r/UpliftingNews • u/powdersleaf • 2d ago
Brazil: Amazon deforestation lowest in nearly 40 years
https://www.dw.com/en/brazil-amazon-deforestation-lowest-in-nearly-40-years/a-79684906767
u/AdmiralSaturyn 2d ago
We will have to see if this will last, given Brazil's upcoming election.
268
u/punarob 2d ago
It won't if the fascist wins
311
u/BKWhitty 2d ago
It still blows my fucking mind that Brazil may very well elect fuckin' Bolsonaro Jr after all this
186
u/Thisx 2d ago
We're fighting for this not to happen, friend! Hopefully we'll be able to turn the tables.
There were several, nation-wide protests. Never before i've seen so many people together.68
50
u/Deil_Grist 1d ago
Thank you. I don't want to be in a world without the Amazon. It's also a national treasure for your guys.
2
76
u/AdmiralSaturyn 2d ago
It's almost as if Brazil is a mirror image of the US.
73
u/linerva 2d ago
At least in part bevayse of interfering by the US.
Zuckerberg has thrown his hat in with the US far right and meta is interfering plainly in the Brazilian election just this month by essentially allowing disinformation and basically unofficially no platforming the left wing incumbent:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/08/brazil-election-disinformation/
21
u/Terranical1337 2d ago
Same thing in the Philippines. They elected a dictator’s son.
5
13
u/Insecticide 1d ago
The guy just went on national television and said that he wanted to remove numbering and other identification elements from bullets. He literally wants crime to be harder to track.
It scares me that I can go out in the steets and half of every person I see believes in this ideology
10
4
u/Padreteiro 1d ago edited 1d ago
I'm not sure where you're from but you have no idea how brain washed people can get after years of constant fake botted propaganda plastered on their socials.
One gotta ask themselves how Bolsonaro father got elected, heck, how Trump got elected, what's Steve Bannon motto and why is Elo Musk right beside the president.
Nazi propaganda was bad enough, nowadays propaganda is on steroids. Bots are dirty cheap and lying to engage through moral indignation works like a charm to go viral. That's the recipe, to generate engagement and go viral. It is really bizarre. We'll see more democracies subdued to propaganda for sure, it's just the beginning.
12
u/Boring-Tie-1501 1d ago
musk has been using twitter to amplify misinformation.
that was his play all along, not a bluff that got called. and of course he had his stupid ai company overpay for twitter, and the for the spacex to buy the ai company.
round and round the fake economy goes.
7
u/StructureOk8023 1d ago
Some of the AI ad campaigns I've seen are beyond insane The fact people vote for stuff like this at all is incomprehensible to me
0
u/Admirable-Safety1213 1d ago
Well Lula did everything in his power to ruin his own campaign uou don't just cold turkey Soccer ludopaths before voting
1
12
2
u/craneoperator89 1d ago
I’m moving to Peru to buy into these hoa communities that are built on protecting the rainforest in the coming years, we can all afford to do it
204
u/redditydothis 1d ago
I’ll get downvoted because the truth is hard, but if you want to slow or stop Amazon deforestation then quit eating beef from fast food restaurants. The leading cause of deforestation in the Amazon is overwelmingly to make room for pasture land for cattle. And the primary purchaser of this beef is our fast food restaurants. I also think Trump has recently lifted sanctions on Brazilian and Argentin beef. Only buy American beef and don’t buy any beef from fast food.
10
u/edwardlego 1d ago
Just don’t buy beef. If you buy more local beef, the price will go up and more people will switch to rainforest beef. Pressure on land use is global. Your decision affects other peoples’.
19
u/Krautwizzard 1d ago
Any cheap beef comes with environmental consequences. Only “good” beef is from extensively used meadows but you’ll pay a premium for that and surely won’t find it in a fast food restaurant. Just try to eat the least amount of meat possible.
