International Does the international community have a right to intervene in Brazil's ecological policy

Closely related, but not 100% on topic...

Global environmental concerns are one of the few instances I'd be in favour of foreign meddling. It affects everyone, after all, but how far do you go with it? The sewer we know as the Ganges River has more of a local impact than the Amazon and to a lesser degree the waters around Hong Kong, so where do you draw the line? Sanctions that affect the most vulnerable? Military intervention? Yeah, that comes with it's own ecological price tag. Remember this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires

Interesting question, and one I haven't given much thought.
 
If the discussion is about U.S. intervention, consider this from more than just a practical "save the world" perspective. If the U.S. has engaged in mass deforestation to fuel its economic engine in the past, what you have is a developed industrial power telling a developing industrial power that "You can't do what we did in the past because it's bad for all of us now - find another way" even as a lot of what the developing power is doing is being done to fulfill industrial and consumer demand in the United States. America has already benefited from these practices and now it would be applying pressure on foreign powers in order to make sure they don't benefit from them.

Yes, there are different practical concerns. It's still a really, really shitty look.

Laughable. Apply that exact same standard to slavery.

The USA has done lots of shitty things over the years. Doesnt mean we should never try to do anything because it's the right thing.
 
Closely related, but not 100% on topic...

Global environmental concerns are one of the few instances I'd be in favour of foreign meddling. It affects everyone, after all, but how far do you go with it? The sewer we know as the Ganges River has more of a local impact than the Amazon and to a lesser degree the waters around Hong Kong, so where do you draw the line? Sanctions that affect the most vulnerable? Military intervention? Yeah, that comes with it's own ecological price tag. Remember this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuwaiti_oil_fires

Interesting question, and one I haven't given much thought.


It's a question we should all ponder. The key lesson to me is the value of stewardship, as resources are something we kill each other over. Sadly, without voluntary cooperation, it could justify the force necessary to enact a world-governing body with teeth.
 
Laughable. Apply that exact same standard to slavery.

The USA has done lots of shitty things over the years. Doesnt mean we should never try to do anything because it's the right thing.

Ok. Here's an article on an active slave trade in Libya right now:

https://time.com/5042560/libya-slave-trade/

Try suggesting that the U.S. invade Libya to stop slavery because "it's the right thing" and see how well that flies for you.

The world is full of things we in the Western world consider morally reprehensible by a Western moral yardstick and the general consensus seems to be that this still doesn't give the U.S. the right to invade... It takes oil for that and then the American people are dragged along for the ride. I'm not so much giving you a hypothetical rather than describing the reality of the current situation.
 
Laughable. Apply that exact same standard to slavery.

The USA has done lots of shitty things over the years. Doesnt mean we should never try to do anything because it's the right thing.

Thats a stupidity because slavery ended, US deforestation didnt.

Manhattan used to be a lush forest, now its all concrete.
 
So they should be sanctioned due to no agressive actions towards another country or human rights violations? This is more of a carrot than stick type deal.
There are human rights violations related to the fires. Indigenous communities in the Amazon are facing some of the worst air quality in the world due to these fires which are almost certainly from farmers slashing and burning.
Then the rest of the world should reforest the trees that they've already harested instead of using that land for agriculture, infrastructure, business, and general living space.
So until that happens we should just sit on our hands and watch as Brazil burns one of the most important ecosystems in the world? Nah, that's silly.

Btw India and China have planted an insane amount of trees in the last few decades, those two countries have put a lot of work into regreening the planet.
 
To take commercial action or military intervention?

Commercial action countries already do that and most of the time to protect local production with the excuse of environment impact. But to say a country has the right to intervene forcefully just goes against any international convention. And most important no country has a leg to stand in G7 with such issues.

This whole Global Warming bullshit is one big hoax, you will only solve pollution issues through technological advancements. Nobody is going to take a step back and stop eating meat or using cars, planes, public transportation.
Obviously new thinking is needed to combat new issues.
Global Warming is a hoax? lol I'm just constantly baffled as to how an adult can think this. How many TONS of carbon and other gases are we pumping into the air every single day? You think this has no effect on the environment? Are species not going extinct? Is the air and water getting cleaner or dirtier? Are there island sized garbage piles in the ocean? What part of this is good for us?

Technology isn't going to solve anything if we don't actually invest in the technology, and have politicians and oil lobbyists actively trying to block efforts to use green tech.

It isn't about simply "stopping" the use of planes, cars, and meat eating--it's about doing it in an eco-friendly way..or at the very least, TRY to. Right now, America isn't doing a goddamn thing. Nobody is saying this shit is going to fixed over night, but we aren't even trying on the federal level.

Take a look at the old food pyramid chart that the government pushed as being the healthy diet that we should be eating. It's long been debunked as bullshit. The government can do a hell of a lot to dissuade people from doing things, or pushing them in the direction they want them to go.
 
But its pretty idiotic if you are talking about global warming, Brazil isnt even the biggest issue, specially when the current US administration doesnt even recognizes is as a threat.

Also Brazil is kind of irreplaceable for the things they export, its like when Russia invaded Ukraine and the EU threatened to sanction Russia big time but didnt sanctioned their natural gas.

Yeah, that didnt worked out so well.
I'm not sure if you're misreading what my point or intent here is.
But, I'm not specifically trying to bash Brazil here. When it comes to global warming, it's a global problem, and it requires a global situation.

I agree with you that 100% the biggest and most troublesome culprits are USA, China, and India. One of the biggest countries in the world shouldn't be able to just "opt out" of an agreement that effects everyone.

