So, there's a lot of commotion at the moment about fires in the Amazon rainforest (which is where there used to be Jungle), and everyone is getting very snippy about the Brazilian president.
This strikes me as very unfair. The world is claiming that the rainforest produces 20% of our oxygen, is home to gazillions of unique species, and needs to be preserved. And yet the burden of this seems to fall solely on Brazil - preserving the rainforest means losing access to valuable mineral, timber and agricultural resources.
Shirley, therefore, the world at large should be prepared to pay to preserve the rainforest from which we all benefit. We need to decide on the monetary value - in cold cash - of a square mile of rainforest. This value will be somewhere between how much Brazil could earn from clearing the forest and using the land for other purposes, and how much we in the West value our oxygen. We should then pay Brazil this amount, annually, for every square mile of intact jungle. Given the ubiquity and precision of satellite data, this would not be hard to police.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 23 2019 The nuclear misssile engineer that started Greenpeace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_BohlenMy understanding it he later bemoaned the fact that the commies took over the movement. [doctorremulac3, Aug 24 2019] UK births & deaths https://twitter.com...10143177859072?s=20excluding the effects of immigration a net decrease year on year [Skewed, Aug 24 2019] Buy your own plot of rain forest. http://www.buybrazi...-property-for-sale/Buy three and we'll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge? [doctorremulac3, Aug 25 2019] You are being manipulated http://magaimg.net/img/8t4x.jpg [Voice, Aug 25 2019] Carbon fixed house Carbon_20fixed_20house [Voice, Aug 26 2019] Old Bessie is the new caviar https://www.busines...d-dairy-cows-2015-6Carbon neutral if she's fed seaweed and grass [Sgt Teacup, Aug 26 2019] Silent Running https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6WVspvb3c3oreads like a documentary now [xenzag, Aug 28 2019] Not sure if you're being semi-facetious but I thought of this as well. Ted Turner, a big media mogul, the guy who started cable news owns 2 million acres. Ten land barons in the US own 13 million acres combined. 2.4 billion acres in the US so these guys own about .08% of the country. This project would obviously dwarf that by several orders of magnitude.
An interesting free market solution but you'd have to pay for it somehow. I see that pretty large portions have been set aside for conservation, but I think that means they're set aside until somebody wants to pay the government for it.
I think the only way to do it is by finding the politicians and bureaucrats who give the OK for the clear cutting and buy them off. Then tell them to have the Brazilian military patrol the place.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 24 2019 [+] Devilish detail though.-- wjt, Aug 24 2019 This is called realising externalities and I think ought to be partially factored into the idea behind the Carbon Credit scheme. How effectively that is working in practice is another matter - but judging by the fires, not very well.
Effectively charging the right person for the consumption of an appropriate externality is a tricky ask - but something we ought to fix if we want to stick to capitalism AND preserve difficult to replace natural resources. But for that to work, you need a workable international organisation of cooperating countries.-- zen_tom, Aug 24 2019 //I think the only way to do it is by finding the politicians and bureaucrats who give the OK for the clear cutting and buy them off. // But then there would be more.
The rainforest is about 5 million square kilometers. Let's suppose that a square kilometre of rainforest is worth $5000 per year to Brazil, if it's cleared and used for agriculture. (There's also the value of the timber but, given the slow growth of trees, I'd be surprised if it worked out to more than $100 per year, on average.) So, the whole rainforest is worth $25bn per year to Brazil. Suppose also that we set the price at $7000 per square kilometre per year, or $35bn for the whole thing.
Each year, satellite imagery is used to calculate how much virgin rainforest remains, and the world writes Brazil a cheque for that amount - $35bn at present. That's pretty big for Brazil, but small change for the world as a whole. If land is cleared for agriculture or logging, the government loses out. If there are forest fires that are allowed or encouraged to burn, the government loses out.
Suddenly, the government has a strong financial incentive to protect the rainforest. You can bet that the army will be sent to prevent illegal clearing or logging, and to fight fires.