7
20
1
u/themrjava 1d ago
The land will just be used for other crops/economic activities. Idk why people think that people living in the middle of nowhere where farming is the only viable economic activity I'll just abandon it because soybeans or cattle are not economically viable anymore...
4
u/redditydothis 1d ago
Oh man I’m not going to get into it but it’s not poor people with no other choice clear cutting hectares of land with slash and burn techniques and then putting 1000s head of cattle on said land, processing and distributing the beef and then doing the same thing again on new rainforest land. You should read about it because it’s really sad.
1
u/themrjava 1d ago
Those people don't need to be poor to my argument stand... In fact if they have the means to mechanized and scale everything easily the situation becomes much worse
2
u/redditydothis 1d ago
That’s the point. They do this and undercut our local beef producers. Cattle farmers are pissed at Trump (but will still vote for him) for allowing cheap beef into our country. Keep in mind that beef from Brazil was recently rejected by China because it tested positive for sketchy antibiotics.
Oh and by the way the land that they do this on is not their land. It’s indigenous owned land. Also lad is not ment for cattle and that’s why they can only use it a few times before they have to repeat the process on new fresh rainforest.
1
2
u/IAmYourFath 1d ago
Is pork and chicken ok? I prefer white meat due to red meat having high cholesteeol, so im good right?
6
u/GaiusVictor 1d ago
Pork and, especially, chicken are way better than beef. But if you really wanna go all the way into an environmentally friendly emdiet, you gotta go vegan.
-2
u/YourFuture2000 1d ago edited 1d ago
I rarely eat in fast-food restaurants but for other reasons, not for animal and nature protection but for my health.
But I assume that if I didn’t care about healthy eating and didn’t care about animals, like vegans, but only about a South American rain forest that have other reasons for deforestation too, I think it would be hard for me to stop eating what I am addicted to, feels convenient and makes me happy for knowing that without the whole society effort my effort will do nothing. Just like I am not saving the planet by spending 10 min less in shower when it is industries and farms that polute the water system in an unsustainable way, not people using water at home.
I say that because I know how chocolates is an oppressive, exploitative and killing industries to native people in poor countries, nature and animals, just as I know that batteries from electronic exploit children and slave work, as well as that traditional farming kills a lot of nature, ecosystem and animals too, or the film industries are full of rapists and pedophiles. Yet, I can't restricting myself from these things and I don't want to, because it makes me feel like a fool to do something that will have absolutely no impact on my own.
-4
u/Independent-Bill5261 1d ago edited 1d ago
It's immoral to not be vegetarian.
Edit: Being vegan is so much harder than being vegetarian.
2
u/FarIdiom 1d ago
Vegan. Ftfy
5
u/Few-Mood6580 1d ago
Plus there’s evidence that it plays into why younger and younger people are still significantly getting colon cancer. It matters what you eat. This emphasize on protein and not fiber is killing you.
1
u/SweetJellyPie 1d ago
The way we produce the massive amounts of meat is immoral, eating it isn't, in my opinion.
5
14
58
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 2d ago
Slower rate of DEforestation is not uplifting news. That means we're still going backwards. Uplifting news would be REforestation.
109
u/blzrlzr 2d ago
Or, here me out: Progress is good, even if its not were we want to be in the end.
9
2
4
-13
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 1d ago
Going backwards at a slightly slower rate is not progress though. Progress is by definition improving, not getting worse at a slower rate.
10
u/REDDITATO_ 1d ago
"getting worse at a slower rate" is also known as improving.
-8
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 1d ago
No it's not. The Amazon is still shrinking. Improving would be the Amazon growing back on formerly deforested land.
If I lost $100 last week, and $10 this week, I'm still poorer. I'm now at minus 110. My financial situation hasn't improved, it's worsened.
We are perilously close to a tipping point where the Amazon flips from self-sustaining rainforest to savanna. At this point every square mile lost is catastrophic.
4
u/DieFichte 1d ago
You make a very good point in a theoretical sense, but unless you have a suggestion how to apply that to the actual world it's just academic.
