I’m sure it is off topic, but my way of looking at is that we rely on responsibility of individuals. If countries ‘take back control’ like Brazil, sad things happen.
So, here is one of my 4 large trees:
Next to that, we avoid stone as much as possible in the garden and have a decent lawn, many hedges (over a 100 meters, more than 2,5 metres high).
Next year a orangery for even more plants.
I also have an habit to complain when people turn their garden in a pile of stones and plastic.
very nice initiative…
In my village every home has 2 trees at the minimum and a well and a nice back yard.
I wish each one of us gives back in some way…
I am sure you agree that whats happening to the Amazon forests are terrible…
I agree each country has a right to determine its own future but these actions are uncaring and so sad.
All my posts on this thread only reflect the pain my heart feels for something i have never seen with my eyes but my conscience knows whats happening is terrible and possibly irreplaceable.
All because of meat and soy demand ???
I remember a movie - not Avatar - when the rain forests are under attack by loggers - all the birds and animals come out and drive the loggers away…
sadly - no such things here ( obviously )
where are the gods ?
are they only for humans ?
MPW please allow me to write on these quotes for now only:
No. Governments / media / activists try to convey that eating meat, flying and driving a diesel is the worst thing to do. They might be right, but it is an annoying simplification which insults me. People should realize that almost everything one can buy these days has vegetable oils in it. Fuel at the gasstation? 5% bio fuel. A biodegradable plastic wrap around a magazine shouting ‘compostable!’ or ‘ecofriendly!’: created from brazilian palmoiltrees. Shampoo? Partially made of oil. A plastic toy? Oil again. So, everything in our modern society consumes more and more energy. If our society wasnt so hypocrite to offer 20 million usd to Brazil, they would take down Unilever (UK / The Netherlands) or so, or force them to behave different. That would make a difference, however ignoring that a different company from a different country will take the evil work over.
This energy consumption is not going to lower. Actually, the only real solution is to have scientists to find better ways go ‘transform’ energy into either oil or electricity. This discussion is the only thing which matters, and is not widely done. I believe this is because it is not sexy in the media. News agencies dont sell newspapers or tv licenses discussing a 30 year development of a new reactor - they sell newspapers / licenses over a cute looking animal in a forest.
In the end, they take over. Either if god is a person, or a concept. Especially evolutionists should not worry so much since in their world new species evolve over time. So whats the problem?! The cyclus we see now is not very different to the past besides that the humans have a major role in it.
I am not practised with multiquote but i can only say this…
Meat and soy are the primary reasons for this.
Ofcourse then there is the supposed existence of minerals and gold.
I have no axe to grind with those who are meat eaters or soy eaters
But i am sure substitutes can be found and habits can be changed so that we dont impose impossible demands on the earths resources.
I totally agree with the hypocrisy outlined in your post
Humans are very selfish creatures arent they ?
The Amazonia burning is certainly not good news you will agree and i dont think you need convincing on that
IMO - we have reached a tipping point where in ( although the western world has destroyed their own forests ) one needs to see the problem as not of repeating cycles but weather we can knowing afford this mistake and simply shrug it away.
Somethings like forests cannot be substituted.
They can never be
This is a simplification that i want to take up somewhat strongly. .
Our jobs doesnt end with planting a few trees.
Humans think that they can substitute and engineer anything - they are wrong here.
I mention this out of utmost respect to you and your thoughts.
Please support the continuation of the Amazon forests as they are for thousands of years now.
The scientists can find a better path but they will not be able to replace the Amazonia.
Yes - you are very right - individual habits need to change as well and let me tell you i ( for one ) am most conscious about reduce - reuse and - recycle.
Thats a promise i keep to myself, my family and the company i work for everyday.
best regards
Great pun!
Dear Naim owners
can we all play today - Michael Jackson - earthsong on from the internet today…
Lets trend this song on the internet…
This is something that can be done
Please play this…
A humble request…
and where ever in the world you are if you have a Brazilian friend please take their support for the Amazon respectfully…
best regards
i assure you it was un-intentional 
also today i read on the internet - Mr Bolosonaro thinks that the indigenous population are to be “integrated” with the rest of the population as they too want to watch soccer and go to the movies as well…
The Amazon issue is most important & it has to be solved & I’m not changing the subject, I’m only adding some info that many may not have considered…
There are huge tropical rain forests in other areas that also play a part, the Congo is the obvious other such forest, but there are many many more, always overlooked are the huge areas of Mangrove’s, practically every inter-tidal zone in the tropics is covered in them.
My main point is although the Amazon & the other tropical rain forests have been called the lungs of the world, we forget the temperate regions seasonal & rain forests, these are actually the true lungs of the world. The largest unbroken temperate forest on earth is the Siberian Taiga, its a boreal forest & it contains 33% of all trees on earth. It produces more oxygen & absorbs more carbon dioxide than all the tropical rain forests combined. The Taiga is a continuous forest extending into Scandinavia & with the same boreal forest type extended into Canada it wraps the whole norther hemisphere in a boreal band.