One drawback is that this would impact badly on farmers and loggers, who need to live. But that then becomes a domestic problem rather than a global one. You could try stipulating that 10% of the money must go to supporting farmers/loggers to develop other ways of living, but that's difficult to police.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 24 2019 Pity there isn't a way to pay each individual a share. Stick the money in at rock bottom. The individuals will police themselves, to keep the payment high and capitalists will have fun trying to aggregate the collective cash.-- wjt, Aug 24 2019 [+] Unfortunately, given the caliber of most world leaders, ie mostly at despot, retard, criminal, or psycho level, this idea will never gain traction. Greedy morons like The Trump Gump will see a great opportunity to sell flame throwers and gas masks to the Brazillians; Bonkers Boris probably likes his Brazil nuts gently roasted; Putin is spying the land for potential missile bases, and Xi Jinping wants the rainforest for a network of 10 lane highways and 350mph trains weaving between giant mahogany fuelled factories. Call me cynical? Look around the world and tell me that it’s not gone cuckoo.-- xenzag, Aug 24 2019 //We should then pay Brazil this amount, annually//
No, if anyone was to do this it should be by freehold not rent.-- Skewed, Aug 24 2019 //Suddenly, the government has a strong financial incentive//
Oh hang on! yes, as you outline it there [Max] in essence it really is quite elegant, the specifics of exactly how much to pay them might need some study & tinkering but the overarching premise I like when you restate it like that [+].
I clearly wasn't thinking straight b4-- Skewed, Aug 24 2019 Singling out Brazil might be a bad idea. Enacting a world wide forest preservation plan where Bernie Sanders just wrote a check for several trillion a year to all the complying countries would probably be a more egalitarian approach that didn't put Brazil on the defensive.
Problem with any pay-a-lot-for-good-stuff schemes is that evil people will, in short order, take over. The carbon credit scam where they got the bright idea to get rid of nuclear power to increase use of carbon fuels thus increasing the flow of carbon credits being a good example. If you create a cash flow like the world has never seen before, you're basically going to create pirates looking for plunder and booty. They'll wear suits and ties, make beautiful speeches and have important and humanitarian sounding organizations behind them, but their goal will be to get their hands on this money. It's just human nature so you need to factor that in.
That's why I think you might just take that into consideration right off the bat and pay off the thugs running the place. Set them up with a nice sounding rainforest saving organization and make sure they're on the board of directors and set for life and cut the money off for every acre burned or cut down. I guess that sounds cynical but probably best to factor in the human nature aspect of any plan involving humans.
And the politicians and ruling class are going to get their cut of any money flowing into their country anyway, might as well just cut to the chase.
A better idea than all the above might be to look at ways to monetize the forests that don't impact their ecological effect on the atmosphere. Most parts are very beautiful, maybe you could put a few hundred resorts here and there that would bring in more money than clear cutting? Then people are voluntarily infusing cash into that area. The image of the rainforest being a beautiful place would be enhanced as well. Yea, you'd have little spots of development but if that allowed for preservation of the majority of the forest it might be something to look at.
Nobody's suggesting plowing all the beaches and tourist areas in Hawaii into farmland. There's a reason for that.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 24 2019 [MB] have you looked into isolating the Tibetan mutations such that we can CRISPR it into the general population and live on less oxygen? Seems like a more viable enterprise.-- theircompetitor, Aug 24 2019 Are we sure that the fires aren't part of a natural cycle?I keep reading that deforestation is to blame.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 24 2019 I need to learn a lot more about environmental science. A hero of mine said that despite the environmental movement being taken over by bad people, there's a real possibility that the ocean heats up enough it'll release a lot of stored carbon dioxide and we'll have a really bad run of years.
A guy who's interesting that I don't know too much about that I'm putting on my reading list is the guy in the link, a nuclear missile engineer that started Greenpeace. I'm curious about what his solutions were. Seems like a guy motivated by good intentions tempered by logic.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 24 2019 the natural cycle of human reproduction, for sure.
