Burning Amazon Rainforest

[Jiehfeng]

Here's one link of many: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019...ecord-surge-forest-fires-190821052601171.html

Apparently it's most likely man made, makes sense as it's a rainforest. This is sad, the news is not giving this enough attention, it has been going on for weeks.

Just one fun fact; the Amazon Rainforest produces more than 20% of earth's oxygen.

EDIT: I just read a tweet about how when the Notre Dame was on fire, every second of it was covered and billionaires came to the rescue, but not in this more pressing case in comparison.

 

[notimp]

On the 'billionaires came to the rescue' point - that just buys you public goodwill and renown. For a long time. Not directly - but everytime someone says 'and he/she financed the new roof of the cathedral' a little. This adds up, and there arent many opportunities for really good ones of these..

Its basically this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charitable_trust

Now people usually burn down rainforests, because putting a plantation there (not sure if thats what was the cause for the fire that got out of hand here) can get them more income than leaving trees standing. As a 'billionaire' you cant (and also don't want to) do much about that either. If its too costly (recurring cost) 'the economy' is supposed to solve it - not some benefactor. At least long term.

edit: Although development aid/foreign aid is a thing - which is basically exactly that (long term economic support in exchange for political decision power in the country you are giving it to. But thats on the state level. (States have more 'recurring income' than a billionaire, usually. )

 

[IncredulousP]

From what I was taught, rainforests don't recover well from fires, unlike other kinds of forests that grow stronger each time.

 

[Taleweaver]

*sigh*

I unfortunately can't agree more. With all respect to the Notre Dame, but the rain forest actually fulfills a crucial role in the world.

On top of the (spreading) disaster is politics. Rather than looking for solutions, Bolsonaro is blaming NGO's for the fires. Because of course...why take responsability for your country when you can just pass blame to someone else without evidence?

 

[Xzi]

These fires are definitely being set intentionally, and nothing is being done in an attempt to extinguish them. I'd say other countries (including the US) should send their own firefighters to address this crisis, but I wonder if that move would be met with hostility from the Brazilian government. It's a really fucked up situation, no two ways about it.

 

[bodefuceta]

This was right after some european countries declaring they'd stop funding Fundo Amazônia, which was put on hold by the current goverment due to suspicions of mismanagement and corruption. It was created by the previous ruling party, marxists who still influence most of the forest's management.

It's unfortunate but most of the thirld world's government and political institutions are still governed by marxists who wouldn't bat an eye at something like this. I've personally seen much worse while I was in Angola. Bolsonaro made a mistake while accusing them without smoking gun evidence, even if it really looks like their fault, the newspapers won't take it nicely.

 

[Xzi]

This was right after some european countries declaring they'd stop funding Fundo Amazônia, which was put on hold by the current goverment due to suspicions of mismanagement and corruption. It was created by the previous ruling party, marxists who still influence most of the forest's management.

It's unfortunate but most of the thirld world's government and political institutions are still governed by marxists who wouldn't bat an eye at something like this. I've personally seen much worse while I was in Angola. Bolsonaro made a mistake while accusing them without smoking gun evidence, even if it really looks like their fault, the newspapers won't take it nicely.

Lol, are you suggesting Bolsonaro is a Marxist? Because he's been the biggest proponent of deforestation by any means.

 

[bodefuceta]

@Xzi brother, read again and stop smoking crack.

On a side note, I quickly googled the 20% oxygen claim and google seriously is supportive of that. It's crazy how misinformation is being spread by google and people not searching appropriately. The claim is absolute bollocks.

 

[Xzi]

@Xzi brother, read again and stop smoking crack.

No matter how many times I re-read it, it's not making sense. You claim Marxists would support deforestation (without any evidence or quotes to back that), yet it was the right-wing Bolsonaro who encouraged farmers to start these fires, and it's his government which is doing nothing in an attempt to extinguish them. It sounds like you're trying to say the "deep state" is responsible for all the country's problems, and no blame for current events should be assigned to the people currently in charge.

On a side note, I quickly googled the 20% oxygen claim and google seriously is supportive of that. It's crazy how misinformation is being spread by google and people not searching appropriately. The claim is absolute bollocks.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt if you provide any scientific source disputing that figure, but I doubt it's much lower than that regardless.

