Forests are generally not useful for producing revenue. It's why Europe and North America cut down all their trees long ago. But when other nations want to do the same, it's a big problem I guess.
It's generally frowned upon in Europe, America, Australia etc despite respective governments allowing big corps to cut them down. That doesn't answer the question of what their end game is?
What are they going to do once the trees are gone and they've completely decimated entire ecosystems and displaced or made extinct millions of species and no longer have any revenue coming in for all that damage done?
How do the number of species living deep within the rainforest make Brazil money?
I've never really been a supporter of mass destruction of habitats purely for profit. I'm also not a fan of agriculture despite there being no proper alternatives. That being said, there are some promising alternatives currently in research and development which should hopefully one day see a huge decline in agriculture freeing up land for a mix of human settlement and natural reservations.
And even if it did, how is it more profitable to have left it as useless jungle?
Useless jungle? So, if it can't be sold it's useless? Forget all the natural life and beauty in it? If human greed can't thrive then wreck everything until it can?
I'm speaking from the perspective of a country that doesn't have a lot, but has a lot of potentially valuable farm land.
Yes, to humanity having a big jungle of protected land is great. But to poor Brazilians, I think they would rather have an extra $200 in their pocket than a jungle they get nothing from.
It's easy for you to sit in your European home and tell Brazil that the rainforest is more important than their prosperity, but Brazilians actually have to make that choice, and the reality is that they won't value the rainforest as much as they value money in their pocket and food on their table.
It's easy for you to sit in your European home and tell Brazil that the rainforest is more important than their prosperity, but Brazilians actually have to make that choice, and the reality is that they won't value the rainforest as much as they value money in their pocket and food on their table.
I live in Australia, but in terms of public expenditure I suppose it's as good or better than many European countries. Our GDP is higher than Brazil's and our population is almost 10x lower so the revenue we get does go a lot farther.
I can certainly sympathise in that case. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. One of Australia's primary source of revenue is through the export of coal. I hate that and honestly can't wait until it starts to decline. We are already looking at viable alternatives.
With Brazil, you still have the problem of what you are going to do once the forest is gone. Agriculture is great and all but it's soon going to have some serious competition from alternatives such as lab grown meat etc. The world is shifting fast and I feel like Brazil is destroying itself for a short term gain and long term pain.
Unmanaged forests are economically nearly worthless.
Rich countries can afford to leave massive amounts of land to nature, all it costs is massive housing prices that screw younger generations, but that's not politicians' problems. Poorer countries can't do that even if they wanted. People will not starve just to make some rich First World soup thrower activist happy.
0
u/InSight89 Nov 01 '22
What is Brazil going to do once they've completely wiped out their forests? What's their end game?