It's OPB -- Other People Breeding (or Breathing, if you like). Everyone on the planet wants other people to use less oxygen, less gas, less energy, less food. That will keep the glaciers from melting. They're really worked up about it, btw.-- theircompetitor, Aug 24 2019 Weren't the same people who sold us "The Population Bomb" in the 70s the ones telling us we need to replenish our dwindling numbers because people aren't having enough kids?-- doctorremulac3, Aug 24 2019 [dr] -- reread above -- WE are not having enough kids. Other people are having way too many kids-- theircompetitor, Aug 24 2019 That's why we're importing the people that have too many kids. The ruling elites figured out that people make them money through taxes and expanded voter bases, so screw the environment.
I also hear from those same elites that Japan, because their population isn't exploding like it is in the 3rd world, is going to burn down, flip over and sink into the Pacific. Unfortunately, I've never been there myself, but I know people who have gone.
From what I've been told, they're the very model of a society that works. While America descends into 3rd world status in many major cities, they have toilets that sing to you.
Oh yea, and they also suffer from the dreaded "homogenous society" *shudder*.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 24 2019 Couldn't speak to any other country (because I've not looked for the stats) but in the UK we have a birth rate below our death rate providing us with a net drop in population year on year.
So you're right there [their], at least for the UK, the problem isn't us.
2017 figures. 9.4 Deaths / 1,000 population. 8.7 Births (excluding those born to mothers from outside the UK) / 1,000 population.
The [linky] I just posted provides links to sources for that info.-- Skewed, Aug 24 2019 //And yet the burden of this seems to fall solely on Brazil - preserving the rainforest means losing access to valuable mineral, timber and agricultural resources.//
This is only a burden if you assume those natural resources belong to Brazil in in the first place. In this way it is a great burden for me not to have access to the cash in my local bank's vault. Or was that the joke?-- Voice, Aug 24 2019 //If there are forest fires that are allowed or encouraged to burn, the government loses out.//
You lost me there. Here in the US preventing smaller fires has created massive ones.-- Voice, Aug 24 2019 //In this way it is a great burden for me not to have access to the cash in my local bank's vault. Or was that the joke?//
Good point.
But doesn't detract from the core concept.
Providing financial incentive for the nation (or nations?) closest to it to not encroach on it further & police any activity that may encroach on it.
Being closest they're best placed to caretake it & they essentially get paid by results for doing so, still a [+] from me.
Your point may factor more into into the question of 'how much' they should be paid than it does into 'if' they should?-- Skewed, Aug 24 2019 //WE are not having enough kids.// I'd actually say that *everybody* is having too many kids. Europeans and Americans are the least bad, with birthrate dipping below replacement. Other (historically poorer) countries are reducing their birthrates too. But we should ALL be having fewer kids. The human population has more than doubled in my lifetime, and was too high (3 billion) even then.
We should aim to get the human population down to 1 billion at most, over the next 3-5 generations. The big counter-argument is that falling birthrates mean fewer workers to pay for the elderly, and that is a valid point. On the other hand, our society is an order of magnitude more productive than it was 50 years ago thanks, largely, to automation. So we ought to be able to solve this problem.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 24 2019 //The human population has more than doubled in my lifetime, and was too high (3 billion) even then//
My condolences on your departure from this mortal coil [Max], when did it happen? Oh & could I prevail on you for access to the method of your continued existence, for personal use when I need it ;)-- Skewed, Aug 24 2019 //counter-argument is that falling birthrates mean fewer workers to pay for the elderly//
//society is an order of magnitude more productive than it was 50 years ago thanks, largely, to automation. So we ought to be able to solve this//
Agreed, I've always said I don't mind working my whole life (health allowing), just as long as I'm getting a decent living wage for it.-- Skewed, Aug 24 2019 It seems there's not a lot of disagreement among the non leaders of the civilized world, the people that actually pay taxes, make things light up, compute, move and taste good. Population control is probably a good thing.
