[atombender]

Two answers:

(1) Low-hanging fruit. Brazil has a huge CO2 sink today. It doesn't need to change infrastructure or teach its public new habits or almost anything in order to preserve it. We can preserve and even improve this CO2 sink with a single decision to ban its destruction. Other countries such as the U.S. has very few such big-ticket items -- it has a million small-ticket items, many of which require social engineering (reduce consumption, stop traveling) or big infrastructure changes (electric cars, public transit, gas tax, nuclear and renewable power, bans on various power-inefficient things).

(2) Global warming is global. One country can destroy the environment for the entire planet. It's our responsibility to act everywhere. Environmentalism doesn't need borders. One could also argue that Brazil doesn't have the moral right to destroy a natural resource like this (nor does any other country).

Your comment smells of whataboutism. How dare we impinge on another country's sovereignty when our own garden desperately needs tending? The answer in all such cases is, of course: You can do both.

[jackvezkovic]

It's not whataboutism. It's a matter of principles. International pressure to "buy" a part of another country under the flag of environmental protection is not a reasonable option. It is a quite extreme measure. Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed. For me, it all sounds like outsourcing environmental responsibility. Just put in perspective the cost/payoff of this proposal. This arrogance in the argument that the Amazon is not from Brazil and shouldn't be trusted with them is bad for the environmental discussion that needs to happen. Can't we really not think of better solutions?

[maxheadroom]

>Why go through such an extreme measure in dealing with other countries' natural resources, while internal environmental problems are not properly addressed.

Eu não posso entender: Your proposed solution is that Brasil should carry-on doing whatever it wants with the Amazon Rain Forest and other countries should address their own CO^2 emissions, correct?

What is the argument, then, when you consider that Brasil will surpass those very same countries in CO^2 emissions when it no longer has a sink to counteract the effects of its own emissions?

Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want," whilst largely ignoring the fact that Brasil would - based on your proposition - be the resultant Sampson to the environment as a direct byproduct of that very premise.

Why can't it be both that the "world's lungs", as the Amazon Rainforest is oft coined, not be devastated and other countries fix their emissions?

This "muh sovruntee" mentality is precisely why we're stagnating (or even regressing) any progress on the positive feedback loop that we're currently sliding into. For example (if I understand correctly), it's why the states backed out of the Paris Agreements[0].

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

[jackvezkovic]

It is actually quite simple to understand. Don't be arrogant in proposing to "buy" a part of another country, because "they don't know how to take care of it". This is the kind of mindset that is counterproductive for the environmental debate. The Amazon belongs to Brazil, the same way that the Swiss Alps belong to the Swiss people, the oil reserves in Texas belong to the Americans, the plastic filled rivers that go to the ocean belong to China etc. There are no simple solutions - low hanging fruits - to the environmental problem. You could easily argue that we could just forbid the US of extracting oil from Texas to help save the planet. But that doesn't seem reasonable either, does it?

Once again, that doesn't mean Brazil should just burn the whole thing to the ground. But the way this will be accomplished is not through hypocrite, neo-imperialistic BS politics. But rather through economically sound negotiations, international agreements, multilateral commitments, that are advantageous for the parties involved.

[Mirioron]

>Essentially, you're saying, "Everyone should look after their own messes and let us do what we want,"

Yes, because that's exactly how western fibrous became rich. Now that you're rich you want to bar this path for other countries.

I hope you understand that when you suggest intentional pressure to divide a country you're essentially asking for war.

[maxheadroom]

>I hope you understand that when you suggest intentional pressure to divide a country you're essentially asking for war.

Where is this assumption coming from that I am suggesting international pressure to divide a country? To stop deforestation of Amazon Rainforest? Sure. However, there's a vast berth between that and dividing a country and the former doesn't automatically equate to the latter, yeah?