 

[Taleweaver]

It's unfortunate but most of the thirld world's government and political institutions are still governed by marxists who wouldn't bat an eye at something like this.

Okay. Thanks for informing us that you have no idea what Marxism means (fuck..."governed by marxists" is almost a contradiction in itself ). any other insights you wish to sha...ah, I see you've already done so.

On a side note, I quickly googled the 20% oxygen claim and google seriously is supportive of that. It's crazy how misinformation is being spread by google and people not searching appropriately. The claim is absolute bollocks.

Damn right! Stupid google search algorithms! How dare they mix in commonly generated studies with fabricated ones and averaging the results?! That isn't scientific!

You're right, of course. The actual percentage is actually closer to 28%.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachel...e-resources-to-fight-amazon-rainforest-fires/

When its own president says that.. it sounds like he just doesn't care all that much and would rather let it burn. Then again, it's not as if Brazil is already in trouble for decades with the favelas and the gangs.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I unfortunately can't agree more. With all respect to the Notre Dame, but the rain forest actually fulfills a crucial role in the world.

Misinformed people like this aren't helping the problem at hand.

Notre Dame is a historical building while the Amazon are part of our ecosystem stability. Stop trying to downplay as if one matters less than the other, both matter differently.

 

[Jiehfeng]

Misinformed people like this aren't helping the problem at hand.

Notre Dame is a historical building while the Amazon are part of our ecosystem stability. Stop trying to downplay as if one matters less than the other, both matter differently.

One has religious value to a portion of the population, while the other has life value to the entire population. No matter how different they are, one is clearly more important to protect than the other. It's like saying protecting a particular Church is more important than saving the destruction of a planet from an imminent asteroid. I know the rainforest's importance can be debated upon, but to say this makes no sense to me.

 

[spotanjo3]

Sad!! Nobody cares.. Only people care are Norte Dame and they are an idiots. Norte Dame is a trash and a piece of junk! Let them damage the world and they will scream for starvation of oxygen and they will cry. Yeah, I will scream because I care.. they don't. I don't care. They are so dumb and so idiot!!

 

[bodefuceta]

uses

No matter how many times I re-read it, it's not making sense. You claim Marxists would support deforestation (without any evidence or quotes to back that), yet it was the right-wing Bolsonaro who encouraged farmers to start these fires, and it's his government which is doing nothing in an attempt to extinguish them. It sounds like you're trying to say the "deep state" is responsible for all the country's problems, and no blame for current events should be assigned to the people currently in charge.

I'm not sure you're joking or have actually been brainwashed to this point. Bolsonaro is actively persecuting those setting fire. It's the NGOs who stopped receiving money this year for their "work" on the forest, and there's evidence the fires are a ploy to receive international funding. It looks like first-world media seriously is leading you to believe it so you guys can be happy to send money like god damn retards.

Okay. Thanks for informing us that you have no idea what Marxism means (fuck..."governed by marxists" is almost a contradiction in itself ). any other insights you wish to sha...ah, I see you've already done so.

Damn right! Stupid google search algorithms! How dare they mix in commonly generated studies with fabricated ones and averaging the results?! That isn't scientific!

You're right, of course. The actual percentage is actually closer to 28%.

Okay, do you even know what a guerrilla is? I lived under one in Brazil. I've worked in Angola and was stopped from doing so under gunfire. I can tell you their flags were red. But if you prefer to give them another name while living in some sort of marble castle dreaming the "same dream" as those terrorists, good for you, I guess?

Now, are you seriously attempting to claim scientificism and quote wikipedia of all things? Let's try to be actually scientific then, and not cite something completely unsourced in a website anyone can edit. Make sure you note down the difference.

1) Around 80% of the oxygen come from phytoplankton. Actually sourced, already debunks your claim.
2) There aren't adequate scientific papers on how much oxygen the Amazon alone produces. All those claims are completely baseless.
3) Grown forests barely/don't change the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. If a tree size's remain the same, they consume just as much oxygen as they produce.
4) It's believed that tundras are the most productive forests in terms of oxygen. It's also known forests in temperate climates store most carbon per area.
5) The amazon isn't the only rainforest. Even if you somehow disagree with 2-4 (I don't have time to look up scientific sources now), and somehow believe the 20% oxygen from land is ALL from rainforests (this is completely absurd), if you split all between the world's rainforests you still get nowhere close to 20%

I don't even know why I'm spending my time with some rich ignorant kid's bullshit anymore. You didn't even deserve an answer as good as mine. Apologize.