I'm not impressed by the argument that we need a rising population to support the needs of a rising population. I'm less impressed by the idea that population control might also require a couple of pay cuts to the money class for whom "enough" is an abstract concept if it's in their vocabulary at all.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 24 2019 //not impressed by the argument that we need a rising population to support the needs of a rising population//
Ditto [doc].
It's ultimately an unsorportable approach in terms of food production, pollution & available space that leads inevitably to a disastrous scenario.
One that can only be projected to be ever more catastrophic the larger the population gets b4 it happens.
So far better to get a grip on it sooner rather than later.-- Skewed, Aug 24 2019 One fundamental problem is that as AI gets more developed and cheaper, it's going to be increasingly hard to employ people. Bus/truck/taxi drivers will be redundant in 20 years; manufacturing jobs will drop by 50% in 20 years; service industry ditto. Some of the slack will be taken up by the arts, science, and industries where person-to-person is important. But only some. So we need to figure out - fast - how to pay jobless people well and in a way that everyone is comfortable with, now that robots make all our stuff for free(ish).
The fact that some people worry about not having enough young people earning enough money to pay enough taxes to pay for the old people is insane.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 24 2019 It's simply "tax farming", a plan to fill the coffers of the ruling class. A trim, functional, even slightly shrinking society can be completely healthy, but it might not generate the big tax money the elites who run things are after so it's called a dying society.
By the way, didn't people in Europe do just fine after the black plagues? Was there a "lowered population die-off"? Pretty sure I would have heard about that.
You know, it occurs to me that most societies have either just sort of fallen into place naturally, had the monarch model, that is, the person who's best at violence and killing the opposition running things, or the disastrous communism experiment that just turned out to be an inverted monarch model.
The art and science of designing an efficient society is ongoing every day, but there's been no consensus on how to do it. That bodes ill for a science. There's no controversy about electricity or chemistry but when you get into creating an efficient social order, there's nothing but controversy.
It's almost like humans aren't capable of figuring out how to run the human family because they're too human.
The creepiest thing is that the more of an expert at societal design a person purports to be due to their being in high political office for instance, the more off the rails their solutions appear to be. The average citizen seems to have it much more dialed in just using common sense.
Maybe that's it, running a society smoothly isn't flashy or interesting, it's a lot of science and engineering tempered with some humanity wrapped up in common sense which isn't very exciting. The guy who's going to get all the attention is the one who says: (fill in the blanks) "We all need to _____ and _____ all those damned _______ who ______ so we can have _____ or else we'll all ____! And we're running out of time!". Lots of solutions to our problems aren't particularly exciting. I think exciting solutions might get a lot more press than good solutions.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 25 2019 //the disastrous communism experiment that just turned out to be an inverted monarch model//
It wasn't inverted, it was merely 'Monarchy (or dictatorship, take your pick) by another name that it turned out as in most cases.-- Skewed, Aug 25 2019 //It's almost like humans aren't capable of figuring out how to run the human family because they're too human//
Your confusing competing self interests with a lack of certainty or agreement, just because those at the top want one thing because it suits their profit margins better doesn't mean they're in any way confused about the fact that long term what they want is going to be bad for most people.-- Skewed, Aug 25 2019 It's tragic what is happening. The wildlife that is being left to flee to safer ground. Just think of that...these beautiful exotic species being tortured by this government. I cry for the trees and all the living aspect of this magnificent forest, as well, and am sickened we are even having this discussion.-- blissmiss, Aug 25 2019 //It wasn't inverted, it was merely 'Monarchy (or dictatorship, take your pick) by another name that it turned out as in most cases.//
Lenin came from a family of serfs and became the ruler but it wasn't any better for the people than before, in fact it was much worse. That's what I mean by inverted. Same system, different assholes in charge.
//Your confusing competing self interests with a lack of certainty or agreement,//
There's certainty and agreement on how to run a civilization? What is that undisputed universal agreement? There isn't one. I'm not sure it's even a good idea to have everybody on Earth agree on ANYTHING. What if they're wrong? Nature loves diversity, it hedges its bets. "Universal truths" beyond physics and chemestry and other sciences are going to have a hard time catching on and there might be good reason for that.
