[vfc1]

Brasil needs to be heavily sanctioned by the international community, I'm talking Cuba-level stuff if we want to even have a chance at stopping the rise above 2 degrees, we only have 12 years which means that it's already probably too late.

More worrying is the rise of populism in the world supported by fake news, ignorance and social media that led to this.

How did someone as ignorant as Bolsonaro ever managed to get elected as president of a democratic country, and get away with some of the things he says?

[Hitton]

I consider such approach rather oppressive and reeking of colonialism attitudes. It sounds like: "Fuck Brasil, let's ban them from using their natural resources, while we happily keep using ours". There is literally no reason why other countries countries couldn't plant more forests to enhance their carbon depositions, now Brasil thanks to their rainforests does more of biosequestration than any other country on Earth and don't they dare doing less and not pick other nations' slack...

Also 12 years is just another arbitrary alarmist number, similarly to recently heard 18 months [1]. But in reality there is no upcoming end of the world [2].

[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736

[2]: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/no-climate...

[sprafa]

IT is colonialist, patronizing, and evil. The US and the "developed" world have set course for self annihilation and the US in particular has done nothing to solve its own path by leaving the Paris Agreement. But hey let's blame Brasil, easier than solving our own problems.

[vfc1]

Two things can be true at the same time. Clearly, both countries should change their behavior. I think what is happening in Basil is mostly due to the West fault, due to demand for cheap meat.

The Amazonian forest is mostly being tore down due to soy production for cattle feed.

[piva00]

Why are you so defensive about all of this?

[sprafa]

So defensive? It’s the second time news like this have shown up and it’s the second time people have suggested sanctions. Usually Americans living under a regime that is one of the few countries to pull out of the Paris Agreement. You don’t see a problem with that? Why is Brasil having to shoulder the blame for CO2 mostly produced elsewhere?

There’s a lot that can be done but really it’s the usual thing for me - if you’re going to criticise someone clean up your own house first.

[piva00]

I'm a Brazilian, living in Sweden and I'm going to push and get in touch with people I know who have connections or work at Riksdagen (the Swedish parliament) to start any kind of discussion on sanctioning the beef and mining industry in Brazil.

It's possible to criticise something even if you live in a glasshouse, even more when what's being done down there is senseless for the future of the whole country, like I mentioned on another comment: this is utterly myopic and stupid, extract and destroy now to have something for 5 years or do the proper thing and invest in educating society taking 1-2 generations (so about 20-30 years) and reap the benefits for the next centuries.

[sprafa]

I am also Brazilian but yeah I’m not saying any of this is right. I just don’t get the sanctions idea being so popular around here.

[lightbyte]

If you asked, most people who are arguing for sanctions on Brasil would also support sanctions on America for pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

>if you’re going to criticise someone clean up your own house first.

Is a terrible attitude to have and will never lead to any solutions.

[scarejunba]

How is this not obvious? Industrialization is a rapid road to prosperity. The West industrialized and is prosperous, and now requires the other countries not take the path they took? It’s never going to happen.

You can’t dump 7 times as much carbon as a Brazilian into the atmosphere and then ask them to cut emissions. Especially when you have the money and resources to be carbon negative and choose not to.

[piva00]

The economy at those times was VERY different, there weren't alternatives that are getting cheaper than oil nowadays for energy, the future is in green energy, pushing this agenda of "we need to develop the same way as the current developed nations have done is the only way" is stupid and myopic.

If Brazil was interested in developing itself (and I know firsthand how that place works, fucks sake, I lived my first 27 years of life there) it'd be pushing its development through research on this new green field (pun intended) that is still immature and open for the newcomers to be bold and create the industry the world will rely on. It's a prime place to research and develop renewable technology with abundant hydro and solar energy, with vast swaths of land covered by the most diverse bioma on Earth. Brazil could be doing novel technologies to sell the future world on this, instead it's pushed down by exporting mostly iron ore, soybeans and beef, it's stuck in the past and society is kept uneducated and living on primary commodities exports. Hell, even with a lot of oil Brazil has no technology to refine and produce its own fuel, it sells the oil out just to buy it back in the form of refined oil products.

