How to Save the Amazon Rain Forest

Why is nobody talking about the destruction of rain forests in Africa? Or is it really so hard to report on?

Despite the title of this op ed, my take away from the body of the piece is that that it's hopeless. The economic incentives to destroy jungles are just too great. The personal choices of a minority to forgo meat, bike, have fewer children, switch lightbulbs, travel less, etc, can't offset the larger economic drivers. Environmental and subsequent societal collapse is inevitable.

Can the world governments collectively offer free vasectomies for any man who wants one! Nothing forced, all voluntary.

I remember the first time I flew over the Amazon Jungle and how stunned I was by the iron rich red-orange slash of the unpaved Pan-American Highway. In those days the jungle nestled up against Manaus and the small indigenous settlements upriver along the Rio Negro were the only cleared areas. The jungle was a lush, dark place of snakes big enough to ingest a pig in one gulp and lustrous beetles the size of dinner plates. The only noise came from big-eyed monkeys and enormous flocks of parrots. It was magical. Like the Galapagos and the Peruvian Andes, the magic of the Amazon is being gobbled up by commerce.

Save the Amazon....? Hmm...put a bigly wall around it! Keeping humans out is the ONLY solution. Look the US denuded most of its biodiversity so that its now extremely pocketed and still at risk, esp. from dopes like Trump and his cast of evil clowns. Eco-tourism has mostly failed many locales, and now the Selfie, Social media driven Millennial's are mucking up even the more offbeat, pristine of places. All to show-off. The solutions all point back to one prime antagonist - Man. Humans. Males for the most part. Keeping them out of, or off of the remaining critical Environments is the only means by which we protect whats left and might have a chance of surviving into the future. We are the problem, and only our denying ourselves the every present lust to take more and more till there is no more...is the ONLY solution. Keep humans out of all wild environments, except for pure science - and that needs to be limited and deemed truly important to the environments health - for at least 4 decades. Then lets reevaluate. Since thats not gonna happen, how about we pursue better clean up and prevention of continued human refuse disposal like we did landing on the moon...? We need real efforts - huge science and technology pursuits - to actually dispose of our refuse, that doesn't involve tossing/releasing it all into the various landscapes, waterways, and air. Forget Climate Change and all the wrangling it involves, lets just clean the place up and figure how not to add more

We need a serious discussion of limiting our world's population. Who is going to start it? Can it be an op-ed at the NY Times? Can we incentivize not having children? Maybe by offering those without children tax incentives or yearly dividends? I, as someone who chose not to have children, would love that! I'd probably donate my dividend to great organizations working to address the climate crisis like 350 dot org and the Sunrise Movement. I've been an active auntie to my nieces and nephews, many who are adopted. I'm also working at an elementary school. There are many ways to be present in the lives of children without procreating oneself. Bill McKibben, the climate activist, has a book called Maybe One: the Case for Smaller Families. From his website: "The father of a single child himself, McKibben maintains that bringing one, and no more than one, child into this world will hurt neither your family nor our nation—indeed, it can be an optimistic step toward the future."

Ms. Viscidi and Mr. Ortiz are right that economic incentives could provide a different model for caring for rainforests and other sensitive and necessary environments. However, the criminal groups and corrupt politicians that they mention will fight (literally in many cases) any such changes. There would have to be a level of investment in change, taking many forms, possibly including policing actions of a much more intelligent and sensitive nature than I've ever actually seen happen, and continuing for decades, to accomplish these important goals. I simply can't see these things happening, even though the alternative is disaster. I very much want to be wrong.

You can not talk of "sustainable" until we talk about how to keep humans from over breeding. No Government Plan or Environmental Program will help if we can not control population growth.

Amazon deforestation is mainly for cattle pasture, and soybean production, the latter going mainly to feed livestock elsewhere. International cooperation needs to save the Amazon. Another commenter suggested Paris Accord countries rent out the entire forest. (My favorite proposal, half seriously, is for Jeff Bezos to buy the remaining forest, and finally give Amazon the company a good name) But the destruction of the world's largest rainforest is due to the modern expectation of ubiquitous, cheap meat. Worldwide, most of us need to cut down on meat, especially beef, which should be relegated to a special occasion food due to the 100s of millions of acres of land its production currently envelops. The same idea should extend to candy/processed food, as palm oil is largely responsible for the decimation of rainforests in SE Asia. It's true that habitat destruction is largely rooted in overpopulation. But enough habitat to both restore biodiversity and draw down CO2 could exist with hard limits on meat, palm oil, and other resource-intensive products we don't need to survive.

