Brazil, a much poorer country than the United States is working now for a sustainable future by trying to preserve as much of the its massive rain forest as it can:
The aging mayor of this crammed jungle city in the heart of the Amazon once handed out chainsaws to cut down the rainforest.
Now he throws around slogans to save it.
That legendary shift is part of a new attitude that’s driving a wave of innovation by Brazilian business and government. […]
President Luíz Inácio Lula da Silva, who is expected to join the conference next week, has cast himself as a mediator.
To bridge the emissions gap between rich and poor nations, he is pushing emerging countries to limit pollution, while insisting that developed nations help pay the bill. […]
Since 2003, Brazil has pushed to slow the destruction, creating 250,000 square miles of new protected forest, arresting hundreds of illegal loggers and granting farm loans on the condition that they follow environmental compliance. The country has added faster satellite surveillance, designed a $1 billion “Amazon Fund” to finance conservation and vowed to cut emissions by at least 36 percent from what’s expected for 2020.
Because it’s easier to fight deforestation than fossil-fuel use, experts say Amazon conservation could slow global emissions while buying time for the world to develop clean energy technology. It also could help the world’s trees clean the air by absorbing more carbon dioxide: The Amazon now stores at least 80 billion tons of carbon, 50 times annual U.S. emissions, according to Greenpeace.
Makes sense to me. Using governments to provide solutions to a global problem and backing ot up with actions, not merely words. As the rest of the Miami Herald article explains, Brazil has pledged to cut emissions by 36% and has created a $1 Billion Dollar conservation fund.
Sao Paolo has a “sustainabilty” index to encourage investment in environmentally friendly businesses, and the 22 largest Brazilian companies have pledged to cut emissions also to attract customers. On the local level, the state government of Amazonas is subsidizing sustainable development of rain forest products such as rubber, nuts and oils, as well as paying monthly stipends to poor Brazilians who live and work in the rain forest from an endowment created in partnership with Coca-Cola.
Now if a “developing” country like Brazil can do all that (and more — read the whole story as they say) why can’t the United States, with its vastly larger resources develop industries and build better, more energy efficient infrastructure, from improving the waste in our electrical grid, to subsidizing alternative energy to more efficient, less green house gas emitting means of public and private transportation.
Oh wait.
I forgot we’re the land of Sarah Palin knows best, and what she knows is that man made climate change doesn’t exist. And even if it does exist, the invisible hand of the market will solve all our climate change problems all by its lonesome.
Nevermind. Just let Brazil (and the rest of the known universe) worry about it, right?
Brazil’s position is purely economic extortion (which means it just might be a real commitment), as King Soybean realized that he could make more money getting other countries to pay him not to clear cut any more.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/1214/thought-leaders-blairo-maggi-jungle-tree-hugger.html
King Soybean got in office, flattened massive expanses of his state for his own profit to prove he was serious about destroying the world and now wants us all to pay him to stop.
Yay Brazil!
But seriously folks, paying them to stop will do 2 things: 1. save more rainforest, 2. make illegal logging even more lucrative.
So, if we are going to pay folks to keep their carbon sequestration engines running, we had better make them responsible for the effects of illegal logging, farming and mining of those same resources. Else, we will soon find that the same folks we are paying not to log and mine and farm will do so anyway and get paid on both ends. We’ve got to stop pretending everyone plays nice.
Enforcement? I guess one could stop the payments, but then the clear-cutting can re-start with impunity.
Good luck!
We should probably just wait around until the state of Texas comes up with a plan.
Well, to defend my home state we do produce the largest amount of wind power in the nation and have become a bigger source for natural gas as oil reserves have run out (which is a cleaner, though not perfect, fuel). If you could design an electric car with about 150 mile range then all the car drivers there would sign on with gusto (I’ve driven well over 80 miles in a single day).
The real problem is that one side of the argument wants no deal whatsoever, or proposes solutions that come nowhere near solving the climate crisis OR the energy one. The fact that US reserves are tiny compared to oil reserves elsewhere was ignored by Palin and the “drill baby drill!”ers, and the media is of course doing a lovely job of giving as much weight to empty bluster as scientific fact.
I can’t help but wonder if our treeswinging ancestors had the same discussion; come down from the trees, there’s a whole other world down here and it’s so much better, but oh no there’s always the ones who choose to stay swinging from the trees. explains alot.
Perhaps Sarah Palin can see Brazil from her house.
From my ass I can see Belgium.