Civiliization's conflicts are biologically driven. What was a useful trait of tribes establishing an alpha leader has morphed into these structured "alpha groups" that have only that group's interests at heart. I'm a history geek so I'd suggest studying Attila and his boys to see this at work.
So Max, maybe we don't need a fancy calculation on how much it is to protect the rain forest, just how much it is to buy the land from the people who currently control it. Let them do the calculation. If Maxco and Remucon merge and form World-Dom LLC, how much capital would we have to raise to just buy the land and protect it?
One company (see link) is selling lots starting at $55,000. Don't know if this is the same as selling the Brooklyn Bridge though. I doubt sending these guys $55 grand is a good idea, but if there were a way to make this legit, could be one approach.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 25 2019 //these beautiful exotic species being tortured by this government.//
What about the similar torture that has happened every single year throughout the existence of the Amazon? Since the present government didn't exist and get credit, can I have some of the credit? I've always wanted to be a villain.-- Voice, Aug 25 2019 +1-- po, Aug 25 2019 //If Maxco and Remucon merge and form World-Dom LLC, how much capital would we have to raise to just buy the land and protect it?
Well, I'm assuming Remucon could come up with around ten billion dollars. So the total would be ten billion and four dollars.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 25 2019 //Preserving the wood in a non CO2 consuming state e.g. in log cabin form//
Or we could store it in all those old coal mines, seems suitably circular.
Step 1: Buy the amazon.
Step 2: Divide it into 100 segments.
Step 3: Log (& replant) one segment a year.
Step 4: Pack the resulting lumber into old coal mines.
If we still want to store more Carbon in cellulose form when the coal mines are all full just sink it into the Mariana Trench.-- Skewed, Aug 25 2019 I think what’s being generally skimmed over here is the irreversible destruction of something that would take many hundreds of years to replace.
How do you solve a problem on a short-term policy-setting cycle of 5 years, when the problems in front of you have generational timescales?-- zen_tom, Aug 25 2019 //irreversible//
They're trees, so hardly irreversible, you just replant & wait a while, it really doesn't take that long for new one's to grow, your not even talking a whole lifetime, a little less hyperbole is probably more helpful :)
//How do you solve a problem on a short-term policy- setting cycle of 5 years//
Well, with a cycle that's longer than 5 years.
//Step 2: Divide it into 100 segments. Step 3: Log (& replant) one segment a year//
It's really not that hard.
There's an island somewhere where the natives have divided it up into segments & log one a year.
By the time the get back around to the 1st one the trees are fully regrown, iirc they have it on a 50 year cycle, I don't think they even need to actively replant the logged sections either.
I'll do some Googling & see if I can find a link for you.-- Skewed, Aug 25 2019 //How do you solve a problem on a short-term policy- setting cycle of 5 years...?// Agreed, of course.
However, preserving something for eternity means preserving it for five years. Then you preserve it for another five. Repeat.
The destruction of the Amazon (and many other natural habitats) usually comes down to money. If there is no financial value in preserving something, any value that comes from destroying it (logging, farming) will naturally win. If undamaged rainforest earns more money than logging, farming or other destructive exploitation, preservation will win.
Give the money to the government. They are probably corrupt, but they also have the muscle to enforce things that are in their best interests.
And regarding the timescale to restore rainforest, it depends on the pattern of deforestation. Multiple small gaps can be regenerated quite quickly. Large swathes may never regenerate to their original condition, because they start from an unnatural condition and will arrive at a different ecological balance than the original one.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 25 2019 //I'll do some Googling & see if I can find a link for you//
It may have been an Attenborough piece I'm remembering but I'm having difficulty finding it. I'll have another bash at it another time.
Howsoever, I have found these details in one source.