I'm just saying that whatever country is doing something that will have an impact on the world environment, the rest of the world should unquestionably have a say. Trying to play a sovereignty card when your actions will lead to the destruction or detriment of another country makes no sense. People want to put these ideas of "the free market" and sovereignty over the reality of what's happening. Melting glaciers and dirty air and water don't care about man made borders
 
strong arming another nation for your own countries benefit is ultranationalism

leftists showing their true colors as usual zzz.

If Mexico had a giant forest along the border of Texas and California, and decided to chop it up and burn it down---causing the destruction of crops and wildlife on the American border, as well as the dirtying of the air and water on the American side, you're saying we have to just shutup and take it...because..muh sovereignty?
Nature doesn't give a shit about our manmade borders.
 
So until that happens we should just sit on our hands and watch as Brazil burns one of the most important ecosystems in the world? Nah, that's silly.

Btw India and China have planted an insane amount of trees in the last few decades, those two countries have put a lot of work into regreening the planet.

You said that they should punish Brazil for doing what all the developed countries have done. I said they should pay them to not do it or else they should reforest their own countries. Other than the nordic countrties only Russia and Canada are over 40% forest among the developed countries. And despite the efforts of China and India they are both in the 20ish%

I'm just saying that you can't use punitive measures unless you are willing to reforest yourself.
 
You said that they should punish Brazil for doing what all the developed countries have done. I said they should pay them to not do it or else they should reforest their own countries. Other than the nordic countrties only Russia and Canada are over 40% forest among the developed countries. And despite the efforts of China and India they are both in the 20ish%

I'm just saying that you can't use punitive measures unless you are willing to reforest yourself.
The Amazon is a pretty unique resource and allowing its deforestation is something of global concern. I don't like the hypocrisy of the developed nations such as the fact that they developed using fossil fuels but want to impose restrictions on other countries doing so.

But at this point what's more important is preserving what's left and not running our planet into the ground and if that requires some sanctions on countries like Brazil then so be it. I say this as someone who is part Brazilian so its not like I want that country to get fucked. I want it to succeed and be an example for the rest of the world. But right now they're being an example of what not to be and potentially at a heavy cost.

Not to mention there's the human rights concerns I mentioned earlier. Its not just trees burning down, there are many indigenous communities in the rainforest being affected, indigenous communities whose concerns the president has shown disdain for and whose way and quality of life is being actively destroyed by farmers under encouragement from the president.
 
The Amazon is a pretty unique resource and allowing its deforestation is something of global concern. I don't like the hypocrisy of the developed nations such as the fact that they developed using fossil fuels but want to impose restrictions on other countries doing so.

But at this point what's more important is preserving what's left and not running our planet into the ground and if that requires some sanctions on countries like Brazil then so be it. I say this as someone who is part Brazilian so its not like I want that country to get fucked. I want it to succeed and be an example for the rest of the world. But right now they're being an example of what not to be and potentially at a heavy cost.

Not to mention there's the human rights concerns I mentioned earlier. Its not just trees burning down, there are many indigenous communities in the rainforest being affected, indigenous communities whose concerns the president has shown disdain for and whose way and quality of life is being actively destroyed by farmers under encouragement from the president.

I believe we just disagree on how to get the desired outcome - carrot/stick.
 
I believe we just disagree on how to get the desired outcome - carrot/stick.
The carrot hasn't worked, Brazil was already receiving payments to help conserve the Amazon and yet they elected a man who partly ran on allowing its deforestation and who seems to be making good on the promise. This is why countries like Norway have withdrawn the payments, to which the president has reacted by basically saying idgaf. So if the carrot don't work, its time to bring out the stick.
 
It depends on what you mean by "intervene". If you mean setting trade policy then sure. If you mean some kind of military action or international sanctions then no.
 
So as you all know the rain forest is burning. That is at least arguably due to the policy of Brazil's government. The rain forest are the lungs of the planet vital to the ecosystems of the whole worlds nations or at least that is what I keep hearing. If that is the case, isn't there the argument that the international community has the right to intervene even with military action to stop the destruction of the rain forest. Or does Brazil have the right to do what it wants with its own resources?

I think the later but I would like to hear your thoughts on this. What say you war room? Here is an article that touches on some of the issues and what Marcon has been saying
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...XH8ZBSmQlXa3RKTaRuMmcnZ7FygBlsEB67PNVGZVbfe2I
Jair Bolsonaro hopes to sabotage conservation efforts in the Amazon, leaked documents have revealed.


Scary precedent to set. If harming the environment can use a justification to use military force.
 
The carrot hasn't worked, Brazil was already receiving payments to help conserve the Amazon and yet they elected a man who partly ran on allowing its deforestation and who seems to be making good on the promise. This is why countries like Norway have withdrawn the payments, to which the president has reacted by basically saying idgaf. So if the carrot don't work, its time to bring out the stick.


Mr.Bulsanero should watch his mouth.
 
The game is starting to turn around.
Chile, the United Kingdom, Spain, Argentina, Japan and even China, are countries that have declared support to Bolsonaro on this Amazon Fake News issue.
Trump has already made the clear that he will cover Brazil, and said he said that he will confront Macron during the G7 meeting if insists on spreading lies.
Also Merkel is giving in and abandoning its junior partner Macron after the neo-colonialist attacks.
Meanwhile CNN caught some exclusive footage of Bolsonaro burning the forest:
 
Last edited:
This is why Trump is trying to make Greenland green again.
 
Why doesn't the rest of the world plant its own trees? That's something that wouldn't even be that expensive in the grand scheme things. Find rural areas where few people live and turn it into forests again. America has tons of land that would be good for that.

With regards to Brazil, I think a mixture of carrot and stick would be best approach. Offer them money for conservation, but threaten to stop trading with them if they clear more of the rain forest.
 
Back
Top