[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130510075524.htm[/url]
[QUOTE][B]The large-scale expansion of agriculture in the Amazon through deforestation will be a no-win scenario, according to a new study.[/B]
Published today, 10 May, in IOP Publishing's journal Environmental Research Letters, it shows that deforestation will not only reduce the capacity of the Amazon's natural carbon sink, but will also inflict climate feedbacks that will decrease the productivity of pasture and soybeans.
The researchers used model simulations to assess how the agricultural yield of the Amazon would be affected under two different land-use scenarios: a business-as-usual scenario where recent deforestation trends continue and new protected areas are not created; and a governance scenario which assumes Brazilian environmental legislation is implemented.
They predict that by 2050, a decrease in precipitation caused by deforestation in the Amazon will reduce pasture productivity by 30 per cent in the governance scenario and by 34 per cent in the business-as-usual scenario.
Furthermore, increasing temperatures could cause a reduction in soybean yield by 24 per cent in a governance scenario and by 28 per cent under a business-as-usual scenario.
Through a combination of the forest biomass removal itself, and the resulting climate change, which feeds back on the ecosystem productivity, the researchers calculate that biomass on the ground could decline by up to 65 per cent for the period 2041-2060[/QUOTE]
So we're going to destroy all these rainforests and get out of it dead land that can't grow anything.
Makes sense to me.
So, how about innovating instead of deforestation?
Yeah; the last thing Earth needs is more deforestation. Places like the Amazon are big carbon-sinks, and getting rid of them would only make the current CO2 problems worse.
it sure sucks mostly semi-civilized countries with tons of corruption are on land with rainforests.
[QUOTE=Zeneros;40595406]it sure sucks mostly semi-civilized countries with tons of corruption are on land with rainforests.[/QUOTE]
Maybe they'll wise up when they realize the land requires more resources than it puts out.
Oh who am I kidding, drill baby drill.
Wasn't China gonna grow smog there?
[QUOTE=Reshy;40595238][url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130510075524.htm[/url]
So we're going to destroy all these rainforests and get out of it dead land that can't grow anything.
Makes sense to me.[/QUOTE]
here's hoping they destroy themselves before they destroy the rainforests
[QUOTE=Zeneros;40595406]it sure sucks mostly semi-civilized countries with tons of corruption are on land with rainforests.[/QUOTE]
The UK used to have expansive oak forests, but we lost nearly all of them as a consequence of the explosive growth experienced during the industrial revolution. Same stuff happened with the lush forests east of the Rhine in Europe. Most European countries probably have around 20% of their natural forest cover left, it's quite sad really.
[QUOTE=NorthernFall;40595575]The UK used to have expansive oak forests, but we lost nearly all of them as a consequence of the explosive growth experienced during the industrial revolution. Same stuff happened with the lush forests east of the Rhine in Europe. Most European countries probably have around 20% of their natural forest cover left, it's quite sad really.[/QUOTE]
yeah all of the "civilized" nations did exactly the same thing but far more quickly
Who was the guy on FP who recently capitalism was great
TBH almost all of the deforestation done in the amazon is done to create grazelands for cattle last I checked
The problem with agricultural deforestation is that rainforests are not great places to decide to grow crops, as the soil is constantly being eroded away while also not particularly nutritional for crops and thus tends to lack many of the nutrients you get in agriculturally-strong regions. This isn't an issue when you first deforest, as when you slash/burn that actually infuses a lot of of nutrients into the soil. The real issue is that after a while, the nutrients get used up after a year or two and you have to keep cutting into the rainforest to sustain your crop while abandoning your now mostly-dead patch of land. This requires you to basically replant the forest or wait a long time for the forest to naturally grow back and then slash/burn it again in order to actually get nutrients neccisary for agriculture back into the soil.
Of course brazil is a much wealthier country compaired to many other tropical countries that run into this issue so they could probably afford extensive fertilizers to keep the soil full of nutrients, and/or they have the sense to properly crop-rotate to extend the time you can use a rainforest-patch of land before it just becomes dead.
