After taking it from the natives Bolsonaro is letting the Amazonas burn to the ground. And he is absolutely in the right. If it creates jobs, raises the GDP and gives corporations ways to make some money, why not?
And let's be honest. Who needs a damn forest at the end of the world anyway. Build some nice Disneyland or whatever there.
Other urls found in this thread:
medium.com
mrtreeservices.com
theguardian.com
bbc.com
nationalgeographic.com
nasa.gov
noticias.uol.com.br
queimadas.dgi.inpe.br
queimadas.dgi.inpe.br
twitter.com
Meanwhile Venezuela burns
>Who needs a damn forest removing CO2 and providing oxygen
>>Who needs a damn forest removing CO2 and providing oxygen
Did you know that a forest that isn't growing doesn't have a net impact on CO2 or oxygen? It's actually better for the environment to cut down trees once in a while and plant new ones.
I never imagined that retarded austrians come on Jow Forums to post stupid shit like this.
DAS RITE, BASED BOZO WILL GIVE US DIESEL TRUCKS, GUNS AND MEAT CHEAP WHILE WE KILL THE REST OF THE WORLD WITH OUR POLLUTION, WE TEAM INDIA AND CHINA NOW, PAY FOR OUR POLUTION WHITOID, HAHAHA GO EAT YOUR BUGS AND PAY YOUR CARBON AND MEAT TAX HAHAHA
#MBGA
Retarded brasuka justifying the burning of his native rainforest that provides >90% of Earth’s atmospheric O2. But yes this is good for the Earth.
Imagine being this fucking stupid.
There’s tons of evidence of ancient civilizations and cities in the Amazon rainforest. We only know about this because some of the rainforest has been cut back.
>arguing with bolsonaro voters about anything
to be fair you guys should probably think about it, maybe in a few years of taking care of your shit your poor people won't be so desperate that they kill each other in wartime numbers.
>that provides >90% of Earth’s atmospheric O2
No it doesn't, are you fucking retarded?
Even if we ignore the fact that dying trees release their carbon back 70% of oxygen is actually produced by algae and unlike trees they are net producers because part of their carbon sinks into the ocean and is buried under sediment, carbon from trees is never naturally buried.
This is basic botany.
This is one of the top oxygen producing areas in the world. You are not considering many factors in your shortsighted best case scenario statement.
so is bolsanaro and trump just part of the whole messianic doomsday scenario israel wants by just fucking up the world beyond the point of salvage?
you hues need to stop licking boots already.
Yeh but they aren't being replaced by anything other than beef heards and farmland.
they will always do, that's has nothing to do with the amazon but with serious problems in brazilian history that lead to this severe inequality which is the source of the absurd violence here
Are you people part of a discord or something? Because out of a sudden we get 100000 threads about this.
>Venezuela burns
That is its normal state
>find ruins in burnt areas
>gain millions as archaeologists and universities lobby for access
>This is one of the top oxygen producing areas in the world. You are not considering many factors in your shortsighted best case scenario statement.
You are the one not considering the actual factors that drive a forest's lifecycle, you are a dunning kruger effect idiot who thinks he's now a botanical expert because he read a headline with percentages in it and doesn't understand that carbon doesn't disappear from existence.
medium.com
>Jow Forums simultaneously supports "eco-fascism" but cannot see why burning one of the largest forests on planet earth is a bad fucking idea.
I wish you retards would stop huffing Trump tweets about "Chinese conspiracies to discredit American industry" and pick up a goddamn ecology textbook instead.
are these forests not needed for increasing global oxygen level?
It's better to fell trees and return them to the soil where they are standing. Chop down or burn, turn over the soil and you have fantastic conditions for more to grow. But balanced ecosystems like old-growth forests (like rainforests often are) are much better off without fires. Only young and adolescent forests catch on fire on their own. And the mycelial network that connect the trees and other plants don't do well when old growth forests burn.