Save the Amazon. Except when you actually read the article its about how to slow the rate of deforestation, not stop it. Like all the other save-the-planet plans, which are really just about managing environmental decline. Here is how to save the Amazon: Brazil can have a one-child policy for the next 200 years. So can every other nation bordering on the Amazon. And every other nation everywhere else. 8 billion people is too many. Oh, sorry, we're not allowed to say that.

We in the wealthier nations of the world are so good at lecturing those countries whose forests keep the earth from frying like an egg on an August sidewalk. Those countries' forests are performing an environmental service for all of us. How much is that service worth? Pay them for it! Pay them an amount equivalent to the cost of industrial/technological sequestration of an equivalent amount of carbon.

When did we start referring to a jungle by the euphemism "rain forest"?

This is good to see. This was staple info 20 yrs ago, and now, like so many of the other biological intricacies of the planet's ecosystem, this topic has taken a backseat to the human/political idiocy of debating whether the planet's in peril or not, brought to you by untethered capitalists and a hyper-ignorant population. Like it's gluttonous know-nothing neighbor to the north, Latin America would do humanity and itself a great favor by giving itself some help imagining what it can't currently imagine. And that's a sustainability-based over growth-based economy. Counting carbon ppm emissions while ignoring the planet's evaporating ability to deal with it is measuring a fever while removing bodily antibodies. It's human insanity, and one begins to wonder if the bacteria that we've become in relationship to our planet is even SUPPOSED to survive. We can't figure out how to NOT decimate the biological bridge to survival that has been known both intuitively and scientifically for millennia??? Really?

1. Stop eating beef. 2. Stop buying and wearing gold jewelry. 3. Stop eating beef.

I do not see a chance to save the Brazilian Amazon while Jair Bolsonaro is in Office nor the Venezuelan Amazon while the country is run by organized crime. Back when Venezuela was a democratic country, deforestation was regulated by criminal law.

Thank God, an article that isn't about Donald Trump. Still kind of depressing, though.

I’m not trying yo imply that nature is conscious but the automatic dynamics in the relationship of the survival of life and the possibilities that nature provides sees to it that when a life form, such as humanity, violates the proper inter-relationships to sustain life then that life form ceases to exist unless the proper relationships are restored. That is what is happening now.

As soon as visitors leave Quito airport, they pass through a vast wasteland of denuded landscape that passed the tipping point long ago, turning hills that were forested a century ago into what is now scrub desert, as moisture is no longer recycled into rainfall and topsoil has disappeared. It’s a depressing introduction to Ecuador, but nothing compared to what things will be like if this happens to the Amazon itself. The authors provide some useful suggestions and small reasons for hope, but the reality is that nothing will change things until the DEVELOPED world recognizes its shared responsibilities in protecting a global resource. Nobody should expect Amazonian countries to protect the living lungs of the planet themselves. They are poor and have plenty of other issues to worry about than how what they do affects the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen as long as the developed world is led by climate denialists. So change is going to have to happen elsewhere, not just locally. This starts with removing the Denialist in Chief in 2020. It also includes putting emphasis in any GND to international economic assistance, political pressure, and technical knowhow where there is maximum bang for the buck. Just because it seems far away doesn’t make the Amazon somebody else’s problem.

Do you seriously believe that the majority of Americans give a hoot about the Amazon rain forest? Half of the country denies that humans are causing climate change that will destroy the planet. The wallow in their ignorance while the world, and the nation, suffer ever increasing droughts, heat waves, floods, damaging hurricanes and tornadoes. The other half clicks their collective tongues but continue to drive gas guzzling autos, oppose carbon taxes, consume products sold in plastic containers and otherwise do nothing to address the problem. Whether we have reached the tipping point is irrelevant. Whenever that occurs, we still will not change.

