This will be good news only when we start hearing about reforestation rates exceeding deforestation. Till then it’s just various levels of bad.
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.
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.?
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.
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
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.
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 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?
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…