It blows my mind that people are still hanging on to monoculture. Why not just replant the areas you've burned down with actual food forests? You could literally plant an Eden-type forest that would feed anyone and everyone living nearby. Especially considering that you don't have winters like we do!
Even the Spaniards who came in the 1500s knew about the ancient civilizations, it's clear that the Incas only built their civilization on ruins that they found, just like the dynastic-period Egyptians. Just look at the difference in handicraft between the foundations and houses and huts on top (in south america) and compare the machined stones in Egypt to the crude inscriptions they are covered in.
No forest = no oxygen. You're projecting your own retardation of reading internet articles and telling others in the most shortsighted way possible what to think. Your cliche statement of fires being good for a forests lifecycle has limits and is thrown out the window when dealing with such a large scale destruction of that ecosystem. Kys wannabe expert piece of shit
There has been a natural global greening effect in the last few decades because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, which only happened because humans extracted carbon from the earth to burn it into the atmosphere but trees themselves are carbon neutral when you consider their entire lifespan and not just their carbon absorption when they are growing.
>But balanced ecosystems like old-growth forests (like rainforests often are) are much better off without fires
They aren't, fires always happened and are part of the forest's ecosystem, cleaning thick undergrowth which allows for better conditions for trees to grow.
mrtreeservices.com
Human-managed forests are cut down every once in a while exactly because an inert forest has no net benefit.
Fuck Bonsoaro, you just know that they will send the extra crops to Africa to save the niggers from famine.
Jesus fucking christ, you are so retarded no wonder Hitler left your country for Germany if people like you live in it.
>No forest = no oxygen.
Dude stop, you are too fucking stupid and a waste of oxygen.
>Your cliche statement of fires being good for a forests lifecycle has limits and is thrown out the window when dealing with such a large scale destruction of that ecosystem
Naturally a shrinking forest isn't good for the ecosystem but fires aren't a new thing and they aren't even at record highs this year, what causes shrinkage is just good old deforestation which didn't increase this year.
>humans are increasing co2
And there it is. Humans only account for a tiny percentage of co2. Fuck off shill
Muttbrain
You forget that the rainforest is different than a temperate forest, deforestatin is a massive problem because nutrients that were previously kept in the cycle are now just being washed away deep into the soil. In temperate forests you do not have that problem.
Seems like a lot of things are beginning to burn down. Good. Let it all burn.
Trump, Putin, Orban, and Bolsonaro are the four horsemen of the apocalypse. They are effacing faggotry from the face of this earth.
it's literally avatar the movie
You are having a really difficult time making a point that is relevant. All of your generic statements don't apply to this context. You are too stupid to understand big pictures.
why are there so many treehuggers on Jow Forums?
The fire rises
Lmao based
>All of your generic statements don't apply to this context
What is the context? There's no fantasy world where forests are net oxygen producers.
The only CO2 that gets permanently bound into a tree is "removed" aka only when it's growing, a tree's anabolism cycle is a zero net C/O2 producer and when it starts decaying it releases back its bound carbon.
Cyanobacteria are net oxygen producers, algae too and unlike trees they are also net carbon absorbers since part of it sinks into the ocean.
But for many years now, even old trees have been burning in both Amazonas and Indonesia, which would not happen without human intervention. Over 50% over just the last three years.
Yes of course underbrush burns. I never said old-growth forests are static. Things grow old and fall, insects, animals and fungi play their part, and so do fires. But a natural fire won't take down a rainforest. A manmade forest fire, or even just clear cutting, has INCREDIBLY deleterious effects on the local environment, and the forest simply won't grow back on its own. It's why so many countries take an active part in reforestation and restoration after major wildfires. Even if you take precautions so that the new nutrients aren't simply washed out to the ocean, the maybe thousands-year old microbiome is gone, dead, and without it none of those nutrients are available. Look at any clear cut field, they're grey and pale brown for decades before they start looking lush again.
