NationStates Jolt Archive

See http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/

If you are not Brazilian, worry about replanting your own damned forests.

Amazonia is part of Brazil, and not some region that just anyone can decide what should be done about it.

Western Europe and large parts of North America have been cleared of forests to suit your purposes. Now youy want to insist that somewhere elese should not do the same. As I said, go plant a tree and SHUT UP.

Macdonald's is destroying everything. I'm surprised this still counts as news. And yet, it's still making billions in profits every year. That tells you something's wrong with our world, right?

I love this picture:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/Image/7558.jpg

I love this picture:


Ahahaha ... Juggalo Ronald! w00t!

I love this picture:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/Image/7558.jpg

for some reason, this homicidal clown isn't nearly as creepy as the normal one they have.

I love this picture:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/Image/7558.jpg

Well McDonalds french fries taste really good. :)

If you are not Brazilian, worry about replanting your own damned forests.

Amazonia is part of Brazil, and not some region that just anyone can decide what should be done about it.

Western Europe and large parts of North America have been cleared of forests to suit your purposes. Now youy want to insist that somewhere elese should not do the same. As I said, go plant a tree and SHUT UP.

wow what a very mature response. that deserves no more comment than that. and it was sarcasm by the way

They shouldn't be cutting down the rainforest, why not pick a better source....you know maybe fix the deserts up to? :o

wow what a very mature response. that deserves no more comment than that. and it was sarcasm by the way

Do you have to live with the whole world telling you what to do with part of the UK. No.
The immaturity is on the part of Greenpeace etc. in thinking that they have any right to demand that a sovereign naton should not be permitted to act in the same way as any other sovereign nation.

If you are truly concerned about the deforestation of the planet, then do something about it. I mean it when I say go plant a tree. If every one of the more than 1 billion people in Western Europe and the USA planted a tree, the result would be a lot more practical than screaming about the land use in another nation.

I am sorry if you find it immature to defend the right of the country where one lives to be sovereign over its own land, but I do not.

(If it was sarcastic, then do not take my opinion as directed at you. It is difficult to recognise sarcasm in written form when it refers to a matter that touches deeply on the reader.)

I've been anti-McDonalds ever since I became a vegetarian. Needlessly destroying the enviroment just puts them ever more to the top on my shit list.

Okay true....though they are for environmental protection, a international endeavor.

They shouldn't be cutting down the rainforest, why not pick a better source....you know maybe fix the deserts up to? :o
Yep. There goes mister desert owl.

Not to critizise environmentalists, but that flash seems a little like propaganda.

for some reason, this homicidal clown isn't nearly as creepy as the normal one they have.
That one looks alot less disturbing than the Japanese Ronald McDonald.

blaming mcdonalds for buying 3rd world products seems a bit shortsighted.

its not like they cleared the forest themselves, its not like they persuaded the local brazillians to do so, its not like the local brazillians will stop what they are doing if mcdonalds stops buying their product.

as AB said, its their forests, worry about your own forests and wetlands before you start destroying the livelihoods of people in other countries.

and if you want them to stop clearing forest, make it worth their while. all they are doing is trying to make a buck just like anyone else.

Give them a break, you think it's easy running a multinational fast food empire? (http://www.crapville.com/game_holder.asp?ID=214)

Give them a break, you think it's easy running a multinational fast food empire? (http://www.crapville.com/game_holder.asp?ID=214)
I remeber playing that. I also remeber snapping a rubber band across my wrist afterwards as punishment for killing all the virtual cows.

I remeber playing that. I also remeber snapping a rubber band across my wrist afterwards as punishment for killing all the virtual cows.

LOL WTF!

LOL WTF!
You'd understand if you performed self-abuse.

Do you have to live with the whole world telling you what to do with part of the UK. No.
The immaturity is on the part of Greenpeace etc. in thinking that they have any right to demand that a sovereign naton should not be permitted to act in the same way as any other sovereign nation.

If you are truly concerned about the deforestation of the planet, then do something about it. I mean it when I say go plant a tree. If every one of the more than 1 billion people in Western Europe and the USA planted a tree, the result would be a lot more practical than screaming about the land use in another nation.

I am sorry if you find it immature to defend the right of the country where one lives to be sovereign over its own land, but I do not.

(If it was sarcastic, then do not take my opinion as directed at you. It is difficult to recognise sarcasm in written form when it refers to a matter that touches deeply on the reader.)

Greenpeace are not making demands to any sovereign nation. You clearly didn't bother reading anything. They are trying to PETITION McDonals (a corporation, not a nation or state of any kind) to stop destroying the rainforest. Planting a tree somewhere in the country I live in doesn't help the rainforest. It doesn't give animals their homes back. It doesn't stop any of the adverse effects caused by destroying the rainforest. And I can not afford to go to the Amazon and plant a few trees.