Still point is it's simply easier and more cost effective to just burn the rainforest down to make grassland for grazing. And on a good note, a lot of the deforestation has slowed down signfigantly compared to 15 years ago, especially since a large chunk of the rainforest is now government owned/protected.
speeding this up is a great idea
[img]https://lh3.ggpht.com/-Sfkv5N7B1gw/UYsqyp7AsUI/AAAAAAAAMRU/-s6dnQasi04/s320/Surui_400.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=KorJax;40596003]Still point is it's simply easier and more cost effective to just burn the rainforest down to make grassland for grazing. And on a good note, a lot of the deforestation has slowed down signfigantly compared to 15 years ago, especially since a large chunk of the rainforest is now government owned/protected.[/QUOTE]
That is until your transportation costs get too high or you simply run out of rain forest.
[QUOTE=KorJax;40596003]TBH almost all of the deforestation done in the amazon is done to create grazelands for cattle last I checked
The problem with agricultural deforestation is that rainforests are not great places to decide to grow crops, as the soil is constantly being eroded away while also not particularly nutritional for crops and thus tends to lack many of the nutrients you get in agriculturally-strong regions. This isn't an issue when you first deforest, as when you slash/burn that actually infuses a lot of of nutrients into the soil. The real issue is that after a while, the nutrients get used up after a year or two and you have to keep cutting into the rainforest to sustain your crop while abandoning your now mostly-dead patch of land. This requires you to basically replant the forest or wait a long time for the forest to naturally grow back and then slash/burn it again in order to actually get nutrients neccisary for agriculture back into the soil.
Of course brazil is a much wealthier country compaired to many other tropical countries that run into this issue so they could probably afford extensive fertilizers to keep the soil full of nutrients, and/or they have the sense to properly crop-rotate to extend the time you can use a rainforest-patch of land before it just becomes dead.
Still point is it's simply easier and more cost effective to just burn the rainforest down to make grassland for grazing. And on a good note, a lot of the deforestation has slowed down signfigantly compared to 15 years ago, especially since a large chunk of the rainforest is now government owned/protected.[/QUOTE]
main problem with protecting the amazon forest is simple, its fucking huge, the problem isn't just corruption, the goverment has been even been using the army to prevent deflorestation, and there are several illegal loggers which in some cases have even massacred tribes to hide their presence.
[QUOTE=Zeneros;40595406]it sure sucks mostly semi-civilized countries with tons of corruption are on land with rainforests.[/QUOTE]
so now brazil is "semi-civilized"? you're an idiot.
[QUOTE=KILLTHIS;40595371]So, how about innovating instead of deforestation?[/QUOTE]
Innovation costs money, deforestation makes money.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;40596363]Innovation costs money, deforestation makes money.[/QUOTE]
Innovation costs money in the short, makes money in the long. Deforestation makes money in the short but costs money in the long.
Shame our species is so short sighted.
[QUOTE=Reshy;40596773]Innovation costs money in the short, makes money in the long. Deforestation makes money in the short but costs money in the long.
Shame our species is so short sighted.[/QUOTE]
Everyone likes to be greedy.
[QUOTE=Coffee;40596964]Everyone likes to be greedy.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone, but if we had no greed then we'd likely have no ambition either.
[QUOTE=NorthernFall;40595575]The UK used to have expansive oak forests, but we lost nearly all of them as a consequence of the explosive growth experienced during the industrial revolution. Same stuff happened with the lush forests east of the Rhine in Europe. Most European countries probably have around 20% of their natural forest cover left, it's quite sad really.[/QUOTE]
This is actually incorrect.
The Oak forests were on their breaking point just before the industrial revolution kicked off. Forestry was big business, because it was needed for practically everything (shipbuilding, charcoal, steel, etc).