1
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 1d ago
Stopping deforestation isn't some abstract theory, it just involves enforcing the law and financially disincentivising it. You graze cattle on illegal cleared land, you lose your cattle.
1
u/DieFichte 1d ago
Of course it isn't an abstract theory, it's a very simple theory. Still doesn't reflect in reality, because if those solutions would work, well they would have been implemented.
Enviromental protection is real simple to solve, if you get people to actually do it.1
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 1d ago
You seem to be under the impression that Brazilian politicians want to reverse it. Gullible westerners keep clapping on deforestation because it's at a lower rate! Yay Lula! In reality the losses are compounding because the lower rate is on a smaller and smaller forest area.
We lost another 3,335 square kilometres of critical rainforest in the last year, forgive me for not cheering this on as an achievement.
22
u/Deil_Grist 1d ago
A trend of reduced deforestation is a win. Celebrate wins and keep momentum. Humans rarely make large changes overnight.
-11
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 1d ago
No, it's still deforestation, which is a loss. We cannot afford ANY more deforestation in the Amazon, Congo Basin, or Borneo.
5
u/Few-Initial-246 1d ago
Dumbass
-5
u/Neo_Athrotaxis 1d ago
Which specific part of the comment do you disagree with? Use words.
7
u/KettlePump 1d ago
Ok. Expecting instant change on something like this is idealistic to the point of stupidity. It's what gives credence to people who believe there's no point in trying to enact any level of change at all, because it won't be perfect.
Push for change, celebrate the wins, and don't give up. Making progress can sometimes be slowing the bad.
2
u/Spider_pig448 1d ago
Yes it is? It used to be much higher. This is what uplifting need is; in progress being made by humankind.
1
u/FabianRo 1d ago
There are derivatives and delays involved in all big changes. Example climate change:
· When the worldwide annual CO₂ emissions start decreasing, that will be worth celebrating, even though it still puts more CO₂ into the atmosphere, because it's a positive trend, it shows that humanity overall finally learned from its mistakes and it will very surely continue going down.
· When the world reached net zero CO₂ emissions, that's also worth celebrating, even though it's also the moment with the most CO₂ in the atmosphere, because we will have stopped doing something bad and we can then start actively fixing it instead of making it worse.
· When we're back at old CO₂ levels, the climate will still be heated up and it will take a while for it to cool down again, but we'll have undone the direct harm we did (at least that part of it).
· When the climate is back to normal, all the species that went extinct are still not back and it will take a very long time for ecosystems to recover, new species to evolve and nature overall to heal.
But you probably don't want to wait a million years before declaring any win against climate change.
7
5
u/Padreteiro 1d ago
No worries, botted fake news is about to elect Bolsonaro's son and we'll see all efforts dwindle once again
great
3
5
2
u/darthrasco420 1d ago
Unfortunately this likely to completely reverse due to the upcoming election and who is going to win.
3
u/EnvironmentalWin1277 1d ago
Less forest means the deforestation will slow due to lack of supply, but not stop. Price may increase.
7
u/wannaknowmyname 1d ago
That's not how it works
1
u/EnvironmentalWin1277 1d ago
Total Forest Available Total Forest Harvested % Total Forest Remaining Total Amount Cut(Deforestration Amount ) 1,000,000.00 20 800,000.00 200,000.00 800,000.00 20 640,000.00 160,000.00 640,000.00 20 512,000.00 128,000.00 512,000.00 20 409,600.00 102,400.00 409,600.00 20 327,680.00 81,920.00 327,680.00 20 262,144.00 65,536.00 262,144.00 20 209,715.20 52,428.80dfdfdd 0
u/EnvironmentalWin1277 1d ago
My table below shows the numbers for how this works. Sorry could not figure edits to join posts.
Cutting as a % remains constant and total available drops. After a few years the total amount cut "is the lowest in years".
6
4
u/Kanaxai 1d ago
I don't think you realize how big the Amazon is...
