NationStates Jolt Archive

What thinks ye here?

Federal troops will be deployed in a remote Amazon town after hundreds of protesters, angry at the government's crackdown on deforestation, ransacked the local offices of Brazil's environmental protection agency.

The demonstrators invaded the headquarters of Ibama, the environmental agency, on Sunday night, setting fire to vehicles, smashing computers and destroying documents.

It's easy to say 'it's not right to damage' but when it's your livelihood at stake, rioting's quicker than the courts, especially when the law's against you.

The temperature has been rising in remote Amazon towns like Paragominas since the government launched an anti-deforestation drive, called "Arc of Fire", earlier this year. Many locals are angry at the impact the initiative is having on the local economy, with many saw mills being forced to close.

In an interview with the Guardian earlier this year, Brazil's minister for
strategic affairs, Roberto Mangabeira Unger, said the country needed to offer alternative employment to the Amazon's 25m inhabitants in order to protect the rainforest.

Seems understandable, it's easy to ask people to stop illegally deforesting while picking your coffee from an Amazon Oak* coffee table.

He criticised environmentalists who demanded the protection of the rainforest without considering those living there.

"What has happened in some parts of the rich world is that concern about the tropical rainforest has become... a form of escapism," he said.

Yes, death to the hippies, but wait...

Members of the environmental group Greenpeace recently invested in a bulletproof pick-up truck to use while travelling in the region.

They're protected like their precious rainforests.

Or do they deserve the blame, people are trying to save the environment, which is a good thing no?

As another example, who should pay the opium farmers of Afghanistan in order to make them grow less profitable crops? The Afghan government or the countries it's used in?

If someone's prepared to pay $100, 000 for Panda Paw soup, who's to blame, the orderer, the panda-slayer, the middleman,

So who's to blame here?

*I don't know if there is an Amazon Oak so.... so.... quit oppressing me!

EDIT: Mashed from this link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/nov/25/brazil-forests)

It's easy to say 'it's not right to damage' but when it's your livelihood at stake, rioting's quicker than the courts, especially when the law's against you.
When your livelihood is wrong, I have no sympathy for you resorting to violence. Take the poor plantation owners after the Civil War, for instance.

When your livelihood is wrong, I have no sympathy for you resorting to violence. Take the poor plantation owners after the Civil War, for instance.

Are you saying this is a general way, in which case I agree, or specific to these people, in which case I have doubts.

I dithered over framing the question 'who to blame' or who should pay' because these people have lives to live and seemingly no recourse other than to riot.

They could be hired mobs, acting under the instructions of the people with money invested in these operations, it's hard to tell but at some point, who should be paying to find alternative living, equal to what they're doing now, for people in this situation, and who's to blame?

When your livelihood is wrong, I have no sympathy for you resorting to violence. Take the poor plantation owners after the Civil War, for instance.

And logging = slavery??? The solution is to offer extra payment for "sustainable" logging, not to ban logging altogether.

And logging = slavery??? The solution is to offer extra payment for "sustainable" logging, not to ban logging altogether.

Crackdown on deforestation =/= ban on logging.

Are you saying this is a general way, in which case I agree, or specific to these people, in which case I have doubts.

I dithered over framing the question 'who to blame' or who should pay' because these people have lives to live and seemingly no recourse other than to riot.

They could be hired mobs, acting under the instructions of the people with money invested in these operations, it's hard to tell but at some point, who should be paying to find alternative living, equal to what they're doing now, for people in this situation, and who's to blame?That's a tougher question. One big problem in Latin American states that border on the rainforest is that poor farmers clear land, get kicked off because a company now buys the land which they couldn't when it was still rainforest and protected but now is far gone to save, and then clear more land and repeat the whole thing.
And logging = slavery??? The solution is to offer extra payment for "sustainable" logging, not to ban logging altogether.The kind of logging that goes on in Brazil is immoral as is slavery. Just because you're doing something wrong to survive doesn't somehow make it acceptable. Especially not when you're using violence to protect it. 'sides, sustainable logging of the rainforest is largely impossible due to the poor soil conditions of the area. Anything approaching sustainable logging will not bring in nearly as high profits.

tossing up the economy vs the environment is always going to be a difficult and thorny issue, one that has far reaching concequences. but i'd say protecting the environment is more important and beneficial in the long run, even if these people's local economy is going through crap. what they need is some kind of compensation program from their government.

but then they are engaged in - what could be considered - an immoral industry. and, to draw a pretty shitty parralel, nobody cried for the slave traders when slavery was outlawed, right? (ok people probably did, but they don't now because we know it was the right thing to do)

tossing up the economy vs the environment is always going to be a difficult and thorny issue, one that has far reaching concequences. but i'd say protecting the environment is more important and beneficial in the long run, even if these people's local economy is going through crap. what they need is some kind of compensation program from their government.

