[thiagooffm]

I think it's a fair move. A lot of people around the world and organizations try to do anything on their hands to protect Brazil from using its own lands. Meanwhile all countries have devastated their own forests to build ships and make wars, people from Brazil are hungry and the country must grow to make the lives of all the human beings there good.

But no, instead we've got first world countries which give us always very shitty trade deals speaking about what we do with our own land, when they complete wrecked theirs. And if you check their energy solutions, it's always coal, or they all got cars, or anything. They've got their own problems, which are potentially even worse for the environment but they keep looking at a poor country, just as they did in the past, to perhaps steal gold, slave people, make money... They want us to follow their crappy and shitty agenda when they can't even get decent politicians, they get shitty ones as we do, they go on middle-east and make fucking wars everytime, killing millions. But no, we can't do whatever the fuck we want with our forests.

The sad part is that much of Brazil has succumbed to environmentalists from abroad. If those who complain about it would go to Brazil and try to live a middle-class life there with a job in shitty conditions going through a crisis every decade, always feeling things aren't stable enough to make a living. Perhaps living in a big city, taking 2-3 hours to go to work, then 2-3 hours to go back, I've bet that they wouldn't care too much about Amazon or whatever countries from abroad says... but they don't, they come from privileged backgrounds, sometimes they say that they know poverty, sure, everybody can look at a magazine, but did they ever feel it like they do in a country like Brazil?

my 2 cents, thumbs down as much as you feel like.

ps: I completely get the point of environmentalists, but this will never work out while people are still hungry. Perhaps you should ask for your country to help Brazil to reach its enlightenment and then have enough cash and businesses to be willing to protect its own forest. But no, you just make the situation worse.

[kikoreis]

Not downvoting, but as a Brazilian living in Brazil I don't agree with the false dichotomy you imply here, that you can't develop in an environmentally sane way. What the current government is implementing is criminally irresponsible and walks us back to 20th century exploitation. My dad worked for Shell and Rio Tinto for years, and travelling with him around the country you could see how practices changed as environmental regulations came into play. It was definitely less lucrative for the companies, but they were not major employers or generators of local business anyway. We can do better than suggesting we should replicate environmental damage the first world committed.

[marcosdumay]

There is environment friendly development, and there is pushing a country into forbidding every kind of energy generation available. What do you want to replace hydroelectricity with?

[iraphael]

> there is pushing a country into forbidding every kind of energy generation available

which is not what is happening in Brazil. There are enormous opportunities for energy generation far away from the Amazon. In fact, a lot of foreigners don't know but the vast majority of Brazilian population lives nowhere near the Amazon. Creating an energy grid in the forest is a great way to waste energy due to traveling long distances in transition cables.

[marcosdumay]

> There are enormous opportunities for energy generation far away from the Amazon.

Like where?

The Amazon is 50% of the area of Brazil, and the only place where most large falls aren't harvested yet. Besides, most of the Brazilian rivers are there by number, and an even bigger share of them by volume.

[namarie]

Wind energy in the south, solar in the northeast - both closer to major population centers.

[marcosdumay]

You know, there are plenty of articles just like this one criticizing the construction of wind farms in the NE (there, because the South is way too small to have a sizeable project).

There aren't enough articles criticizing Brazilian solar farms. That's probably because they are expensive. As they get cheap enough to turn a profit, you can be sure the articles will appear.

[iraphael]

And, perhaps more importantly, nuclear energy in the coast, which Brazil is already investing heavily in. IIRC, our third nuclear facility is set to open in 2018.

[kikoreis]

I wasn't commenting on hydro plants in general but rather on the OP's commentary on environmentalism vs. economic development. Hydro is great.. if the consequences are reasonable, and that's totally project-dependent.

[DennisP]

If the goal is climate-friendly power that doesn't take a lot of space, the obvious choice is nuclear. It has a better safety record than hydroelectric and is currently experiencing a tremendous expansion in China and other parts of Asia.

[kikoreis]

Incidentally, if you are brazilian (or can read portuguese) and care about a critical view of what's going on, reading Eliane Brum's piece at https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2017/10/02/opinion/15069617... provides well-grounded perspective on how this current shift is utterly corrupt.

[thiagooffm]

I'm not suggesting we replicate, but that we at least do whatever we want and need, instead of having needing to bend to the needs of what other agendas tells us to.

My point isn't only with forests, but also with everything else. And I'm not being populist, or nationalist, left-wing or right-wing... just being real. Once I've moved abroad and stopped living in Brazil, I started to understand how other countries and cultures, from the first world, are pretty much immune to this kind of debate, or are the ones setting up standards on how everybody else should behave and do things.

And how this feeds poverty and confusion... and in the very end, as counter-intuitive as it seems, damages the environment.