If you're from Brazil, please travel to Amazonia and look for yourself. Find a place that was cut down 10 years ago and wasn't actively replanted or restored by people, and tell me these things again.
Start an /egg/ thread, or join this discussion. I know you're suggesting that this whole thread is a distraction. But consider that some of us are capable of being outraged by several things at once ;) Last I saw of it we left off at Ghislane's fake photoshoot and people were interpreting the photo as a secret message. Did it go any further than thread #5?
The amount of tree huggers on Jow Forums is staggering.
>inb4 ThAtS nOt sWaiLiNg
No, this is. Even birds (raptors) know how to do this without decimating the forest.
b-b-b-but, trump hates jews right?
Only leftards care about some forest burning in a third world country. Why should I?
>muuh climate
>muuh CO2
Listing things I don't care in the first place ain't an argument.
Your arguments sound real solid when you don't even reply to the people presenting you with reasons to care :) To adress some things you have said directly, the way the Brazilians are burning their forests will not create jobs, it does not raise GDP and it will not give corporations any new ways of making money. Do you have any examples of any of these things actually happening? If we were talking about regular swailing or controlled burns I'd totally agree with you. But right now, the fires are uncontrolled (despite being ignited by humans), there are no premade corridors to stop the fires from spreading, and they are PURELY detrimental to both the locals and the government there. Bolsonaro is a twat to think he is encouraging any form of growth with this.
But you're right, nobody needs a forest at the end of the world. We need them covering every area that we are not using. Think about this: CO2 is consumed by trees. We produce CO2. So planting forests, but most importantly, taking care of the algae population (the source of the majority of our oxygen), will allow us to continue driving our combustion vehicles! If we were not so nostalgic, we could terraform this planet with our CO2 and make room for some seriously wild flora and fauna, let's bring back the 10kg mosquitoes of Yore!
>le we should kill off nature
Ok kike
Fires are normal, natural, and promote growth cycles after everything has burned
Do you think fires didn't exist before humans?
>hue intelligence
Yeah, Jobs are more important than fucking breathing. Choke the world to own the libs.
What are you even talking about? "We" aren't burning it on purpose and it's a normal cycle that happens every year driven by the dry season, Bolsonaro also never encouraged any fires.
>CO2 is consumed by trees.
Only when they are growing but it's released back once they die, an established forest is a zero sum game.
Only algae are actual net carbon sequesters since part of it sinks into the ocean floor.
let me talk about how superior I am from my country who's richness come from making wars around the world, destroying native communities, native environments and people around the world, but I don't want you to do as well
theguardian.com
He literally ran for president campaining to economically exploit the forest. And you're literally parroting his rhetoric, stating it's the season for fire.
He has said
>I used to be called Captain Chainsaw. Now I am Nero, setting the Amazon aflame
How is that not burning it on purpose?
And how is the number of forest fires more than doubled sinde 2013? And how has the rate risen so dramatically since he came into power, if it isn't his doing?
>it's a normal cycle that happens every year driven by the dry season
Of course there are natural forest fires too. But you're naive if you don't think people are steering the vehicle here.
>The process of deforestation is simple. Its various stages – carried out over a period of two to 10 years – can all be seen on a one-hour helicopter ride above Mato Grosso.
>First, there is the cutting. Small secret trails are pierced through the undergrowth by illegal loggers who covertly fell and sell the most valuable hardwood logs to sawmills.
>Then comes the burning as fires are set every few hundred metres under the canopy, filling the skies with a haze and reducing the tall green forest to low grey ash.
>Next is the clearing. Bulldozers push the ash into heaps and mechanised claws rip what is left of the roots from the soil so that it can be planted with a monoculture – usually soya, cotton or corn. Elsewhere, most deforestation is for cattle pasture
>And you're literally parroting his rhetoric, stating it's the season for fire.
Stating facts is not "rhetoric".
