Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by simongray 2450 days ago
> a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US)

It's 10% of the population, about a quarter of GDP, so not "mostly". Brazil is usually put into the Newly Industrialised Country category. It has quite a bit of secondary sector giants too.
1 comments
fuzz4lyfe 2450 days ago
Fair enough. I didn't look up Brazil specially but I am familiar with the rates in the region and assumed they were similar.

Western countries have not eliminated a quarter of their GDP to prevent climate change, shouldn't they do that before telling those much poorer than they to do so?

link
ratww 2450 days ago
Stopping the deforestation isn't going to affect the GDP at all, let alone slash a quarter of it.

Keep in mind that the deforestation is purely caused by the livestock industry trying to squeeze profits. There are other ways to produce meat that don't involve invading and burning forests.

According to the government, in 2017 only 5,7% of the GDP is directly related to agriculture and livestock production [1]. And according to an industry website livestock was responsible for only 31% of that [2].

The rest of that "one quarter" is related to processing and distribution, which can happen in urban areas closer to the southeast, far away from the Amazon, and those things don't benefit at all from the deforestation.

And the processing/distribution industry could exist by itself without local production, as proved by places like Hong Kong, the largest importer of Brazilian beef. [3]

By the way, the biggest producer of beef in Brazil is the state of Sao Paulo, which is on the other side of the country, not at all related to Amazon. [3]

So nope. Stopping the Amazon deforestation RIGHT NOW won't even make dent in our GDP.

---

[1] http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/agropecuaria-puxa-o-p...

[2] https://www.beefpoint.com.br/abiec-perfil-da-pecuaria-no-bra...

[3] https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/01/18/Brazilian-...

link
fuzz4lyfe 2450 days ago
If this is so inexpensive why not agree to pay producers the costs incurred for not engaging in the practice plus a small fee if they don't engage in deforestation? They would be stupid to turn down free money and given so many people are concerned and the total amount being so low this measure could be funded by donations easily. This could be handled in a few days if what you say is true.
link
ratww 2450 days ago
Because those people are operating outside the law. It's not as if we know who they are.

It happens to be a crime here in Brazil to invade lands and burn preserved areas. People should and have been arrested for it.

The deforestation is purely a political problem, this has nothing to do with economics as you've tried to portray here.

--

Btw, by "political problem" I mean that the government was outright saying that the deforestation and fires "are normal" [1], or they're accusing NGOs of starting the fires [2], or even denying external help to avoid the fires in Amazon [3].

The current position of the government is different, however. Now is that the fires should be stopped, and the army has been sent to Amazon to arrest people. [4]

And that was thanks to both external and internal pressure. Why did it took so long? Because there were too many criminal apologists trying to justify why burning the country was needed. But it wasn't.

---

[1] https://noticias.uol.com.br/meio-ambiente/ultimas-noticias/a...

[2] https://noticias.uol.com.br/meio-ambiente/ultimas-noticias/r...

[3] https://noticias.uol.com.br/meio-ambiente/ultimas-noticias/r...

[4] https://exame.abril.com.br/brasil/exercito-prende-63-pessoas...

link