Amazon Rainforest

5% of our oxygen comes from this region. And it’s burning up.

The G7 pledge to fight and repair - $22 million.

The total pledge for Notre Dame in first 24 hours - $1 billion.

A Leonardo DiCaprio-backed fund is pledging $5M.

So one evil horrible Hollywood leftist is putting up a little more that a 1/4th the amount that the G7 is willing to commit.

Oh... and the Amazon region of Bolivia is burning also.

seen one rain forest you've seen them all

Funny...


...but not true... one example: the rain forests of the Amazon are very different from the rain forests of the Pacific Northwest.

Well it looks like we have a climate skeptic in charge over there, who has defunded environmental expenditure by 95% in favor of development, and who now refuses any monetary assistance, (or at least until certain conditions are met).

So corporate greed trumps acceptance of science and long term well-being. Where have we heard that before?

And apparently God’s “place” is more important than his creation.

1) I just heard that Trump complimented Bolsonaro

2)
International political opponents of Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and their media allies are cynically exploiting and exaggerating the impact of the fires in the Amazon to demonize the ‘Trump of the Tropics’.
... from RTNews

You should know by now that I'm not a denier.

These fires have been going on for years. This is the most fires "ever recorded" - if I remember, they've only been keeping track for like 15 years or so.
Fires were bigger back in the 70's-80's (?) before the recognition and conservation began.

So, yeah it's probably a little more critical, partly because of the environmental predicament we are now finding ourselves in.

However, it's irritating when you see wrong information from the major media - I presume to make things sound worse - If it bleeds, it leads ....
The "Lungs of the Earth" give us 20% of our oxygen!"
(I know Leon, you said 5%, which sounds more correct)
(if memory serves)
The Amazon gives us about 16% of the O2 produced by LAND plants. And overall land plants produce about 1/2 the O2 for the Earth (and it's more than just plants) - the rest is from oceans/algae/plankton
However - It also absorbs about half of that back with it's own fauna.
So "20%" is misleading...

And I'm sure there are other things going on that push the environment...

So just curious why this now?

... and it'll be something else, later ....

That's the way that it goes.

So, if we're burning down 20% of the O2 producers,

and with our hunting, fishing, pollution, and poisoning - killing off 20% of the consumers ....

Isn't that a wash?

... Oh yeah, the pictures that are being spread around on social media is another thing...

Yes.

All good points.

I was reading an article not long ago (sorry no link), that had a name for this sort of hyperbole... something about the two extremes being more and more extreme, with the "hope" of moving "things" back to the center.

Kind of like crying wolf or saying the sky is falling so people will be more aware of their surroundings....

It doesn't work.

We'll wait until the wolf eat our children, then we'll ask Why Didn't You DO Anything!!??!!

The chickens were already eaten... by a coyote, a fox, an owl and a pack of marauding raccoons.

I have evidence.

20% certainly sounded horrible, and it was actually a relief to me to read that it was just 5%. I really do want climate change addressed and fixed and it is not an issue to use as a political tool for me. I don’t care who it is, what political party is, or what the solution is, just that it gets done. If Trump decides that he needs to endorse the Green New Deal to get re-elected, I’ll vote for him in a heartbeat. I’ve also gone on record as saying nuclear energy proliferation and carbon capture technologies are two solutions to embrace, both talking points usually found on the right, among those who agree that something needs to be done anyways.

Yes, the 20% was a misinterpreted figure - don’t know where exactly it came from, or care. What’s more, it isn’t even the oxygen that is important, is the process of photosynthesis that takes away CO2 in converting it to oxygen that is important here. In this process, the Amazon absorbs 5% of the Earth’s CO2. Take away the Amazon, and it’s that much more net CO2 we are then adding to our already excessive carbon output.

Then there are the millions of species dependent on the Amazon, not even taking into account all the species dependent on those species, including neighboring forests, as well as the climate cycle it all dictates, and so on, and so forth, in our ever-connected food chain. The elimination of the Amazon would wreck havoc on all of that, and that’s a gross understatement.

I read somewhere, even an elimination of 40% of the Amazon would reach a tipping point and barrel us towards the inevitable above. We are at 17%, and that was before the fires began.

So, yes, it is still an emergency.