Humanity is facing a self-caused environmental catastrophe that I'm afraid our species is incapable of avoiding. The simple problem is that humans are genetically wired to put short-term and individual interests ahead of long-term and collective interests. We will destroy the environment, which will then destroy us.

There is nothing complex about land use change. There are incentives to move into cattle ranching and grain production because somebody is paying for those commodities. Grass fed or grain fed beef production must come from a land base. As long as the beef demand and the grain demand, the consumers will keep breaching forests for agriculture (the agricultural producers are just a link in a chain). How much does it cost to protect the forest? Well, at least as much as the money made by deforestation. That is a measure of the incentive. But paid by whom and to whom? If the land has loose boundaries, then that land is as vulnerable as it gets. Zoning and enforcement matters. The proverbial trade offs also apply. In the Americas, reducing maize or soy production in the Midwest, say to reduce pollution in the Gulf of Mexico, or in Argentina to reduce pollution in the Parana and other basins, would push the production elsewhere in the world. Hence the emphasis on reducing demand. A note on the information provided. The argument that land use is inefficient because ... "In Ecuador, for example, the agricultural sector uses 30 percent of land but generates just 6 percent of G.D.P. ..." is absurd, and weakens the column argument. It is meaningless to compare proportion of land and proportion of G.D.P..

How to save the Amazon? The signatories of the Paris Climate Accord should rent it in its entirety from Brazil. It's the largest carbon sink in the world and is a global asset instrumental in combatting climate change. For fifty billion dollars every year that would go straight to Brazil's coffers, the rest of the world would control and patrol and contribute to the reforestation of the entire area, with no logging, farming or infrastructure development allowed. A small price to pay when compared to the benefits globally.

As long as the world's economy is about strip-mining its natural resources for the profit of a small group of capitalist investors, we will continue to witness the dramatic deterioration our environment, which is our basic life support system. Capitalism has reached the cancer-stage; further economic growth is like the spread of malignant tumors on the planet's vital organs, i.e. its rainforests and oceans and atmosphere. Without fundamental transformation of our economies, the 21st century will be a story of extinction, decline, and collapse. What a grim legacy we are leaving future generations! In a report released in May of this year the UN committee monitoring biodiversity noted that the biomass of wild mammals has fallen by 82%, natural ecosystems have lost about half their area, and a million species are at risk of extinction. Two in five amphibian species are at risk of extinction, as are one-third of reef-forming corals, and close to one-third of other marine species. “The health of the ecosystems on which we and other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide,” said Robert Watson, the chair of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report

One of the biggest driving forces for the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is Trump's trade war with China. The imposition of Trump's China tariffs has predictably resulted in counter tariffs by China. Principle among these is the China tariff on U.S. soybeans. This has created an opportunity for Brazil as soybeans are also an important Brazilian export. Consequently cutting the rainforest is occurring at an accelerated rate to provide more land for their soybean production.

Taking care of the Amazon means instituting land reform in all Amazonian countries. This lies at the heart of the solution. If the best land becomes available for production, pressure on the Amazon will let up and policing the forest become more feasible. One way of doing land reform is by taxing land according to its potential productivity, leading landowners to either produce on their land or sell it. Because keeping land as a hedge or as prestige, a common practice, would become less attractive. This would not be a social land reform but it could be used to further social aims; and makes sense in ecological and economic terms. Having properly-distributed populations is a basis for social harmony, is an often overlooked factor. And land reform would induce people into productive areas and out of Amazon areas, where they do such damage. We need to give people a chance and also protect the forest, and the key is intelligent land reform coupled with maximizing the distribution of the population on the territory. Only when a majority understand and supports this will positive action happen. There is no more important issue.

As with virtually every looming environmental disaster, the loss of the Amazon is ultimately driven by the population explosion (currently 7.7 billion, increasing 80 million annually). The earth's population has more than doubled in my lifetime. We are currently beyond the carrying capacity of this planet. We as a species are not going to do anything about this. As clearly spelled out in the article, the loss of the Amazon is already on a roll, is ramping up over time, and is baked in for decades to come. The roads, the cattle, et cetera are coming, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

The rise and fall of ancient human civilizations in extreme environments from deserts to mountains to tropical rain forests has something profound to teach us about the management and protection of natural resources particularly fresh clean drinking water in a dynamic ecological realm. Only 3% of water on Earth is fresh. And 2% of that is frozen.