If you don't use modern heavy equipment tropical forest regeneration under natural growth conditions takes 25 year
If you use modern heavy equipment a section of logged forest can take up to 50 years to regenerate.
So divide your forests into sections & harvest 1/70th of it a year seems sufficiently sustainable. None of the sections should be too big of course, because you need mature forest nearby to reseed the freshly harvested sections, not found anything to suggest optimal section size & layout yet.-- Skewed, Aug 25 2019 ^ Don't forget to pay 70 years worth of taxes for the massive tree farm.-- FlyingToaster, Aug 26 2019 Well I don't know how they do it anywhere else but in the UK there are no taxes for 'tree farms', & as we don't have a land tax that means there's nothing to pay until you sell the lumber & get taxed on the profits,.
Dunno what that falls under, income tax probably, though capital gains tax instead is a possible I suppose.-- Skewed, Aug 26 2019 Correct me if I’m wrong, but you can’t restock what you didn’t know you had - so on the oft cited assumption that’s there are still many undiscovered, increasingly near-to-extinction species of flora and fauna living in this dwindling natural resource - a little “hyperbole” probably isn’t going to do a great deal of harm.-- zen_tom, Aug 26 2019 //you can’t restock what you didn’t know you had// That is an excellent point.
But even if you know what you had, it is very difficult to re- establish it. For instance, some tree needs a type of ant to protect its fruit, but the ant needs another plant, and the other plant only thrives if there are these moths to pollinate it, and the moths are killed by these lizards, who are kept in check by this type of monkey, which only thrives if there is also fruit from this tree... etc.
Rebooting a rainforest is a bit like re-animating a human: you'd need to jump-start everything in the right way and at the same time. Once a human stops working, it is very difficult to reboot them. Same for any complex ecosystem.
Regeneration of small patches is easier (just as healing a scar is easy if the rest of the person is alive), because species creep inwards and the surrounding healthy ecosystem propagates inward.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 26 2019 //Correct me if I’m wrong//
No you're right, fair point.
But I was (still am really) thinking of things from a CO2 reduction & O production point of view, rather than any hitherto unknown biodiversity one.
We can probably live without the later, the former? 'arguably' not so much.
Call it issue prioritisation ;)-- Skewed, Aug 26 2019 International boycott of lumber from the Amazon? We do have managed timberland. Maybe a law saying timber has to pass some kind of environmental impact review and certification.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 26 2019 Such laws already exist. They are not widely enforced.
Seriously - cold hard cash in the hands of the people in power is the most effective way to get stuff done.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 26 2019 //The world is claiming that the rainforest produces 20% of our oxygen//
Presumeably from CO2/NO3, That will continue until Brazil slowly rises above the Andes on layers of fixed carbon. In reality, equilibrium is reached. From my* limited understanding, rainforests are quite equilibrium- y. It's understood that following deforestatioin, the soil is shot in one season. Shirley the way to get the Amazon working well is a little bit of forestry management? Carbon is taken up by growing plants, not mature senescent trees. Selective removal of mature trees will remove carbon, it can then be stored long-term as Rolls Royce dashboards, or custom yachts named "Kon-Teaky" etc. Leaving space for new growth, which could be encouraged by selective nutrient enrichment of the soils.
I wonder if the CO2 becomes limiting during peak photosynthesis? We could move a couple of powerplants?