>How is that not burning it on purpose?
He's ironizing the nicknames and people blaming him for every single thing that happens, how does that imply anything else?
Obviously part of it is human-made but Paraguay, Bolivia and Russia are having even bigger fires so you're suggesting that farmers from all these countries decided to burn everything at the same time because of one president, when in reality it's a particularly dry year.
Oh and I never meant to claim that "you" are doing it (did I really phrase it like that? :( ). I'm not going to claim a whole country is taking part, that would be stupid. But when your leader talks like he does, it gives the farmers the hubris to keep burning uncontrolled. But if the people who live in the country are swayed by his words, or simply don't give a shit, it's going to continue happening. It's one reason why we don't have fur farms here, for example. Of course our agriculture is still industrialized monoculture for the most part but people are waking up to the reality of that industry and are starting to demand a new paradigm. Hopefully it will be the same with our forestry, the planted spruce forests are literally eating up our natural old-growth forests.
Your claim that fires increased dramatically also doesn't line up with the actual records.
>But when your leader talks like he does,
Your views on our government are extremely distorted and cartoony since everything you read about Brazil is monopolized by left-wing media.
>It's one reason why we don't have fur farms here, for example
Norway kills more whales than any other country, is a major oil exporter and owns mining companies that were condemned for having illegal polluting ducts in the Amazon and other countries, Norway is anything but an example of positive ecological footprint.
Norway's minister of environment also parrot the fake "lungs of the world" mantra a while ago, how can your own minister be ignorant of environmental processes? Is it a calculated misinformation campaign or are you really all this stupid?
I love this guy, but thousands of people visit the Amazon every year and the entire world watches it on TV. I’ve been there myself in Peru, too.
He’s not making any new jobs other farmers can’t already expand on.
Proof again only whites care about the environment and animals.
It's not my claim ;) it's the claim of the National Institute for Space Research, from the BBC article I linked to.
It is rhetoric, it is hyper-normalization. It is a fact which should not be. Insert "this is fine" meme. Natural forest fires simply don't get that big in rainforests. It needs human will and hands.
I'm not going to comment on other forests, I have literally only read about the recent events in the Amazonas (and a little on Indonesia, the situation is even worse there!). I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and especially with statistics I haven't seen yet! I'm not going to claim some grape farmers are igniting California, or emu farmers are igniting Australia, but neither place have burning rainforests, and that is my point.
But in both Paraguay and Bolivia, the majority of deforestation is due to human activity, and I'd be willing to bet it's the same situation with the fires.
No we have idiots in government too, sorry about that. I'm not going to defent someone I never voted for.
I'm not claiming superiority in any way. We have fucked up forest practices and just as fucked up agriculture as the rest of the world. I'm not here grandstanding (I hope!). But this thread is about some Austrian praising your president for burning down the forest, and some of us just trying to shoot that argument down.
Someone can't into Biology.
>Norway kills more whales than any other country, is a major oil exporter and owns mining companies that were condemned for having illegal polluting ducts in the Amazon and other countries, Norway is anything but an example of positive ecological footprint.
Fully agreed, and we are no longer investing in oil companies operating in the Amazon. But we are still extracting oil and natural gas from the ocean floor here, and yes, still killing whales, almost 1300 small whales in 2017.
Honestly, I think it's a misinformation campaign. It is obvious that the ocean is the world's lungs, and the Norwegian government is doing heavy lifting to allow more fishing, caged fish agriculture in open oceans, MORE oil wells in the North Sea...It's fucked up.
HOLD THIS FOR ME OP.
It was a bad idea.
That's why Bolsonaro is shifting the blame to vague NGOs, now.
Why should we preserve the amazonas ? If amazonas was in the middle of USA it would already had parks and shit.
But since its in south america they think that they can dictate whatever we should be doing with it.
The Amazonas doesn't have natural wildfires you dumb cuck
it's not like the others forest that need wildfires to renew the soil and shit
its 95% burning Cerrado biome.