Brazil doesn't have any internal incentive, politically, to become better, technologically, educationally or culturally, it's a place stuck in time, nothing works, no infrastructure is properly developed. I know that, I haven't visited it for 3 years after moving to Sweden and going back to visit friends and family just made me see how... Nothing really ever changes, projects are always late, bogged down by corruption and bureaucracy, overspending and ultimately most of them are never finished. Lack of reliable and proper transportation in major cities keep poor people poor, being stuck in a bus 4 hours of your day to earn R$ 1.500,00 per month doesn't leave you much time and energy to be able to study, that money barely cover your basic expenses, it's horrible.

So instead of complaining that other countries want it to do better do some thinking and see that it's because there are many other ways to be better, there is no need to follow the missteps of other countries, pave a fucking new way instead of always looking up to what others have done and mimic it. It's the country of poor imitation, the only benefit is that we are inventive and given constraints our people are really creative.

Brazil, as we say, will always be the country of the future. The problem is that the future never arrives to become the present over there.

[lightbyte]

So the answer is to throw our hands in the air and give up because our ancestors did something we now to be extremely harmful so we have to let everyone else do it too?

[sprafa]

Absolutely not. But I don’t think sanctions are a great idea.

[vfc1]

No other country can plant a rainforest the size of Amazonia, come on that does not make sense.

The Amazonia rainforest is unique and cannot be replaced, I don't get how the rate that it's getting tore down to plant soy crops for cattle feed to allow for the production of cheap meat is not alarming to anyone.

[scarejunba]

If you want the rainforest to remain, then pay for it to remain. Otherwise, let those who own the rainforest use the rainforest.

[screye]

You may have been downvoted, but the the developed world has yet to provide a good retort to your point.

Such a question is answered by blatant hypocrisy every time.

[marmadukester39]

Who says any human should “own” a rainforest?

[newsgremlin]

Who says any human should "own" the oil in the ground or the ground itself?

We can't champion private ownership while denying private ownership to others. Especially when you have no control over said land.

It's cliche to blame capitalism, but it is capitalism that has given us a distorted view of the world and of the concept of ownership.

[lonelappde]

> We can't champion private ownership while denying private ownership to others.

Of course we can. It's called colonialist and it's what made Europe and USA the economic powerhouses of the world.

[piva00]

I don't agree on sanctioning Brazil to Cuba levels. I do agree with sanctioning the beef/cattle industry there and I want to explain why:

Some of the staunchest supporters of Bolsonaro are from agrobusiness, they support him because of the removal of environmental protections so they are more free to take over land, illegally at first and I see that more and more this government will create frameworks to make that legal.

They support him because of his anti-environmental stance, because of his defunding of IBAMA (Brazil's environmental protection agency, responsible for investigation and enforcement of those laws), defunding and removing security to the officers that go to remote areas on the north of Brazil. These people risk their lives, that area of Brazil is a wild west with hitmen and killings happening if those farmers get a wiff that their illegal land grab is being scrutinised. Usually those officers would have support from the police and the army or national guard, now they have nothing and they refuse to do their inspections without it.

Apart from that, just this year his government has approved 290 new pesticides to be used in Brazilian fields, there are another 500+ to be "analysed" but will probably get a straight stamping out of it, news this week just reported that half a BILLION bees have died in Brazil this year, there is a very strong signal to connect those.

I was born and raised in Brazil, I've been educated and hearing about these massive land grabs and deforestation in the Amazon since I was a kid in 4th grade, it's never got much better and that is because of the agroindustry in Brazil, if the world keeps consuming beef from there it's only going to get worse. And fast.

So yes, I advocate now for sanctioning these industries that are the base supporters and financiers of Bolsonaro, he has the evangelical votes but those people are a danger to Brazil's society, not to the world as a whole, cattle farmers burning and destroying the Amazon, mining and oil companies applying for permits to install themselves in the jungle, THOSE are the industries that are gonna kill the Amazon and a big part of Earth with it.

[Scarblac]

The US burns by far the most fossil fuel per capita. If any country needs to be sanctioned for causing climate change, it's the US.