In the very early 1970's I was travelling in South America and heard that you could fly from Bogota to Leticia (on the Amazon river at the point where Colombia, Peru, and Brazil intersect) on a Colombian military transport. The flight took hours and looking down I saw nothing but miles and miles of forest canopy. I mean absolutely nothing else. I remember feeling that it was the most overwhelming wilderness encounter I'd ever had, that it must have been there for millions of years before us and would remain for millions of years after we were gone. Youthful ignorance and naivete I guess.

The reality is that the main driver for change would be strong US engagement with multiple anti-poverty and pro-development programs. But the politics don't help. In recent years US had a very light presence in Central-South America. Nowadays, Trump's role is rather destabilizing, by harassing South American immigrants at home and cozying up to Bolsonaro in Brazil. Even if Trump loses in 2020, simply putting mechanisms in place to change direction would take a couple more years, longer if a Republican Senate blocks everything reflexively. So, at best the US won't reengage positively until at least 2022 or later. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro will leave his own legacy of bad choices and rainforest destruction. Better hope that tipping point is more than a decade away.

"Incentives for small- and large-scale producers can promote sustainable agricultural practices. Soy and cattle production rose in Brazil even as the government reduced deforestation by 80 percent from 2004 to 2012. This suggests agriculture operations can grow without stripping the land, when farmers tap underutilized land and improve efficiencies. A 2006 agreement in which soy buyers committed not to purchase from suppliers that deforest land for production played a big role in reducing Amazon deforestation in Brazil." Did not much of this growth of soy production occur in bio-diverse savanna regions south of the Amazon? (underutilized land?) And did not much of the increased efficiencies happen with the widespread usage of pesticides applied on massive mono-cultures, further threatening the remaining biodiversity? Trump's trade war with China which resulted in greatly reduced Chinese imports of North American soybean will incentivize much more rain forest and savanna destruction in South America. Saving the rain forests in South America won't happen without getting the world off its growing dependence on meat as a main protein source. It won't happen until China tightens its belt and puts the brakes on its roads. Putting the world on the North American, meat intensive diet is killing the planet.

Developing countries all have the same argument: why do other countries try to tell us what to do with our resources? When they were developing, they exploited their resources for financial gain. Now that they have moved beyond this stage and make money from financial services and other first world income generators, they think they can dictate to us. There HAS to be financial incentives to maintain the natural forests or this extremely urgent decline will just continue. Here in Africa, we have the same dilemma. An economic argument has to be made for preserving land the way it has been for centuries because ALL governments are under pressure to provide jobs and livelihoods. Which usually means the environment suffers. Fortunately, game parks are tremendous income earners and employers and in most cases, surrounding communities do see the benefits of tourism. Look at Australia, a first world country, which has just voted in a government that will continue to mine coal -- even though it has already destroyed half of their greatest natural landmark, the Great Barrier Reef -- because the economy benefits from it. As sad as it is, natural resources will continue to take second place to money until those countries can find a way to MAKE money by preserving them, as they are now. In the case of Brazil, the only way to turn this situation around is to vote Bolsanaro out. There was substantial progress being made until he was elected. Now it's just backsliding.

Everything must be done to stop China's intrusion, Dam and roadbuilding in the Amazon Basin in Brazil. They want soybeans. That would be the end of the Amazon Forest. Everywhere, we need the imagination to allow new economies that are based in sustainable energy systems. We have these technologies now. Do we choose what is new and better for the Earth and water and air, or do we stay with the hostile status quo? It makes me want to cry that we are so close to solving big energy problems but no one realizes it. A highway into Mato Grosso caused massive deforestation, soybean big AG monoculture, and beef cattle ranching. Every time they burn down or cut down the forest for soybean or other crops, the land is barren and useless within five years. We in temperate climates don't understand the paradox of the abundance and the fragility of tropical rain forest and thin soils. Reforestation is not an option in the Amazon, at least not of the forest that is there. A stand of eucalyptus trees is not a stand of rainforest. All the flora and fauna would be gone. Disruption of the rains would effect the entire planet, maybe especially Central and North America. I lived there, but I also reference the great article in The Intercept a week ago.