or something.
Ad. just saw someone else saying reforestation even started 100s of years ago. Though reforestation to me, also means more net green.
Sure when Europe recovers forested areas the size of the rainforests in Africa, South America and Asia, then we can all stop deforesting…
Or how about as a species we actually put a value on nature and pay countries to protect their forests and biomes?
During the late 19th and 20th centuries a huge amount of artificial reforestation was implemented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_forest_in_Central_Europe
https://ourworldindata.org/afforestation
https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/forest-strategy_en
http://coffeespoons.me/2014/12/the-reforestation-of-europe/
This ain't it chief. The old growth european forests were destroyed centuries ago. That doesn't mean that we should accept Brazil destroying one of the worlds remaining old-growth forests.
Never said anything about that. But the focus is always on the poor colonised countries to protect their nature and not develop. While Europe destroyed its forests and much of the forests of the world through centuries of colonialism.
What about this. If the developed world wants the Amazon and other rainforests to stay intact, why don’t they pay Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia etc.?
Sshhhh!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.mongabay.com/2024/02/megafires-are-spreading-in-the-amazon-and-they-are-here-to-stay/amp/ Look at this news now It seems that the new president has its fault on this too...
For thirty years I've been hearing about how a chunk of the rainforest the size of Idaho is getting cut down every day. How much could possibly be left?
Maybe some info on scales will be helpful. The Amazon and Brazil are huge. check the pic about USA and South America and the deforestation 1960-2006. The last years it's become worse.
All we had to do was kick the liberal away and elect a leftist president. I wonder how low Amazon deforestation would be if the CIA didn't arrange a coup here every decade or two.
Yeah Bolsonaro is not a liberal, more like a wannabe fascist. And Lula is the actual neoliberal. All about the politics and platitudes and light populism. But still, the Brazilian’s private banks profited more during all of Lula’s years as president…
The truth is there can’t be a left in Brazil. The CIA would never allow it. When someone slightly left to the center (Dilma) tries to do any sensible actual social democratic idea she gets couped.
Both of them are liberals, but one is on the center the other is a fascist, one does not preclude the other.
Ofc, I think I do say that no?
Neoliberal, lula, now that's going waaaaay too far.
How different was he from Labour in the UK during Blair’s years? Or the Democratic Party in the US?
Populism with policies that benefit the big banks and corporations. Band-aid fixes for the poor so they stop complaining. Funnelling wealth into the uber-rich.
Why was the capitalist class in Brazil perfectly content during the first Lula years? They only rebelled under Dilma.
For reference, where are you from? I'm Brazilian and Lula regularly gets "accused" of being a communist, we also have an openly communist Defense Minister. Lula implemented many communist policies like strong wealth redistribution, food and housing for the poor, etc etc etc.
Sadly, our country is still ran by the rich, it's a fake democracy and Lula is forced to give them gifts otherwise he can't govern. Just the other day we had a 'crisis' with our Congress President refusing to vote any government laws because the elites weren't getting enough money, he called "articulation". Lula started giving them money again and everything started to progress smoothly.
I don’t want to say where I’m from, but I am very familiar with Brazilian politics so it shouldn’t matter.
None of those policies are communist. Communism is a future state of society after socialism, where there is no state, money or classes.
Those are social-democratic policies. Like there were in the US and Europe after WW2 up until the age of neoliberalism in the 70s-80s.
They are better than neoliberalism, don’t get me wrong. I much prefer Lula than a neoliberal like Temer or a fascist like Bolsonaro.
But that doesn’t change that Lula is a neoliberal, with some social-democratic policies.
It’s not entirely his fault (even though other politicians like Dilma are less neolib brained than Lula…) as Brazil is, like most other places in this planet, a province of the US Empire.
It’s an exploitation province, built to extract wealth into the central provinces. The elites that exist exist because they perpetuate this system. They benefit a little, but comparatively to the misery of the masses, they live as kings so it’s good enough for them.
Lula can keep doing what he does if he doesn’t stop the flow of wealth to the outside. If he stops it in any way, couped again.
We’re all second-class citizens of the Empire. Yes, even you workingperson from the US/Canada/Germany/UK etc etc.
Lula is more liberal than Bolsonaro in what the word actually means but otherwise good comment
Bolsonaro's Party: "Partido Liberal" = "Liberal Party"
The actual meaning of political words is relative to the current geopolitical landscape. At the moment Liberal means "I love billionaires and I hate the poor".
Capitalists have been trying to steal the term multiple times — there is nothing liberal, liberties or freedom under the hierarchy of capitalism. Liberal is relative, and relatively speaking it's anticapitalist.
Newspeak is invented all the time. It's everyone's responsibility not to accept fake rhetoric
The world moves, you can't use terms from 300 years ago in today's world.
Someone should really update Wikipedia, they're still in the year 1723 with this anticapitalist description
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion,[11] constitutional government, privacy rights, and regulations on the role of technology in the private and public sectors.
Wikipedia
Interesting, never visited that page so I didn't know. Thanks for the heads up, comrade.
Watch out. It could be dirty communist propaganda
At least it wouldn't be nazist, white supremacist propaganda.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2023
132 points (98.5% liked)
World News
32091 readers
1014 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS