-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Would military intervention be alright to save the Amazon?
- Thread starter BackLogJoe
- Start date
- Status
Yeah no. As important as the Amazon is, military intervention would just make things worse. How do you even intend to fight ranchers who burn it down to create pastures? Drone anyone who looks at the forest funny?
Brazil could easily be pushed to adapt reasonable policies with soft power. A huge amount, if not most, of the beef those pastures are producing are headed for export. Sanction that and the incentive to build pastures in the first place would disappear. Military intervention is arguable the least effective intervention available to the world community if it decides to give a shit.
Brazil could easily be pushed to adapt reasonable policies with soft power. A huge amount, if not most, of the beef those pastures are producing are headed for export. Sanction that and the incentive to build pastures in the first place would disappear. Military intervention is arguable the least effective intervention available to the world community if it decides to give a shit.
That is correct, the animals consume most of it, then those animals go on to be food for other animals on land and in the oceans, Nutrients from the amazon feed these other little critters (Diatoms?) in the ocean eventually that produce our Oxygen we consume.
The amazon is a gigantic filter for carbon 2+ billion tons of it estimated. , as well as producing a high % of atmospheric moisture/water for our jet streams which control our weather. No % decrease in any of those fields is acceptable.
Its going to become a moronic debate though for the tehhcnunnalcnly crowd. As if oxygen is only meant for human consumption.
I had a similar thought recently and tbh the arguments for it would be pretty strong. Ultimately, this situation is one of the many downsides of not having a functional world government.
Well, a hypothetical US government that's willing to go to war with Brazil over climate change would also be one willing to fix things up in their own house.
In theory yes, in practice no. Military intervention might stop the bleeding but would probably be worse in the long run, in terms of the political implications. The only thing likely to reverse the current trend today would be economic and political pressure, but neither of those are likely to be successful either
Let's what G7 leaders can do about it, sans Twisident Cunt.
The issue it goes beyond that and into the field of stabilizing climate which is already on a downhill roll. Depending on how much of the forest is permanently lost, it would expedite the already dire issues. And this does not even begin to address the destruction of the ecosystem is part of that biosphere.
The issue it goes beyond that and into the field of stabilizing climate which is already on a downhill roll. Depending on how much of the forest is permanently lost, it would expedite the already dire issues. And this does not even begin to address the destruction of the ecosystem is part of that biosphere.
Bolsonaro is a fascist and I'm not opposed to military intervention against fascism. Worked before!
As it's written, this is a false statement. Targeted sanctions are one of the most effective tools that the West has on influencing behavior in other countries. It's remarkably effective, when targeted and done right.
Of course, it depends on how the sanctions are applied, but the sanctions that the West has passed on Russian oligarchs is the most affective way to hit Russian leadership where it actually bothers them, and forces them into risky business alliances that expose them to prosecution. It's also why Russia's approached the Trump campaign in the first place and what the infamous 'Moscow Meeting' was about: "Adoptions." Easing adoptions is Kremlin-speak for the US easing sanctions on Russia (When the Obama admin passed sanctions against the Russian oligarchy as the result of the Magnitsky act and then Russia's military invasion of Europe, instead of retaliating against European and American business interests, the Kremlin made the bizarre maneuver of banning adoptions of Russian children by American and European parents; when the Kremlin meets to talk to Americans and Europeans about ending targeted sanctions, they say it's a meeting about adoptions). Nearly all wealthy Russians and Iranians have their money held in Western banks and Western investment vehicles. Russians billionaires who control the country do not have billions in rubles because it's too volatile and risky, they hold their money in European banks mostly; they own investment properties (money laundering) in Manhattan, Milan, Miami, and Munich -- not Moscow.
Not all sanctions are targeted or smartly applied, but it's not true that sanctions only hurt poor people. Targeted, intelligent sanctions, like those used against Russian oligarchs, like some passed against Iranian religious leadership, and broadly like those held against North Korean nuclear ambitions, are affective. Broad sanctions against a country are probably not as effective relative to the amount of damage they can do. Sanctions can be effective in democracies, but most of the countries that the West pursues sanctions on are not democratic. If sanctions weren't affective and only hurt poor people, then anti-democratic countries that don't care about their poor like Iran and North Korea would not try to negotiate relaxation of sanctions... the Obama-era Iran Nuclear Deal was primarily pursued by Iran's leadership to end economic sanctions.
For more info I'd recommend Bill Browder's interview with Preet Bhahara from a couple years ago:
Browder is, of course, the architect of the most sweeping, affective sanctions program against Russia's oligarchy. Garry Kasparov also writes often about how to effectively implement sanctions against in anti-democratic countries.
LOL These hypothetical realities are really nice. I wish I lived there.
Planet Earth reality however is that if the US goes to war, it will be so that it gets to exploit that natural resource. And thats not even a Trump thing. Every US government ever.
If it wasn't for us electing Trump, I would say let's do military intervention. Because we can't wait until the country figures it out before the whole Forest is burnt down and we're now suffering around the world because of it. I actually would sign up for the Army for that.
But we can't do it now because we're look like hypocrites. So now we're kind of screwed at this point.
But we can't do it now because we're look like hypocrites. So now we're kind of screwed at this point.