The industrial revolution actually saved a lot of land in Britain that was otherwise under intense cultivation. The switch to coal brought a lot of pressure off the forests, and the imports of agricultural produce left a lot of farmland to turn to pasture or forestry.
[QUOTE]increasing temperatures could cause a reduction in soybean yield by 24 per cent in a governance scenario[/QUOTE]
Oh no, not the Soy!
From our perspective, this is obvious. But for the people there, whom only have the land and need jobs, they would rather ravage nature to feed their families because they have no better alternative (similar to poaching).
The study is good plain evidence on the failed logic of deforesting and logging, but we need to get the farmers down there different work (possibly conservation related) to really start slowing down the rate of deforestation.
this sounds like a job for the fucking lorax
[QUOTE=Zeneros;40595406]it sure sucks mostly semi-civilized countries with tons of corruption are on land with rainforests.[/QUOTE]
This should be rephrased.
"It sucks that more advanced countries already raped and pillaged their resources, and they now barely assist developing countries- leaving developing countries few options leading them to rape and pillage their own natural resources".
Developing countries does not mean they are "semi civilized".
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;40600570]This should be rephrased.
"It sucks that more advanced countries already raped and pillaged their resources, and they now barely assist developing countries- leaving developing countries few options leading them to rape and pillage their own natural resources".
Developing countries does not mean they are "semi civilized".[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, the developed countries try in vain to protect their own businesses by using stupid protectionist measures.
This harms themselves and the underdeveloped countries in the long run.
i thought this meant amazon.com was adding a agricultural section for people to buy seeds but it failed
[QUOTE=KorJax;40596003]TBH almost all of the deforestation done in the amazon is done to create grazelands for cattle last I checked
The problem with agricultural deforestation is that rainforests are not great places to decide to grow crops, as the soil is constantly being eroded away while also not particularly nutritional for crops and thus tends to lack many of the nutrients you get in agriculturally-strong regions. This isn't an issue when you first deforest, as when you slash/burn that actually infuses a lot of of nutrients into the soil. The real issue is that after a while, the nutrients get used up after a year or two and you have to keep cutting into the rainforest to sustain your crop while abandoning your now mostly-dead patch of land. This requires you to basically replant the forest or wait a long time for the forest to naturally grow back and then slash/burn it again in order to actually get nutrients neccisary for agriculture back into the soil.
Of course brazil is a much wealthier country compaired to many other tropical countries that run into this issue so they could probably afford extensive fertilizers to keep the soil full of nutrients, and/or they have the sense to properly crop-rotate to extend the time you can use a rainforest-patch of land before it just becomes dead.
Still point is it's simply easier and more cost effective to just burn the rainforest down to make grassland for grazing. And on a good note, a lot of the deforestation has slowed down signfigantly compared to 15 years ago, especially since a large chunk of the rainforest is now government owned/protected.[/QUOTE]
I surely agree but then again - doesn't cattle use even more crops to grow than a human needs? The last time I've checked, it'd be easier to use the land which is used by now to grow food for cattle for humans and simply focus more on vegetables like e.g. soybeans.
Edit:
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40600621]Unfortunately, the developed countries try in vain to protect their own businesses by using stupid protectionist measures.
This harms themselves and the underdeveloped countries in the long run.[/QUOTE]
Then again, I think it's time for some real globalization. It'd be probably better if the whole world would work together instead of a bunch of guys who always try to act in their own favor, effectively fucking up everything else.
I'm still at how incredibly short sighted humanity is...
Taking advantage of a quick fix knowing very well that the tribulation will be tenfold more difficult in the future.
I see it in myself, and it sickens me; I'm a micro component of a macro problem.
Why don't they start tree farming instead? The amazon rain forest was grown on land too toxic for agriculture to grow
As I am generally hating humankind, I applaud the measures taken simply out of greed. Let's destroy the environment! It can only lead to more suffering and deaths in the world. Fuck this planet.
Isn't it a good thing that agriculture is failing in the Amazon? Won't the farmers realize it is ineffective and stop cutting down trees for land?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.