*and everyone's-- bs0u0155, Aug 26 2019 //Seriously - cold hard cash in the hands of the people in power is the most effective way to get stuff done.//
Unfortunately I think that's the only way.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 26 2019 //Tibetan mutations such that we can CRISPR it into the general population and live on less oxygen?//
You can drop the O2 quite a bit and most people don't notice. Aspen CO. has an effective O2 of 15%, and it didn't affect my ability to get to and from the bar. If the oxygen budges significantly, I'll be amazed. CO2 moved from 0.03 to 0.04% or so, apparently at the expense of O2, but that's not clear, if we made a dent in the O2, that would be a hundred fold rise in CO2 and that would be cause for the sort of panic the media is in already.-- bs0u0155, Aug 26 2019 //stored long-term as Rolls Royce dashboards// Now we're talking. There are very few justifications for felling a magnificent tropical hardwood tree, but I've got to admit that's one of them.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 26 2019 //justifications for felling a magnificent tropical hardwood tree,//
How about getting to it before it falls over and becomes prey to microbial lignin oxidation? If we can squeeze out all the micronutrients and return them, wood is an exercise in carbon capture.-- bs0u0155, Aug 26 2019 Not sure that's a viable option, in economic terms. It'd be a bit like raising cattle and then waiting for them to die of natural causes before sending them for slaughter.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 26 2019 Not exactly. It's more like how cattle is raised for beef. You slaughter them when they stop growing significantly. Taking trees as soon as their growth curve slows is the best time in terms of carbon capture. I'll bet there's a peak age for timber quality too, which is also analagous, ex dairy cows are practically inedible.
There's a thought, solve ageing and we can eat the ex-dairy cows. Real savings there.-- bs0u0155, Aug 26 2019 Ah. I thought you were just waiting for these trees to fall over and then catching them.
The real damage from logging comes from the creation of logging roads, the consequent influx of people, and the damage done by dragging a 150ft tree out of the jungle. Dirigible-based lumberjacking has, I think, been tried and would seem to be the way forward.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 26 2019 Already eating the old dairy cows [bs0u0155], at all the finest establishments (see link).-- Sgt Teacup, Aug 26 2019 Believe it or not, I own a third of an acre in the Amazon, near the Bolivia/Peru/Brazil tripoint.-- nineteenthly, Aug 27 2019 A 3rd of an acre, that's about enough for a mid size house (2 maybe 3 bedrooms) with a medium to largish garden.
One hopes that wasn't what you had in mind when you bought it ;D-- Skewed, Aug 27 2019 No it wasn't. It has a bridge on it going between Brazil and Peru, across a river.-- nineteenthly, Aug 27 2019 I wonder what happens to dairy cows in the UK, where they're raised outdoors and eat grass?
Also, v. impressed by [19thly]'s ownership of some Amazon.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 27 2019 //Not exactly. It's more like how cattle is raised for beef. You slaughter them when they stop growing significantly. Taking trees as soon as their growth curve slows is the best time in terms of carbon capture.// - but maybe the worst time in terms of maximising the tree's oxygen-production capacity?-- hippo, Aug 27 2019 // It has a bridge on it going between Brazil and Peru, across a river.//Have you been there? Also, is the land you own in both countries?-- hippo, Aug 27 2019 No, I haven't been there. The land is in both countries, yes. The bridge is quite large but it isn't mine.
My father used to own some land in Buckinghamshire which was almost inaccessible, which he sold. I think it has garages on it now. His pigsty used to be on it.-- nineteenthly, Aug 27 2019 this reminds me of how my inlaws got suckered into buying land in Florida by General Development in the 80s. The bubble finally burst when they attempted to visit the lot and saw some cows on pasture.
General Development ultimately settled a class action suit -- one of many land related suits in Florida.-- theircompetitor, Aug 27 2019 You could at least have got some free hamburger out of it.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 27 2019 //The land is in both countries, yes. The bridge is quite large but it isn't mine//Very cool. So, taking into account the carbon-dioxide-absorbing properties of the trees on your bit of the Amazon rainforest, is that enough to make you carbon-neutral?-- hippo, Aug 27 2019 //Believe it or not, I own a third of an acre in the Amazon, near the Bolivia/Peru/Brazil tripoint.//
I'm impressed too but how, when, why? etc.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 27 2019 //I wonder what happens to dairy cows in the UK, where they're raised outdoors and eat grass? //
When I mention "grass-fed butter/beef" to my parents, they're mystified "what the bloody hell else are they going to eat?" Yet the caring/feely part of my social circle will lecture me on why such farming is wrong, "you could grow 3x the protein on the same land with soy!" they tell me.