Well, that lack of oxygen would explain your comment.
Any forest with growing trees is a net producer of oxygen. It's unbelievable how stupid you are.
>There has been a natural global greening effect in the last few decades because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere
Post source
You don't know basic botany and you didn't learn properly from your quick googlings, you are correct that growing trees are oxygen producers but a forest as a whole isn't since there are trees constantly dying in it and almost no carbon is being permanently buried into the earth like in the case of algae, oceans also have an almost equal amount of respiration that counteracts most of the oxygen production but not as much as land plants, it takes millions of years of these processes continuously running to have a serious impact on the composition of the atmosphere.
nationalgeographic.com
nasa.gov
you have to love laughing trudeau
ECOFAGS BTFO
Am I supposed to be worried about this or this is yet another of those events everyone is talking about that is supposed to wipe up humanity and yada yada and then its forgotten in a week?
>takes millions of years of these processes continuously running to have a serious impact on the composition of the atmosphere
As usual you are full of shit and completely incapable of responding with relevant information. You don't know the first thing about botany or ecosystems.
The Amazon rainforest has a huge impact on the climate in South America, which can affect agricultural production.
>Who cares about south americans starving?
Your politicians that will use that get votes and will give a better life for south americans in North America and Europe
Fucking dumbasses can't see one step ahead of yourselfs.
For a board full of pictures of Hitler and National Socialism, you guys are completly retard about nature.
You dont have to it wont impact you Earth is huge, fires are nothing new, like someone said its not just the trees its algae that do the work too, plus Earth is actually much greener than before
The fires are noteworthy but not something unprecedented, it's a nothingburger overall.
>For a board full of pictures of Hitler and National Socialism, you guys are completly retard about nature.
Look smartass you are the retard
This board is pro acceleration, yes more south americans will try to get to US but that means the day of the rope is closer
Brazil doesn't deserve self-governance. You belong to Portugal.
>record number of fires
>nothingburger
Pick one mutt brain
It isn't a record number of fires, see
>but not something unprecedented
It's the biggest registered
noticias.uol.com.br
>that means the day of the rope is closer
Like last year, and the year before, and the year before...
>Cuckada
Imagine having your head of state live in a another country.
Fucking retards.
Did you even read the article? It says the percentage of fires in the amazon compared to other biomes is the highest, not that it has the highest amount of fires.
Classic tendentious headlines to fool idiots like you who can't read, it says later in the same article that in 2005 the amount was double of 2019's.
Imagine living in a third world country
bolsonaro is a fucking kike shill, and a low iq clown. fuck "conservatism", they can't conserve shit.
Yeah goyim more hectares for my beans to give them the special milk
If white liberals cares so much about the environment how come they didn’t fuck my brains out?
I’m Brazilian living in the US it’s extremely rare for me to fuck any white women like seriously
Your chart is wrong faggot. Try again mutt brain
If you really wanted the Amazon there you would pay cash money to keep it.
This thread is full of eco fascists. Amazonas must be extinguished, we don't need a piece of land that is exploited by ONU and others kikes with their indigenous "reserves".
how hard can it be to assassinate a leader? gavrilo did it with a fucking pistol
The chart is from INPE itself bud and you are really bad at identifying linguistic kikery, note how it says "record number" but doesn't specify what kind of record, it's impossible for it to be higher than in 2005 for example which had a several times higher amount of fires and 73k in August alone.
queimadas.dgi.inpe.br
I've seen that 72k figure being thrown around in different contexts too, sometimes it's only the Amazon and other times it's the entire country, no one knows what the fuck they are talking about so I'm going to look at the actual data released by INPE instead of idiots mistranslating things.
Here's the countrywide data instead, the other link is per state/biome.
queimadas.dgi.inpe.br
74155 this year so far, compared to 393915 in 2007 overall.