[timemachine]

I generally like the economist but this article is poor.

The topic of deforestation is only whispered in at the end, almost a footnote. However, burning the Amazon for farmland to produce beef in Brazil should be part of the headline.

[analognoise]

I thought the modern view was that the Amazon as the "lungs of the planet" was supposed to be totally bullshit and we could burn the whole thing down and be fine - but what we can't do is screw up the oceans, and it's already too late and we're all effectively doomed (walking ghost status) but we just don't realize it yet.

I'm paraphrasing here.

[GhettoComputers]

It is easy to do carbon studies on trees, but not on grasslands and other carbon sinks. The carbon content of the world will not be the destroyer as much as the effect of human nature, the world has been very different at different times, but extinction isn't likely.

To screw up the oceans, there must be a standard, but there isn't. There are many problems such as lower native populations, corals, invasive species, stronger weather patterns, microplastics, but I am not sure what it is to "screw up the oceans".

[gotoeleven]

If net neutrality doesn't get us first!