[whywhywhywhy]

They're gonna chop and burn it down either way, it'll either be for cattle or if you make eating meat illegal they'll chop and burn it for something else like palm oil.

Like it's obvious the people who own and control that land don't care about it anywhere near as much as you do so if you want them to stop chopping it down essentially you're gonna need to start paying them not to. Just seems naive to think stopping specifically poor people from eating meat is the solution to this.

[whimsicalism]

If you take away one of the profitable reasons to chop down the Amazon, it’ll reduce people doing it at the margin - that is simply facts.

> Poor people from eating meat

Yeah and a carbon tax will stop poor people from using as much gas, etc. - if we want to solve climate change we cannot just insulate all poor people from externality pricing.

[mytailorisrich]

At global scale we can't solve the environmental crisis in general (climate is only one aspect) and solve poverty at the same time with 10 billion people.

Solving the environmental crisis means reducing our consumption of resources. Solving global poverty means a significant increase in consumption of resources.

So the only way forward is to let the global population decrease ASAP so that we can both live well and preserve the planet.

[whimsicalism]

Resource intensity is decreasing. We can solve both at the same time, but we can’t solve both with maximum possible speed at the same time, true.

[mytailorisrich]

Resource intensity may or may not be decreasing but that's not solving the issue if you look at global numbers of poor people versus economic and consumption growth needed to bring everyone to, say, European level of living standard.

We are already wreacking havoc on the planet and marginal decrease in resource intensity is not going to make a difference because our total impact needs to be slashed.

I never understand the insistence of some of ignoring population in the equation, which is the key parameter.

[whimsicalism]

> marginal decrease in resource intensity

We're seeing more than simply marginal decreases - if we can successfully transition our power. The gap in per capita CO2 emissions between developing, middle-income, developed is not nearly as great as what you are suggesting [0] and will decrease even further in the time that it takes to raise people in poverty now to developed-world standards.

> I never understand the insistence of some of ignoring population in the equation, which is the key parameter.

A few reasons: 1. Population is projected to peak in the coming decades. 2. "Slashing" population counts requires a global deployment of force that is both not practically feasible right now and incredibly unpopular. There is no practical path to "slashing" population. This is the primary reason, imo. 3. People in the West always imagine that it would be other people/nations slashing their population count when the biggest marginal impact (especially given climate lags) would be slashing their own population. These solutions are eugenicist in nature.

Also - taking a step back for a moment, I am confused as to how this in any way justifies beef. Beef contributes to the gap between rich and poor in CO2. If we reduce reliance on beef, it means we can support a larger population sustainably?

[0]: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t...

[mytailorisrich]

CO2 emissions for power generation, or in general, are only a small part of our impact. The environmental crisis is not only caused by this, but by our total consumption of resources and production of many pollutants.

And so we are screwed.

Now the West is already slashing its own population, birth rates have crashed. The issue is that it's refusing to let it go because it's not the easy option, and at global scale this is a taboo subject.

And so we are doubly screwed.

[whywhywhywhy]

There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.

Don’t understand why people want to play whack a mole to get to the end goal all while making everyone’s lives worse, esp on the lower income levels who can’t afford organic meat.

When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.

I mean this is about the trees right?

[whimsicalism]

> When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.

REDD+ programs (which is what you are describing) are massive failures at preventing deforestation or carbon decreases.

> There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.

No, there are costs and profits and if you decrease the profits and increase the costs it changes peoples behavior at the margin. The Amazon rainforest isn't the one thing that is exempt from basic economics.

[whywhywhywhy]

You stop them using it for meat they’ll use it for palm oil you stop them using it for that they’ll use it for something else. It’s just so naive to expect it just to switch to something they can sell. Like they own it they can do what they want with it, if you want it to be trees pay them for it to be trees. Just because some NGO likely scam failed to do it under a climate banner doesn’t mean it’s impossible, someone pays them to use the land for meat right? So pay for it to be trees in the same channels.

[paulryanrogers]

Accountability seems impossible sending money alone. There have to be officials with guns enforcing the preservation. People who cannot be paid off.