Who pays for them? Where's the responsibility?

but then they are engaged in - what could be considered - an immoral industry.

How much choice do they have? What degree does one need to chop down a tree for $7 a day?

and, to draw a pretty shitty parralel, nobody cried for the slave traders when slavery was outlawed, right? (ok people probably did, but they don't now because we know it was the right thing to do)

They went into a bloody and extended Civil War for it, people died for the slave traders.

Who pays for them? Where's the responsibility?
the government. its deciding to cut down the amount of deforestation, it is its responsibility to sure up the local economy and local people during a transition


How much choice do they have? What degree does one need to chop down a tree for $7 a day?
well this is why a compensation program should be under way while people re-skill, relocate, etc.
the govt. can help, but the long of the short of it is: tough shit. when the coal mines in this country closed, the communities around them went through hell, they got some government support, but ultimately its down to the people to move on


They went into a bloody and extended Civil War for it, people died for the slave traders.
ah yes, i was thinking about this country

To quote Stephen Stills:
"There's battle lines being drawn.
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong."

Identify a few ringleaders and arrest them to send a message that sort of thing isn't acceptable, then invest in the area to create alternative jobs. or introduce an enforced resettlement programme if there is no prospect of creating sustainable jobs in the area. Then come down like a ton of bricks on anyone who keeps de-foresting

Seeing as how tropical deforestation decreases oxygen concentration (and increases carbon dioxide concentration) in the atmosphere, using force to stop it is quite justified. So people will lose their jobs; I guess a comparison one could make is that if meth were cracked down upon, meth dealers would lose their jobs; would they have a right to riot?

As for who's to blame, there's lots of blame to go around and I doubt it'd be fair to pin it specifically. But if jobs are the issue, try to get a means of transportation to these places to move people to where there are better jobs.

I would tend to support environmental protection measures even at the expense of industry because I think altering industry to work with, rather than against, the enivornment is more beneficial to more people in the long run.

But I also think it is bad to ignore the short run and cut off many people's only means of making a living without providing any alternatives.

When a government wants to make a major policy change that is going to have such an effect on industry and people's ability to find work, it is up to the government to include alterative/new industry development as part of the package. For instance, logging the rainforest has been quick money for many years. But managing the rainforest for pharmaceutical development and other such purposes could potentially replace a portion of the income that traditionally came from logging. However, implementation of such new uses for the rainforest have not been developed fully because of obstruction to the change, which made it rather pointless to go forward. If the Brazilian government is really serious about preserving the rainforest, then it must come up with a plan for finding and implementing another way for the local residents to live off it, that does not involve destroying it, and that is viable enough to supplant the logging industry at least in some areas. Otherwise, they will accomplish nothing but bad things for Brazil.

As for who is responsible for carrying on immoral/unethical businesses, like trafficking in endangered animal products -- I say everyone who makes money off it, and all the consumers of the products. In the illegal drug trade, everyone involved is a crook -- the growers, the processors, the shippers, the dealers, and the users. Why take a different approach just because the product is, say, elephant ivory instead of heroine?

But if a trade is changed to illegal/immoral after formally being accepted by the government, then it is the government's responsibility to make sure that otherwise law abiding people -- like poppy farmers in Afghanistan -- can feed their families by doing something else, or else can find legal buyers (like pharma) for their crops for the same or better money.

Easy? No. Necessary? I think so.

If you let the loggers have their way with the rain-forest they'll be out of a job in ten years rather than now* and the global environment will be worse off. So I can't say I'm tremendously sympathetic with them.


*) disclaimer: time-frame is entirely pulled from thin air

Brazil should pay more attention to its local people needing jobs then to foreign lobbies.

As for the opium in Afghanistan there is a middle ground. There is a predicted shortfall in legitimate morphine and other opiates. the poppies of Afghanistan can meet this demand we jsut got to figure out how to keep the illegal traffickers out (i prefer bombs)