[justinmk]

If the world cares about it then the world should pay for it. Not sanctions, nor sanctimony. Buy the land.

It would be expensive, but that just reflects the value to the people you're buying it from. And it's an actual, concrete action that can be taken, instead of the vague global warming solutions that just tweak domestic parameters and send tax money to the black hole of the state budget.

[Mobius01]

This argument is entirely pointless. You’re proposing to purchase land - crucial natural resource - from a sovereign nation(s). I can’t begin to imagine what a fair price would be, if there is such a thing. 300 trillion dollars? Who would pay? The rich nation taxpayers? Would the population of these benefactors countries be happy with increased taxation for no direct impact in their lives? Private investors? What would they recoup their investment from,, “responsible” exploration of the land they are ostensibly saving? Not to mention the political and cultural implications of attempting to buy a resource from a nation, after the purchasers have used up their own for economical and geopolitical gain. I ask for forgiveness if the tone of this message is overly cynical, but we are past the point of thought exercises over the fate of this planet.

If a solution to preserve the Amazon is to be found, that will involve helping Brazil rise above the cesspool of corruption that its been steeped in for the past decades. Assistance with education and economic incentives for alternatives to heavy reliance on beef and grain exports. Heavy tariffs or outright ban of these products on the international markets. Punish the large agricultural and cattle business that are decimating the forest for gain, give the people alternatives for subsistence. Until that happens, little will change.

[chaostheory]

It’s not a pointless argument if voters agree. Nations don’t necessarily have to buy the land, but regular payments to Brazil to give them a reason to maintain the rain forest as opposed to burning it is a reasonable proposal. It’s better than just complaining about it.

[mrpopo]

See the Amazon Fund project, mainly funded by Norway, where donations are invested to fight against deforestation.

http://www.amazonfund.gov.br/en/home/

Unless it gets 100x bigger, this is a drop in the ocean, though. A lot more money could be made by exploiting that land.

[tdsamardzhiev]

No, it's pointless. Sinking more money into the black hole that is Brazil's corrupt government? What's next? How about regular payments to US and Russia so they have a reason to maintain their nuclear weapons instead of just using them?

[chaostheory]

I think we did do that for a time when Russia was unstable, post USSR, to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

Also we can keep Brazil honest via satellite imaging. More burning? No more money

[StreamBright]

>> Sinking more money into the black hole that is Brazil's corrupt government?

Given the history of Brazil, you meant governments I guess.

[Myrmornis]

Any such proposal is considered by many Brazilians to be patronizing a sovereign nation.

[chaostheory]

Sure, but the international community just complaining hasn’t yielded the best results. The reason the rain forest is burning is for economic reasons. Similarly, I don’t see why the international committee can’t provide economic reasons to preserve it if it’s that important

[Myrmornis]

Yes, I do understand what you're saying and I wish/hope it happens. I wonder if the answer to your implicit question is that the degree of economic incentive that would be necessary to persuade Brazil to agree to something that it considers demeaning would be so great that it is either (a) unrealistic to imagine funding it as others have suggested elsewhere in this comment thread, or (b) would verge on economic aggression (i.e. persuading someone to do something they would rather not via financial means is of course not always considered ethical, even by the most red blooded free-marketeers.)

[chaostheory]

A) It’s not unrealistic. Just recently France have offered 20 million for assistance for the rainforest. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the US made payments to Russia when it was unstable to help it secure its nuclear inventory

B) I’m not sure that offering aid is “aggressive” vs economic sanctions or IMF loans

My comments are more critical of developed nations rather than Brazil.

[ptah]

are you implying that foreigners are not allowed to buy land in brazil?

[WilliamEdward]

Land has been bought before on this scale and for quite cheap, see: Alaska, Louisiana.

[fiblye]

Buying land owned by another country means diddly. All it takes is one politician or motivated company to declare the contract void, and that happening is merely a matter of time.

You’d need to buy it and split it off as a country and be prepared to defend it as such and pray that the locals are willing to be absorbed by your new government. The cost of that is several magnitudes larger than merely buying land.

[TearsInTheRain]

Eh, even nations can't just declare contracts void without serious repercussions. Nations have credit ratings too and frequently utilize international financing

[jhrmnn]

But that goes full circle back to the repercussions criticized by OP.

[manigandham]

Buying the land doesn't do anything unless its protected by armed forces.

[javert]

I'm pretty sure Brazil would be delighted to receive a regular check from the rest of the world in exchange for defending part of the rainforest. As long as they get their cut, they're going to be happy. Just make the payments conditional on the continued protection of the forest; otherwise they can be expected to renege eventually.

This is exactly what it means to "buy property," by the way: nobody else can use it and the government enforces that if necessary using men with guns. So what I'm suggesting is only a slight refinement of the normal and expected arrangement when buying property.