Well, what if the land in question is the land around where I grew up? If you want to plant soy, go ahead. While you're working between the rocks on a 30° angle in the driving rain there will probably be a bloke in a flat cap and wax jacket having a good laugh with his black and white dog. What grows there is grass, and on the really boggy bits, heather. We can't eat those, but sheep can, and they'll do it efficiently in the rain. If 4ft of snow falls overnight, they have the good grace to be alive the next day. The energetics argument is dumb and simplistic, if there were a more efficient farming practise for the land people right on the edge of existance wouldn't deliberately do it the wrong way.
If you're eating meat in the UK, you don't need to feel guilty about slashing down rainforest. That's someone elses fault. Similarly, the great Pacific garbage patch is not composed of Waitrose bags.
//but maybe the worst time in terms of maximising the tree's oxygen-production capacity?//
Trees don't just make oxygen, they remove the C from CO2. The formula is Light + CO2 = More tree + O2. You can't have a net gain in O2 without growing tree, the two are linked. An old tree with minimal net growth is in equilibrium, ultimately it dies, falls over and is turned back into CO2 and minerals by microbes equipped with rather fancy lignase enzymes. I'm getting quite sick of this "20% of our oxygen" thing being bandied about-- bs0u0155, Aug 27 2019 There aren't many trees on it. The reason I have it is that people were trying to sell off bits of land there all over the world to prevent the bridge from being built because they didn't want loads of vehicles coming through. Also, there's some kind of factory built nearby which they didn't want. So I bought a bit. It was about two and a half dozen years ago.-- nineteenthly, Aug 27 2019 [nineteenthly] do you have google Earth coordinates? we could police/pry on it for you. Are there neighbouring stretches for sale? We could buy a 1/2 croissant shaped section...-- bs0u0155, Aug 27 2019 So we have an actual case of somebody here purchasing a part of the Amazon to preserve it from development? That's pretty notable.-- doctorremulac3, Aug 27 2019 The French have done much the same with France.-- bs0u0155, Aug 27 2019 That's a bit harsh, [bs]. I've been there, and now they have actual toilets. It can only be a matter of time before they connect them to sewers.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 27 2019 Is that followed by phase 2 where they then extend the toilet above ground level?-- bs0u0155, Aug 27 2019 Chinese companies are devastating the vast forests of Siberia with full approval of Putin. It's under the radar, but it's as destructive as what the Bolsonaro moron is doing in Brazil.-- xenzag, Aug 27 2019 It's hardly under the radar. But at least they're only deforesting Siberia because they've restricted logging within China. So the pandas will still have plenty of pinecones to eat.-- MaxwellBuchanan, Aug 27 2019 //So the pandas will still have plenty of pinecones to eat//
You're confusing pandas with squirrels [Max], it's an easy mistake to make I know but a little more care with your taxonomy is probably a good idea, a squirrel is unlikely to eat you if you offer it a pinecone but a panda might & we'd hate to lose you to a comic taxonomy related incident.-- Skewed, Aug 27 2019 //The land is in both countries, yes.//
That's totally awesome! Oh My God the odds against such a thing. Ha!<TIL [nineteenthly] plays cards close to the vest>
Seriously cool.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Aug 28 2019 Who would ever have thought that the film Silent Running, in which Bruce Dern struggles to save a precious orbiting eco system in the face of greed, ignorance and stupidity, would have turned into a documentary? See last link for a seminal scene as Dern defends his naturally grown food against the manufactured chemical muck being eaten by his fellow cynical members. Does this all not seem very prophetic?-- xenzag, Aug 28 2019 Of course an alternative solution would be to just kill off all of the evil people. The 300 or so left would have plenty of elbow room...-- RayfordSteele, Aug 28 2019 I'm waiting for the reparations proposal from the EU, to the rest of the planet, for deforesting Europe and generally raping the resources of every other continent for about 2,000 years.
Once that's settled, we can move on to working on the Amazon.-- theircompetitor, Aug 31 2019 random, halfbakery