What I find incredibly immature is the way you phrased your "response" and the uncalled-for telling me to "shut up", as well as the comment that implied I have no right to worry about the environment being destroyed anywhere except in the country I live in - do you tell people not to bother about starving kids in 3rd world countries to and to never donate to charities exceopt those that ONLY do work in your country?!

----------

Ashmoria, I am not blaming them for buying 3rd world products, and neityher are Greenpeace. But they are to blame (at least partially) for the destroying of the rainforest so that they can make more billions of dollars profit than they already have. McDonalds are destroying the rainforest FOR THEIR CHICKENS, so of course they are the ones who have instigated the Brazilians to destroy it on their behalf. If they weren't using the land to grow soya for chickens, they wouldn't be destroying the rainforest. Simple as.

And whilst I know that people in the 3rd world need money to live, that doesn't excuse every single form of abuse (either to the environment or animals) done for this end, and doesn't mean the abuses should continue.

------------------

Exomnia, I am not an environmentalist nor working for Greenpeace. I just happen to care about a lot of issues, including those that destroy the environment, causing a knock-on effect to humans in the long-term

Yeah, well Greenpeace is preventing my hamburgers.

Yeah, well Greenpeace is preventing my hamburgers.

Really, if you think about it, so is MacDonalds.

Really, if you think about it, so is MacDonalds.

Well, France can shoot torpedoes at both of them for all I care.

Greenpeace are not making demands to any sovereign nation. You clearly didn't bother reading anything. They are trying to PETITION McDonals (a corporation, not a nation or state of any kind) to stop destroying the rainforest. Planting a tree somewhere in the country I live in doesn't help the rainforest. It doesn't give animals their homes back. It doesn't stop any of the adverse effects caused by destroying the rainforest. And I can not afford to go to the Amazon and plant a few trees.

What I find incredibly immature is the way you phrased your "response" and the uncalled-for telling me to "shut up", as well as the comment that implied I have no right to worry about the environment being destroyed anywhere except in the country I live in - do you tell people not to bother about starving kids in 3rd world countries to and to never donate to charities exceopt those that ONLY do work in your country?!


No. I did not read the link to Greenpeace. I simply have had enough of their crap, and it was not going to be anything new. Yes they may have been attacking McDonalds for their actions, but that is not my problem with the group. My problem with the group is that they are so concerned to interfere in third world countries, but do absolutely nothing in their own back yards.

The telling you to shut up was not, and is not uncalled for. Go, as I said, and recreate the forests that have been destroyed in the country you live in. The UK was once a nearly entirely forested, but Greenpeace, and yourself it now appears, seem to think that it is much better to interfere in the events in the Amazon than to reforest your own back gardens. If you want to change the world, improve the environment, worry about your local patch, not about what is happening half way across the world. Then you can actually do something rather than adopt the attitude that you know better as to how to manage things in a culture and economy that you simply do not understand.

You don't have to go to the Amazon to plant trees, do you? Trees grow in Salford, Manchester and Southampton. I never implied that you should do more than simply go and find a patch of grass somewhere near wwhere you live and plant a tree there. Puta que pariu!

Yes I do tell the first world charity organizations to stay out of Brazil. Their charity does no favours whatsoever. It creates a culture of dependancy and an attitude of resignation. I can not speak for the entire Third world, but my objections were with respect to Brazil.

What I would request of the first world is that they stop giving with one hand (charity) and taking twice as much back with the other in (subsidies and tariffs). If fair trade were truly instituted then certainly no charity would be required in Brazil. Just obey the WTO rulings (on cotton and sugar for example) and you will be suprised how much this would do to protect the Amazon.

My style of "response", as you put it, is due to years of having to hear do-gooders from the first world countries, who have already completely destroyed their forests, trying to tell us here what to do with ours. I am sorry if it seemed over agressive, but the agression was justified.

You don't have to go to the Amazon to plant trees, do you? Trees grow in Salford, Manchester and Southampton. I never implied that you should do more than simply go and find a patch of grass somewhere near wwhere you live and plant a tree there. Puta que pariu!

There's a difference between a regular forest and a rainforest. I can plant all the trees I want here, but unless I built a huge indoor dome, I won't be able to grow a rainforest.

That's why people care.

See http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/

the fact that this is a greenpeace site makes me want to go eat more mcdonalds

There's a difference between a regular forest and a rainforest. I can plant all the trees I want here, but unless I built a huge indoor dome, I won't be able to grow a rainforest.

That's why people care.