We need no fucking agendas to follow, if they aren't of our interest, it's not like we've got 50k+ dollars an year per capita in a very egalitarian society to start caring about this, at least to the degree that those who doesn't have any fucking forests anymore, cares. In the Capitalist world we live in today, managing a country it's about picking up the right battles, there isn't an infinite overflow of money coming in so we can both educate 200mi of brazilians, feed them, give them the good life and in the end, still be 100% green.

[caio1982]

Your rant is so off the track with a populist tone that I don't even know how to start a proper response to it. You complain about stuff that have no basis for discussion considering all the points the article make, like, you failed to even disagree with its 3-line-long summary. The Tucuruí dam mentioned near at the end of the article had a small village next to it (which is now a town). I was born and raised there, and I saw most of the problems the article raises happening in front of me for years, and guess what? It's still a fucking poor devastated area without much human development after decades. I think I can confidently call your comment BS.

[neves]

When the damn starts working, they will get very nice royalties from the electric generation.

[caio1982]

Tucuruí was built over 30 years ago, how's that working out for them?

[neves]

Sorry, my mistake. I thought it was about Belo Monte.

Don't forget about the ability of our political class to divert money.

[senorjazz]

Although I agree with some of your points, you miss the point completely in others.

A lot of the deforestation in Brazil is not small farmers cutting down a few hectares to scrape out a living, but industrial agro-business. These corporations are not about lifting the poor out of poverty but the rich getting richer.

Deforestation of the Amazon by all Amazonian countries is a real problem.

Western countries dictating to impoverished countries not to use the resources the same as their countries did is a mark of hypocrisy, however there is an argument to be made about the sustainable use of the forests as opposed to clear cutting and making way for mega soy / palm oil / cattle plantations.

There are also global repercussions for the devastation of the Amazon (as well as serious local problems: drought, desertification, loss of lands which must not be put aside for a quick $ for the few.

The world should be concerned and be involved in the process. However, I am not hopeful after Correa (Ecuador) tried and failed to initialize a new plan where funding is generated to not exploit oil reserves in bio-diverse areas.

[Retric]

Fixing Brazil's economy has little to do with using more land. US Forest Service Manages 8% of US land for example.

More simply modern economy gains little from farm land as there exists such an over supply of food that farming tends to be break even or be a net economic loss.

That said, people will always be interested in extracting value from pubic lands at the public expense.

[owebmaster]

Your answer doesn't make sense. The Amazon and others protected sites in Brazil are a much larger area than 8%. If we preserved only 8%, Brazil would be the richest country in the world. Maybe the US devastated an Amazon to get there.

[darkmighty]

Wat. The Central-West region of Brazil which is primarily agricultural produces less than 10% of Brazil's GDP. I'd say given the possibly disastrous local climate consequences from destroying most of the Amazon, and similar total area, we could say that at absolute best case we might achieve a similar gain. Which would grow our economy by at most 10%.

Destroying the world's most biodiverse ecosystem (seriously, read some statistics on number of species in the Amazon -- it's mind boggling) to grow the GDP by 10% is not just incredibly selfish (supposedly exchanging a global treasure for national gain). It's not even the best for our own interests; it's myopic, greedy, inhumane. Even the actual direct economic value of scientific research with industrial applications such as biomimicry research, plants with applications in medicine and food industry, etc. would completely dwarf a one time 10% gain. And then there's the hardly measurable value of lost knowledge and natural richness.

Don't be the child exclaiming "But my brother was greedy too!". This is our treasure, and our responsibility.

[eloff]

It would seem to me that the Amazon is worth much more than that left intact. Australia's Great Barrier Reef contributes 6.5 billion to the local economy each year through tourism and fishing. The Amazon could potentially be worth much more in tourism value. Not to mention untapped value as a source for undiscovered pharmaceuticals. It also generates 75% of it's own rain - which is critical to the agriculture in the region as well as all these hydroelectric projects.

If greed ends up winning and most of the forest is destroyed, Brazil will find itself without a national treasure, and likely be economically worse off for it.

[nitwit005]

Chopping down or burning a bunch of forest hardly seems like it's going to make Brazil rich.

Some of the worlds major economic success stories are countries with few natural resources, Taiwan being a common example. At the same time, there are a number of countries heavily exploiting their resources, yet seemingly without alleviating their poverty.

There are plenty of places trying to re-forest, which also suggests that you might get stuck with the long term cost of trying to undo the damage done.

[maxerickson]

A great deal of the land managed by the US Forest Service was clear cut before it became national forest.

In Michigan we have a few little pockets of real old growth forest and national forests the size of a small country.

[thiagooffm]

Sure thing, you can improve in many areas, having Brazil being less corrupt would work wonders, but this won't change overnight.

But policies and agendas, imposed from countries abroad, changes the mindset of everybody very fast.

Funny thing. 8%. completely comparable to the amount of land in Brazil is owned by the government, or is regulated and so on.