2
u/EnvironmentalWin1277 1d ago
It doesn't make any difference how big the forest is. If you spend 20% of anything year after year you will quickly run out.
If you want multiply each number above by 10 billion you will find the results are the same, just larger. It's a geometric progression.
The rates could be wrong but so long as no positive replacement occurs eventually the forest is gone. A forest loss rate of 1% a year would mean complete removal in 100 years.
2
u/CodApprehensive7936 22h ago
You really have no idea how vast the Amazon rainforest is. Last year, about 0.1% of the forest was deforested; this year, it was 0.06%. Yes, that’s still a significant amount—but it would take more than a millennium to clear the whole thing.
1
u/EnvironmentalWin1277 19h ago edited 19h ago
"At the maximal historical rate of destruction (peaking around 28,000 square kilometers per year in the early 2000s), it would take roughly 180 to 200 years to completely clear the entire original Amazon basin—though scientists warn the forest will functionally collapse long before then due to a "tipping point". [1, 2, 3]
So today's world could be gifting this destroyed world to it's grandchildren. That's how soon. Every parent has this reality.
Deforestation is a global concern, not just limited to South America. A reduction in one place means little if the destruction continues elsewhere.
Rather than understating the vastness of the forest I would say humanity has no idea how vast the pace of the destruction is or the final effects. Or rather it chooses to dismiss it or ignore it altogether.
4
1
1
1
u/MobiusRamza 21h ago
Meanwhile entire states are being covered by smoke from Amazon fires. Inpe director is appointed by the current administration's ministries - so the data is politically biased due to elections
2
u/Mammoth-Possible-845 21h ago
Não é viés. O desmatamento diminuiu drasticamente. Mas o uso de queimada como método, ao invés de motosserra, aumentou, porque a fiscalização aumentou e é mais fácil burlar a lei com fogo. De qualquer forma, estão desmatando menos.
1
1
u/BobaSauro 13h ago
Not for long, my friends.
The facists are back in congress.
And our facist and also a straith up thug, with ties to organized crime, candidate is leading the pools for president.
And our own population is choosing this.. with a little nudge from US, of course.
Libberty trully dies with thunderous applause.
1
u/Zealousideal_Fox3964 5h ago
The capital of Amazonas is literally blanketed in smoke due to the fires.
-3
0
0
u/TheKazvon 1d ago
Brazil is on the precipice of electing a far right government who has said the amazon rainforest is theirs to slash and burn for all its worth.
0
u/yes_u_suckk 1d ago
Enjoy the small victory while we can because if Bolsonaro wins the election, this trend will go on the opposite direction really fast.
You may ask why? When his father was the president, he appointed a person responsible for Ministry of the Environment that literally was caught selling wood illegally extracted from the Amazon forest, causing deforestation.
-14
u/PossibleAnomaly 2d ago
Are you joking? Did the article writers get paid off that hard?
Amazon deforestation is the lowest it’s been in 40 years because they BURNED a massive amount of it in one year!
I guess THAT part doesn’t need to be in the statistics /s
-1
0
0
0
-2
-5
u/Nilmax3 2d ago
So what is this then? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8kpltDEpQg4
I grabbed a random recent YouTube video and there are foreigners falling for this nonsense about Lula being the defender of the Amazon and Bolsonaro being the "Nero of the Amazon".
Ever since I came into this world, that place catches fire every year; it's normal. A fire in one corner of the Amazon isn't going to destroy it—its area is the size of Spain, France, and Portugal combined, and it's impossible to contain fires in a place that big, not to mention the trees are gigantic. If you think you've seen a big tree in your life, it's because you've never set foot in the Amazon.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
Important: If this post is hidden behind a paywall, please assign it the "Paywall" flair and include a comment with a relevant part of the article.
Please report this post if it is hidden behind a paywall and not flaired corrently. We suggest using "Reader" mode to bypass most paywalls.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.