 

[Taleweaver]

Hmm...while obviously not a bad thing, I just read a piece that puts things into perspective a bit. It probably won't make me popular, but I'm not on this forum for that.

The article itself can be found here, but as it's both in Dutch and a premium for my newspaper, I translate a bit.

It mainly questions the alarming number of the amount of reported fires. This is a bit exaggerated, based on the following points:

1) it's not that easy to measure the actual amount and size of the fires. And the number ("nearly 75'000 fires") came from a wrong interpretation of data, namely the 'fire counts'. Due to how fires are counted, individual fires are often counted multiple times.

2) the current amount and size doesn't seem to be a record (yet). In this period of the year, 2016 had much more carbon dioxide emission than currently. The peak, however, is usually around the end of August and goes on for some months. Meaning: there's no sign that it'll stop soon.

3) the smoke shown on satellite photos don't exactly show the actual fires. More specifically: farmers often burn down pieces of their own ground to make it better for plantation. On satellite photos, it can seem a whole lot worse than it is

4) the media attention itself isn't here "because of the fires" (as said: this happens every year), but because the media attention is already on fires in e.g. Greece and California. Sao Paolo being dark due to smoke in the middle of the day obviously didn't help.

5) yes, Bolsonaro cut the power of his government in preservation of the rainforest largely, but he's not the first president at all to allow it. He merely accelerated it (okay: and he pisses off the community).

6) some shared pictures that are currently going viral are years old. That's...obviously not helping to solve the actual problem (protesters: "stop this fire!" Bolsonaro: "sure thing. THIS fire has been dealt with...in 1989 ").

Misinformed people like this aren't helping the problem at hand.

Notre Dame is a historical building while the Amazon are part of our ecosystem stability. Stop trying to downplay as if one matters less than the other, both matter differently.

It's not because we disagree with each other that I'm misinformed. Shall we leave it at that, or shall I return the favor and get personal for no reason?

 

[Jiehfeng]

snip

All the oxygen measurements are all estimates, we can all agree. But multiple sources and research says different things, NG for example: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/6/source-of-half-earth-s-oxygen-gets-little-credit/ says the phytoplankton produces 50% of the world's oxygen, and I agree about the importance of this plant. So it doesn't really refute the fact that the Amazon Rainforest produces a good chunk of the earth's oxygen. We shouldn't rely on one thing and ignore other large sources of oxygen for example.

 

[bodefuceta]

You can't just compare a 2004 magazine article to a modern scientific publication.

 

[Jiehfeng]

You can't just compare a 2004 magazine article to a modern scientific publication.

Fair enough, but you still haven't proved how the Amazon Rainforest doesn't produce a good portion of the earth's oxygen supply, only how that plant does most of the work. Did you expect the explanation would magically be apparent? The rainforest is 5.5 million km² btw.

 

[bodefuceta]

Fair enough, but you still haven't proved how the Amazon Rainforest doesn't produce a good portion of the earth's oxygen supply, only how that plant does most of the work. Did you expect the explanation would magically be apparent? The rainforest is 5.5 million km² btw.

I very much proved my original claim - that the 20% figure is absolute bollocks. I don't know what else you want, but it's not something I claimed. I also did mention there's no exact figure on it.

 

[Jiehfeng]

I very much proved my original claim - that the 20% figure is absolute bollocks. I don't know what else you want, but it's not something I claimed. I also did mention there's no exact figure on it.

If you agree that there's no exact figure on it, then by logic it isn't "absolute bollocks".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html?noredirect=on

“Around 50 percent of the oxygen we breathe comes from phytoplankton,” said Brenda María Soler-Figueroa, a marine biologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center.

If you're just arguing on the 20% figure, and not denying the Amazon Rainforest's important role in the oxygen supply, we can end this meaningless debate in that case.