[manigandham]

Buying property is a one-time deal, not a "regular check". Also this is between nations so a purchase of land means transferring sovereignty as well.

It seems what you're talking about is leasing the land, which is entirely different. Also unlikely considering how much industry it would displace in their economy (which is the reason this is a problem in the first place).

[0xffff2]

Buying property is a one-time check to the current owner. You also generally make regular payments to the government in the form of property taxes.

[manigandham]

This doesn’t apply to governments buying from each other.

[javert]

I'm talking about doing exactly what I said. Not the things you are talking about.

[manigandham]

So no land rights, just paying them to maintain a rainforest? That has nothing to do with (buying) property at all.

That kind of deal would have ridiculous rates for the opportunity cost, won't stop illegal deforestation or crimes through plausible deniability, and we'll still end up with an expensive military and political presence to oversee everything. Also many other countries will start to ransom environmental support for a paycheck.

I see nothing but negatives with this strategy. We can't just pay countries to change their behavior that easily.

[derp_dee_derp]

there is no way that this payment arrangement is stable over the long term (more than 10 years).

The only thing that will happen is the locals will become resentful of the foreigners who are preventing them from using their own land, someone will rise to power riding on that resentment, they'll use the money to raise an army, and then they'll kick out the foreigners and renege on the deal.

there is no such things as "buying property" between nations with out transferring sovereignty. Look at the louisiana purchase, purchase of alaska, etc for examples of doing it correctly in a long term sustainable way.

look at hong kong for examples of doing it wrong: the chinese "bought" hong kong from the british 100+ years ago but guess what? the hong kong people don't care.

[tomjakubowski]

All things considered, the arrangement of Guantanamo Bay, where Cuba retained sovereignty and gave the US an indefinite lease, which survived Cold War hostilities, even the missile crisis, without disruption by anti-US sentiment, has been relatively stable.

[javert]

> there is no way that this payment arrangement is stable over the long term

I'm not sure about that.

> there is no such things as "buying property" between nations with out transferring sovereignty

Not with that attitude.

[ant6n]

Macron wants to make Brazil's access to EU markets conditional on protecting the rain forests. Brazil is not happy about that.

[javert]

I think the solution of just paying Brazil to protect the forests is much cleaner and much more likely to work over the long term.

Tariffs have a lot of side effects. They are very messy, politically. They create winners and losers in both countries.

[dchichkov]

Additional resources will allow to purchase equipment, pave roads (like the BR-319 that article is describing). And in a decade the deforestation will only increase. An instability or crisis will likely have the opposite effect. In particular, road surface degradation or disruptions in the exports.

[throwaway66920]

What happens when you buy the land and then people burn it down anyway and steal it back?

[WilliamEdward]

I presume buying the rights to the land also gives you the rights to stop these people with force.

[ufo]

The current deforestation is already driven by illegal trespassers. Changing the ownership on paper won't change anything

[wavefunction]

>It would be expensive

It's just Brazilian farmland, I don't see why it will be expensive. It looks like the conservative cost of a productive acre of farmland in Brazil can cost up to 1500 USD an acre, so taking the 2.124 million miles^2 area of the Amazon basin we get a very conservative 2.03T USD to purchase every acre of the Amazon basin at generous upper-end of Brazilian agricultural prices regardless of productivity.

The real problem is... how could you trust Bolsonaro's government or the criminals they've enabled and emboldened to respect your property rights?

[zanny]

> how could you trust Bolsonaro's government or the criminals they've enabled and emboldened to respect your property rights?

In the same way the US Midwest is still not sovereign French territory after the US bought it, whoever bought the Amazon would take the role in defending it as their own turf. Which would mean garrisoning armed forces to protect the borders.

It would definitionally have to be a secession of the territory from Brazil, and it would probably just be cheaper to assassinate the government of Brazil and replace it with a puppet dictatorship beholden to foreign interests, which is something the US is extremely good at.

[pas]

> US is good at ...

No it's not. It fucked up all of those. The puppet gov lasted at best a few terms, the general sentiment in the affected countries worsened, etc. And then their puppet collapsed and the people got a nice military coup then a brutal junta for years (decade(s)).

[winter_blue]

Sanctions are a lot more cost effective.

Although I’d rather prefer that well-run countries (like Canada for instance) take poorly-run countries (like India or Brazil) into a form of “stewardship” of sorts. This would essentially involve first invading and annexing those countries and turning them into “protectorates” of sorts — but it would differ from old colonialism in the sense that the “steward” nation would not be exploiting the country it’s taken into its stewardship, but only ensuring that they’re run smoothly, fairly, and justly.

[neotek]

>but it would differ from old colonialism in the sense that the “steward” nation would not be exploiting the country it’s taken into its stewardship

If only it were that simple and some human beings weren't inherently bad people.