Bolsonaro is an evil man, his treatment of the Amazon forest can and will affect the entire world. I wouldn't cry if someone, anyone, removing him for good.
That's an assassination, not a war. A war isn't going to be so neatly contained.
Americans seem quick to want to intervene in other countries politics and yet cry foul when other countries allegedly try to do the same to theirs.
Wrong Amazon for Trump to care. Besides, US military invasions almost always make things much worse (with the exceptions of WWII and arguably Korea).
The best thing the US could do would be to implement targeted sanctions against Bolsonaro and his allies.
The best thing the US could do would be to implement targeted sanctions against Bolsonaro and his allies.
Facebook and Whatsapp has lots of blame in this for propping up Bolsonaro.
Western democracies need to impose sanctions on Brazil and stop buying their beef
Western democracies need to impose sanctions on Brazil and stop buying their beef
Can we legally invade another country in order to put fires out over there?
If the local government requests help and invites the military in, sure. I can see that. But I think unilaterally invading the country will have repercussions.
If the local government requests help and invites the military in, sure. I can see that. But I think unilaterally invading the country will have repercussions.
How about a trade? We let you guys invade to take care of the Amazon but we get to meddle on your next presidencial election. Deal?
You guys assume any military intervention would be done out of the goodwill to save the rainforest and not devolve into the exploitation of its natural resources.
Looking at historical trends, if Americans were to involve the military, they'd probably just dump Agent Orange all over Amazon.
I'm going to be really mad when eco-imperialism and eco-fascism turns out to be the next big thing because people can't have a measured take.
How could WhatsApp be blamed for anything? Isn't it just literally a messaging app?
Yeah as written its false. Because its a generalization that doesn't specify Intelligent Effective sanctions. Which Aren't on the table at all, with the trump administration in power. I'm talking about the overwhelmingly stupid sanctions that effect millions of people who aren't the corrupt few that face no change in lifestyle outside of a ding to their quality of life,
versus being able to afford produce.
I somehow doubt war would be a great fix to "save the rainfoest" haha....
I think the world needs to start putting it's foot on Brazil's neck if they don't clean this shit up, but dropping Tomahawks on Sao Paulo prolly won't help.
I think the world needs to start putting it's foot on Brazil's neck if they don't clean this shit up, but dropping Tomahawks on Sao Paulo prolly won't help.
Eco-imperialism is not going to take off because there's no money to be made from it. It's squarely in the realm of nervous """progressives""" who want to feel better about global warming but also don't want to do anything that directly affects their lives in any way.
The OP has a line specifically pointing out the "burning down" , I asked a clarifying question.
This.
Odds are we will go in and cause more problems. While completely ignoring putting out the fires to begin with.
Kinda ironic, the same justifications Europe used to justify the expansion and pacification of the Americas - "for the greater good", "we have to do this to save all of us", "the natives don't understand what they are doing" - can be used 500 years later.
Also its laughable the idea that USA would be involved in any way, Trump and Bolsanaro are kindred spirits.
If the rain forest is as important to the rest of the planet as everyone says, why wouldn't the rest of the planet pay them to keep it? They are only cutting it down for the wood/agriculture, to turn into money wouldn't it be simpler to just pay them not to do that?
Also its laughable the idea that USA would be involved in any way, Trump and Bolsanaro are kindred spirits.
If the rain forest is as important to the rest of the planet as everyone says, why wouldn't the rest of the planet pay them to keep it? They are only cutting it down for the wood/agriculture, to turn into money wouldn't it be simpler to just pay them not to do that?
Ipcc: our diet is unsustainable and causing climate change as well as using all our available land and water, we could feed 9 billion people using less land than we use now to feed 7 if we didn't eat meat and in particular beef.
People on this forum: *takes a bite out of a double double animal style* fuck that, let's invade Brazil.
People on this forum: *takes a bite out of a double double animal style* fuck that, let's invade Brazil.
So what happen in the Amazon is awful but for fuck's sake -
STOP LOOKING FOR COUNTRIES TO INVADE.
Seriously, look at the fucking record since WW2, this always make the situation worse. You couldn't make it work Grenada, you won't make it work with Brazil.
Also, the international community is doing pretty much nothing to make Brazil stop that, how about we try something other than fucking war first?
STOP LOOKING FOR COUNTRIES TO INVADE.
Seriously, look at the fucking record since WW2, this always make the situation worse. You couldn't make it work Grenada, you won't make it work with Brazil.
Also, the international community is doing pretty much nothing to make Brazil stop that, how about we try something other than fucking war first?
Bolsonaro campaign used whatsapp to propogate fakenews, they created lots of groups with lots of people to share bullshit on Whatsapp, and people would share that in other groups and so on.
+1
The military is just there to blow things up and make rich people richer.
The last thing this world needs is more US imperialism. This country has destabilized enough regions for the next centuries.
Regime Change is how we got Boslonaro in the first place.
If the U.S. intervenes in Latin America again, it's not going to be in the cause of progressive reform. It'll be death squads and purges again.
Spot on post. The attitude in the OP is chauvinist to the point of racism. Before you would seriously entertain military intervention, you would have to believe that We Know Best to the point of justifying violence against a formerly colonized nation. Negotiation or payment couldn't possibly work with these less, ah, sophisticated peoples, right?
Fuck that.
- Status