The Canadian area has many other sizeable forests areas that include more biodiversity with broad leaf mixed forest types.
In square area terms, Russia has the largest forested area with 8.1m km/2, Canada 4.9m & Brazil 4.7m.
your post is a good one in terms of data
appreciate that.
Thing is one by one if we begin to let go of our forests then nothing much will be left
Already there is talk of similar exploitation of forests and resources for minerals right from the Arctic to the Antarctic…
I fear all that will be left in the end will be factories…and justifications for exploitation of resources…
In a Man - Animal conflict for example - man will always win… but weather the victory will be sweet for our future generations only time will tell and i think the answers will not be good.
With our innate intelligence we must focus on preserving what we have and compensating adequately those who preserve the forests…
Humans are becoming used to the thinking of solely economic value for everything and losing the “feel” for life including compassion for other life forms.
Thats a tragedy,
Thus my earlier comment about peat. It’s said to lock up much more carbon per square mile than any forest, and it’s being destroyed for similar reasons, to make way for usable land. We’re not just talking about a few Irish peat bogs here, there are huge areas of the stuff being systematically destroyed in SE Asia. There’s also a huge amount in sub-Arctic regions, many of which are being destroyed as the protective layer of permafrost melts.
Mike, Chris,
Thank Christ there is someone other than me in this thread who can see the bigger picture. You will note that a couple of days ago I mentioned the other globally significant forests.
The loss of any of these large forests (we aren’t referring to Epping or Sherwood !) would be significant and should be avoided. We need to get this Carbon/Oxygen balance right.
Basically Brazil, and others, want to raise their standards of living. Brazil asked the rest of us to pay for their forest upkeep. Not unreasonable if we all need them. If not, then grass and soya crops can generate wealth. This Is symptomatic of our current global economics. We need to change this. And it won’t be easy with the current Brazilian (and global) leadership in place.
Cheers, Don
That’s because everything on the planet actually is underpinned by economics. That is a reality that cannot be escaped …
You said it yourself …
It’s a sad reality because economics sets no limits
So maybe the wanton destruction of natural forests are justified according to the economic logic ?
I don’t see any economic sense to cut the very branch one sits on.
We all see the same picture but in different ways and are affected by events differently.
I says cheers to constructive differences…
These days economic logic is used to explain and rationalize everything…
and last night on my way back home i was thinking about it and then i remembered this picture taken at the behest of the famous astronomer Carl Sagan.
The Voyager 1 space probe took this picture looking back at the solar system for 1 last time before it headed out to break the Heliosphere and out into inter stellar space.
Given the minimal resources which the Voyager had - I am saw a program on TV - where the scientists were debating weather its worth it to turn the camera back towards Earth again - as no logic would be served.
But ultimately - this pic got taken.
I had to think - out of the box ( well circle )
There is only 1 earth - 1 place called home.
The forests and the bogs all deserve to be saved and it is here IMO the economic logic / conventional valuation fails - IMO.
Further words can be possible but none are necessary i think.
Since these resources are universal - I’m of the opinion that no country/nation should be able to hold it hostage.
Looks like I’m not alone in thinking so:
In fact - kill the Nation-State concept while you’re at it. No good can come out of nationalism. Patriotism is something - nationalism is too intertwined with racism.
Jan,
its not about the oxygen alone…
in the present consumption pattern - we are leaving too much for our future generations to do.
The new normal - a decade or two from now might not affect us but will certainly bite the youngsters then.
all because - we did not change when we had to.
regards
I quote from an article i read…
### Change will be unavoidable
To top that, most action plans over the climate crisis exist in the future tense. What we will do. How we have goals . What we must change. Then everyone orders another coffee, takes a taxi to the airport, gets back in their jet, orders beef on the plane, and carries on as before. We are also a bit exhausted by decades of the flailing of limbs and shrieking “emergency.”
It’s depressing watching the lungs of the earth burn. It isn’t going to stop until we stop buying the stuff it makes. And even then, we’ll need the resources from somewhere else. We will have to plant more trees. The scope of change – of diet, of consumer habits, of recycling, of technology, of political will – is too massive to expect in my lifetime. In fact, the steeper the spiral appears in front of us, the more stuff we will likely need to make us feel better – cooler, smarter, happier – in the worse days ahead.
*The most obvious resolution will come in a few decades, when the heat gets too much, crops fail, clean water becomes more valuable than oil, and the things you were warned about start to kill a lot of people. Then change will be inevitable, and unavoidable, and the number of people all hoping for the same life of wow will sadly drop to something more sustainable.
It’s the issue of our time. It encompasses how far and fast we have journeyed as a species – just as our car starts to shake as it reaches its speed limit. That’s why we don’t like to talk about it. What comes next is simply uglier, and most of us would rather not say that out loud.
============================================================