In environmental terms, in terms of the carbon sink value, no. There is no difference at all. Plant a tree.

There's a difference between a regular forest and a rainforest. I can plant all the trees I want here, but unless I built a huge indoor dome, I won't be able to grow a rainforest.

That's why people care.

There are/were rainforests in the Northwest US. Some of which are logged. Some of which were cleared.

I'm sure the acrage could be increased significantly if we put our mind to it.

In environmental terms, in terms of the carbon sink value, no. There is no difference at all. Plant a tree.

Rainforests are, however, very unique. 90% of the world's species live in the rainforest (primarily plant and insect species). While that doesn't seem important on it's own, it is also important to realize one of the great values of the rainforest is its capacity to contain medical cures. It stands to reason that 90% of the species with medicinal values are going to be in the rainforest. Do you really wanna risk bulldozing over the cure for AIDS? Alzheimers?

Merck and other pharmisudical corps are purchasing land in the Amazon with the sole purpose of defending it from being cut down and searching it for it's medical resources. I'd say they probably know best what the value of the rainforest is for people.

That said, its Green Peace, so please go back to laughing derisively. Hippies went out 40 years ago. Realistic environmentalists can adress the issue rationally.

Rainforests are, however, very unique. 90% of the world's species live in the rainforest (primarily plant and insect species). While that doesn't seem important on it's own, it is also important to realize one of the great values of the rainforest is its capacity to contain medical cures. It stands to reason that 90% of the species with medicinal values are going to be in the rainforest. Do you really wanna risk bulldozing over the cure for AIDS? Alzheimers?
Do you have any idea of the scale of the Amazon jungle? Really? I doubt it.

Merck and other pharmisudical corps are purchasing land in the Amazon with the sole purpose of defending it from being cut down and searching it for it's medical resources. I'd say they probably know best what the value of the rainforest is for people.
I would say that the people who have lived there for the last 10,000 years probably know better than a couple of upstart drug companies. But I might be wrong. If Greenpeace wants to come and buy the land to protect the jungle, then fine. I have no problem with that. What I object to is their telling us what to do with land that they have absolutely no claim to whatsoever.

That said, its Green Peace, so please go back to laughing derisively. Hippies went out 40 years ago. Realistic environmentalists can adress the issue rationally.
Thank you. Realistic environmentalists look to find practical solutions, ones that provide livelihoods for the people and sustainability for the forest at the same time. These I have no problems with. They are not teling us what we should do. they are investigating possible paths of action in co-operation with the people who live here.

In environmental terms, in terms of the carbon sink value, no. There is no difference at all. Plant a tree.
There is a significant difference in environmental terms. Genetic diversity is a very significant difference in environmental terms.

There is a significant difference in environmental terms. Genetic diversity is a very significant difference in environmental terms.

Be real. Even if we cut down half of the Amazon, it would have no significant effecf on biological diversity in the area. The Amazon covers more than 1.2 billion acres. Billion, got that. Compare that to the USA. (1.2 billion acres is 4,856,227 square Kilometers). The USA has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land (excluding Puerto Rico etc.) The Amazon is half the size of the entire USA.

IF a large chunk of this is cut down, then there is still plenty left for the biodiversity to occupy. In the mean time start reforesting your own lands to provide increrased biodiversity there.

Thank you. Realistic environmentalists look to find practical solutions, ones that provide livelihoods for the people and sustainability for the forest at the same time. These I have no problems with. They are not teling us what we should do. they are investigating possible paths of action in co-operation with the people who live here.

Agreed. I live in an area where many people can remember when the logging industry had to lay off a huge number of people because of the whatchamacallum owl (forgotten the name) and it was done in such a way that didn't take care of those having their livelihoods taken away. I can only imagine how much worse it would be in places where there were few other viable industries.

I continue to hope that there are good compromises that take care of everyone (if nothing else, purchasing land for pharmisudicals may be what it comes down to, but I don't think that makes things better for the people living there). That said, rain forest ecology is not an area I study as heavily as alternative energy and air pollution policy.

Be real.
I am being real.

Even if we cut down half of the Amazon, it would have no significant effecf on biological diversity in the area.
Yes it would.

The Amazon covers more than 1.2 billion acres. Billion, got that.
Land size is not determinitive in the effects on bio-diversity.

Compare that to the USA. (1.2 billion acres is 4,856,227 square Kilometers). The USA has 9,161,923 square kilometers of land (excluding Puerto Rico etc.) The Amazon is half the size of the entire USA.
See above.

IF a large chunk of this is cut down, then there is still plenty left for the biodiversity to occupy.
A great deal of the biodiversity is not there anymore at this point you realise? And that's the simplist of the complications you are either ignoring or unaware of.
In the mean time start reforesting your own lands to provide increrased biodiversity there.
...