[marble-drink]

Yeah. Even Europeans are shocked at the level of consumption in the US. Driving absolutely everywhere. Air conditioning everywhere keeping the buildings colder than necessary. Heating keeping them warmer than necessary. All plastic packaging is twice as thick and there's twice as much of it. Eating enough food to maintain an overweight/obese body. It's an extremely wasteful society.

If we as a species are going to do anything it has to be all together. We all have to make cuts. Only a tiny number of individuals will voluntarily give up what they have. Why would they? It's just not fair. Many simply can't give it up without losing their jobs etc. We cannot point at Brasil while we are also living far beyond our means.

[vfc1]

Two things can be true, the rainforest cutdown needs to be quickly stopped with urgent measures, AND countries like the US and the West in general need to change their meat consumption behavior.

It's not one or the other, both are needed. Most of what is going on in Brasil is due to the West demand for cheap meat, that is what is driving the deforestation.

According to the latest science, we only have 12 years for preventing the planet temperature from rising to 12 degrees

[marmadukester39]

We are all in the same boat. If Brasil decides to smash holes in their side too, we all drown.

[donkeyd]

I don't disagree, but burning the Amazon has a double effect, it releases massive amounts of CO2, but also kills trees that can remove the CO2. The Amazon is called the 'lungs of our world' for a reason.

[avocado4]

Climate change doesn't work on a per-capita basis.

[Scarblac]

Humans do. No human is going to accept emitting less CO2 just because they live in a populous country, if other humans are allowed to emit more per person just because they live in a less populated country.

[rypskar]

How else do it aggregate to the sum of all on earth? Climate change do not care about borders

[scarejunba]

Guess what? If you're driving a massive SUV and heating your home every winter, I'm not going to listen to you telling me I have to oil the bearings on my bike to prevent friction heating.

Take the beam out of your eye and maybe I'll listen.

[KnightOfWords]

> Brasil needs to be heavily sanctioned by the international community...

Along with the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Australia. And probably a bunch of others.

[ptah]

it would be more effectiveif the northern hemisphere started paying a rainforest tax to the southern as proposed by the likes of prince charles

[icebraining]

Equador tried asking for that, but it was ignored: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ecuador-asks-worl...

[sprafa]

So the "developed" world sets course for anihilating itself and Brasil gets the blame? How very American of you.

[PauloManrique]

I'm a Brazilian, and yes, our country needs to be heavily sanctioned until this president wakes up.

Yeah, first world countries made bad decisions in the past, but by 2019 everyone should know better. And he knows it, he just don't give a damn about it.

[dna_polymerase]

Would be all for the sanctions, but the EU just signed a free trade agreement with Brazil (Mercosur). That agreement put Brazil's farmers at an advantage, they can now sell to the EU, and produce cheaper than European farmers. If anything that accelerated the trend we see now in the Amazon.

Also, Trump's trade war with China led China to heavily invest in Brazil's soy. Another accelerator of Amazon burning.

So, after all it isn't just Bolsonaro, it is also our (the western world) fault. The officials we elected allow for this in the first place.

[icebraining]

What part of the EU-Mercosur agreement do you see impacting this? Soya was already imported without tariffs, and the low-tariff beef quota is just 100k tonnes, divided over the four Mercosur countries, whereas Brazil alone already produces 11 million tonnes of beef.

[screye]

> How did someone as ignorant as Bolsonaro ever managed to get elected as president of a democratic country, and get away with some of the things he says?

This has to be sarcasm right ?

You ask that question when Duterte, Erdogan, Trump, Brexit, LePen and the like have occurred in the last 5 years preceding him.

Bolsonaro was democratically elected. We may not like it (I absolutely despise him), but that is the will of the people. Naive, easily misled and disheartened people. But, democrated elected nevertheless.

[darkwater]

> How did someone as ignorant as Bolsonaro ever managed to get elected as president of a democratic country, and get away with some of the things he says?

Just like Trump, probably.

[icebraining]

Anecdotally, having met a few Brazilians who voted for him, the phrase "taking him seriously, not literally" does seem to apply as well.

That said, other than that the situations seem quite different. Brazil was in a political quagmire that is hard to fathom in the US, at least for someone seeing both from afar.