It's no wonder that regulation and enforcement has improved things lately(in Brazil!), but why the fuck do we need to follow agendas from abroad, just like I've said before, getting shitty trade deals? :-)

[Retric]

To be clear, 14 percent of the land area of the United States is protected. My point was becoming rich need not turn 100% of a country's land.

But, I can see your point.

[dogruck]

The best conservationist organization work with locals to arrange some deal where conservation is preferred.

For example, they might buy the land, or encourage the local government to classify it as a park.

They don't try strong arm tactics because they aren't effective in the long run.

[dahoramanodoceu]

>people from Brazil are hungry and the country must grow to make the lives of all the human beings there good.

Poor Brazilians, today, eat better than middle class Americans. Basic conditions have been improving considerably since the center-left took power. The neo-liberal right has swung back into power recently and we've been seeing things worsen in lockstep with their re-ascension.

Don't listen to this guy. Building these dams does nothing to improve general welfare. It doesn't make energy cheaper. Energy prices continue to rise dramatically. Furthermore BNDES is funding these projects at 6% NEGATIVE interest. 20bi at 6% is a lot of money. How are these projects supposed to help anyone other than BNP, Alcoa, Camargo Corrêa, and Odebrecht??

>If those who complain about it would go to Brazil and try to live a middle-class life there with a job in shitty conditions going through a crisis every decade, always feeling things aren't stable enough to make a living.

I am a US citizen, who has been living in Brazil continuously for 10 years. I've made 200 a month and 10000 a month. Right now I live just fine with a wife and kid on R$2000-3000 per month, in Sao Paulo.

Brazil is not impoverished like it was in the nineties. The main problem today financial irresponsibility. Decades of inflation and an endemic infatuation with American Consumer Culture has bred a system of financial priorities that run contrary to what is considered correct in many other countries.

>Perhaps living in a big city, taking 2-3 hours to go to work, then 2-3 hours to go back, I've bet that they wouldn't care too much about Amazon

I have spent 6-7 hours in daily commute. It did not affect my concern for corruption, unjust appropriation of traditional lands, or deforestation. I continued caring. This is a question of education and contact with nature, not money.

Brazilian has an unfortunate hertiage of institutionalized domination. It was one of the most effective mass-misinformation apparatii in the world.

I am appalled by the behavior of the traditional ruling elite and their shameless pandering to Europe and the US. They have been selling off water, oil, land, and mineral rights to multinational interests for pennies on the dollar for centuries. To this day it continues as the default business practice.

[thiagooffm]

I meant on my commute/Amazon comment in regards that people would rather have it developed, so they can all profit from it, because they need it, rather than have it.

If you are an American living in Brazil, you didn't see too much of how it's to to be born there in a very poor family suffering all kinds of abuse as in less developed regions you barely got light or proper education. I didn't live exactly like this, but I too come from a poor background and could see this happening across the street. Many teachers on those regions barely got any education and it's hard to get smart people to move to those regions. There isn't much opportunity there. Things has been improving over time, but we need more than a century to get where other more developed regions(such as Sao Paulo) is right now.

Actually, it's so problematic that for instance, a big percentage of my circle, the one who had opportunities and took them, moved abroad, as soon as they could(like I did). The ones who end up staying in the country are the ones in need, that can't leave because they are stuck there, and the riches, which need to stay there because of their businesses. You do learn about brain drain there at school and it's a common topic, but given all the other big problems, it's not often talked about in the media.

Of course that there is a lot of people who enjoy living there, I did a lot too, but it's only possible if you don't get caught with the amount of shit happening right now. I don't have much intentions of coming back right now, but would definitely would like to help it once I'm in a certain life stage I can afford moving there to change things, so like many other Brazilians who move abroad.

BTW, it isn't the ruling elite that give out the good stuff there for free to other countries, it's actually our inability to get good trade deals, just because we are the bitches of the first-world, we take care of our forests to them, meanwhile we get nothing. My point is that if they want to pay cents for our bananas, sure, we still sell them, but we don't give a single fuck for whatever they say and instead focus on developing our country.

[panglott]

I think the problem is summed up in the second sentence: "The boom is driven by the country’s agricultural and heavy industrial interests, is being carried out with little regard to the impacts on indigenous people and the environment, is proceeding with little effort to capitalize on the nation’s vast renewable energy potential, and is often fueled by corruption."

[mhkool]

With the huge deforestation of the past years and now the further destruction of the forest around the river, the future of the Amazon forest is black: it will be destroyed and after that there is no more rainfall and the dams will not generate energy.

[walshemj]

do the Aboriginal Brazilians get a say in this ? or will they just disappear.

[owebmaster]

This comment. I never thought I'd read this as a brazillian, here. Good to not feel alone anymore, bro :)

The thing we never discuss here in Brazil is that foreign countries are the natural enemy of a nation, not its own people, like most middle/upper class thinks here.