So if I understand AB Again's argument,

We can bring back the Dodo by planting enough trees. Once the appropriate breakaway point is reached, new Dodos will spring out of the ground and repopulate the area. Pretty groovy. :)

So if I understand AB Again's argument,

We can bring back the Dodo by planting enough trees. Once the appropriate breakaway point is reached, new Dodos will spring out of the ground and repopulate the area. Pretty groovy. :)
I can safely say that my life and present level of happiness will not be any different if the dodo came back from extinction.

I can safely say that my life and present level of happiness will not be any different if the dodo came back from extinction.

Dodo semen cures cancer. :p

Dodo semen cures cancer. :p
OMG?!?!! 4 SERIOUSLY?!?! :eek:

... Off to clone me a Dodo and then jack if off ... I'll be rich ...

Land size is not determinitive in the effects on bio-diversity.

No, but area of available habitat of any specified type is.

A great deal of the biodiversity is not there anymore at this point you realise? And that's the simplist of the complications you are either ignoring or unaware of.
I am not unaware of it. I also realise that the Northern hemisphere destroyed its own biodiversity and now wants to tell us what to do. Hypocricy and Imperialism rolled into one.

I also am not unaware that biodiversity is not an entropic quality. If other countries increased the varieties of habitats in thier territories instead of worrying about what we are doing, they would increase the biodiversity there. Nature is remarkably resilient, if she is given a chance. Now perhaps you should concentrate on giving that chance where YOU live and stop telling other nations how to act. (And no LG - the dodo will not reappear, but then you would not take this seriously.)

See http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/

is this really news? i thought it was common knowledge.

No, but area of available habitat of any specified type is.
It is not that simple. First of all, available habitat does not determine the diversity of a "population's" gene pool. It isnt entirely irrelevent, but the relationship is not as simple as you seem to believe - for instance gene pool diversity is not only effected by available habitat space, it effects available habitat space.

I am not unaware of it.
I am refering to 'gone' in terms of your hypothetical 'half knocked down' Amazon Forest.

Say you have two Forest habitat areas (area A and area B) of 1000 sq miles; approximately 150 square miles of these two areas (area A and area B) overlap each other Both these areas are the habitat of a particular (and not very common) geographically restricted (and/or isolated) population.

If the 850 square miles of area A that does not overlap area B is 'disappeared' catestrohpically (for instance being 'cleared') in nearly every (if not every) case there is an immediate reduction in diversity as alleles and allele combinations cease to exist in the populations gene pool (with no immediate replacement of them).
An immediate reduction in diversity implies a long term reduction in diversity and/or rate of diversification.
Further even if the incredible happened and there was not an immediate (and very significant) loss of diversity at the time of the habitat reduction, the cline has a reduced range - so it's smaller, smaller population = reduced diversity and diversification rates.

So diversity is significantly impacted both immediately and in the long term, in some cases irreparably.

I also realise that the Northern hemisphere destroyed its own biodiversity and now wants to tell us what to do. Hypocricy and Imperialism rolled into one.
Whether or not that is the case has no bearing on whether or not it is true that removing half (or even much smaller portions) of the Amazon Forest will have no effect in environmental terms (either with or without 'planting elsewhere').

I also am not unaware that biodiversity is not an entropic quality.
If other countries increased the varieties of habitats in thier territories instead of worrying about what we are doing, they would increase the biodiversity there.
Whether or not that is the case it doesnt negate the significant environmental effects that would result from deforestation in the Amazon in quantities far less than 'half'.

Nature is remarkably resilient, if she is given a chance.
Which again is not the point.

Now perhaps you should concentrate on giving that chance where YOU live and stop telling other nations how to act. (And no LG - the dodo will not reappear, but then you would not take this seriously.)
I cant stop what I have not commenced.

As to planting a tree, what tree would be best for the job? (Perform photosynthesis the most) Are there any trees which do that at a particularly high level?

See, Greenpeace is the kind of group that I force together with the other groups to form the super-group, the Environmentalist People. The EP manages to do everything and anything that looks like it might work and doesn't, when there's goodness knows how many other things they could do that'd be more effective and useful for all concerned. Needless to say, I want to kick their collective arse.

That said, I've hated McDonalds since I was 5, when I realised the food wasn't that good. VIVA LA RESISTANCE!

As to planting a tree, what tree would be best for the job? (Perform photosynthesis the most) Are there any trees which do that at a particularly high level?

I'd plant either a maple(which are very hardy and can grow in the darndest places), or a douglas fir(Which are known to grow very tall very quickly. Some are known to grow more than a foot a year.)