Amazon deforestation, is it bad? Watch

MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#1
As we all know the Amazon has been suffering deforestation, and we hear the usual 'lungs of the earth', and 'global resource' bandied about, but what are the facts?

Well, the Amazon might well be only a few centuries old, because the crazy thing is, that deforestation has exposed thousands of old towns and villages, that once supported a population of millions, who farmed the land:

https://time.com/5218270/amazonian-c...d-mato-grosso/ "Ancient civilisation in the Amazon"

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/n...omputer-model/ "Amazon once home to millions"

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ons-of-people/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...asin-peak.html


I bet the media isnt telling you this as it spreads doom and fear mongering about climate change.
1
reply
Ellim
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
I bet the media isnt telling you this as it spreads doom and fear mongering about climate change.
Time, National Geographic, New Scientist, and the Daily Mail aren’t exactly small local media, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to Fake Outrage than no one is talking about this and also it makes not a single bit of difference to climate change as a post-Industrial man made phenomenon.

I wish the national and international news were spreading more doom about the effects of climate change, because it is a very real threat that needs to be taken far more seriously by the media and politicians.
2
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#3
(Original post by Ellim)
Time, National Geographic, New Scientist, and the Daily Mail aren’t exactly small local media, so I’m not sure why you’re trying to Fake Outrage than no one is talking about this and also it makes not a single bit of difference to climate change as a post-Industrial man made phenomenon.

I wish the national and international news were spreading more doom about the effects of climate change, because it is a very real threat that needs to be taken far more seriously by the media and politicians.
I didnt exclude any media, small or large, and the outrage is non existant. Just pointing out how half truths and outright lies are peddled by the media and most people fall for them,

Such as, climate change. It isnt a threat at all. In fact CO2 only causes mild warming and a large increase in plant growth, if you look at the actual facts and ignore the lies (in the media).
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 2 weeks ago
#4
Small scale farming done my little tribal units is vastly different to the post-industrial revolution massive scale farming with chemicals, though.
2
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Drewski)
Small scale farming done my little tribal units is vastly different to the post-industrial revolution massive scale farming with chemicals, though.
Oh, I wasnt looking at it from that perspective, although that is an interesting point (but in fact the chemicals are beneficial, we wouldnt have anything lie the food we do today with out fertiliser), I was thinking about the loss of forest and the 'lungs of the earth' angle, ie, the 'without the Amazon we are all going to suffocate because there will be no more oxygen' scare story we are told, and have been for a long time.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 2 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh, I wasnt looking at it from that perspective, although that is an interesting point (but in fact the chemicals are beneficial, we wouldnt have anything lie the food we do today with out fertiliser), I was thinking about the loss of forest and the 'lungs of the earth' angle, ie, the 'without the Amazon we are all going to suffocate because there will be no more oxygen' scare story we are told, and have been for a long time.
Some chemicals are good, yes, and if we're being really pedantic, everything is a chemical.

But there are some that, while improving initial yields, prove harmful to both land and living things over time.

There's a happy medium to be found.

And no, those comments are hyperbole. It's not going to be that bad.

But you've got to add in the cumulative deforestation that's happened globally as well. The Brazilian rainforest was one of the few enormous areas left relatively untouched, while the rest of the world cut their trees down.
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 2 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Oh, I wasnt looking at it from that perspective, although that is an interesting point (but in fact the chemicals are beneficial, we wouldnt have anything lie the food we do today with out fertiliser), I was thinking about the loss of forest and the 'lungs of the earth' angle, ie, the 'without the Amazon we are all going to suffocate because there will be no more oxygen' scare story we are told, and have been for a long time.
Deforestation also leads to soil erosion. Where do you think that Carbon in the felled trees goes?

Climate change is happening and IS a major threat to mankind, particularly poorer countries, although the rich are not immune. Sea level rises are already a major issue.
1
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Drewski)
Some chemicals are good, yes, and if we're being really pedantic, everything is a chemical.

But there are some that, while improving initial yields, prove harmful to both land and living things over time.

There's a happy medium to be found.

And no, those comments are hyperbole. It's not going to be that bad.

But you've got to add in the cumulative deforestation that's happened globally as well. The Brazilian rainforest was one of the few enormous areas left relatively untouched, while the rest of the world cut their trees down.
Well, with the Amazon only a few centuries old, and UK forests now back to 1380 area, for example (and this is true in many developed countries), is the world actually short of trees? Perhaps in the developing world. I guess as we have modernised and got on to fossil fuels, nuclear, etc, and made farming so efficient, with chemicals, we just dont need the land.


Did you know that Holland, and get this, it will stagger you, is the second biggest food exporter, in the world, after the US, in GROSS TONNAGE!!!!!

Dont you find that incredible? I was amazed when I heard it. They have such efficient production they can even sell frozen chicken to Nigeria cheaper than they can raise them locally! Holland putting chicken farmers out of business in Africa
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Deforestation also leads to soil erosion. Where do you think that Carbon in the felled trees goes?

Climate change is happening and IS a major threat to mankind, particularly poorer countries, although the rich are not immune. Sea level rises are already a major issue.
Well, the carbon in the felled trees normally ends up in expensive furniture, if it is good timer. Or used for local building, or if it is junk just burned.


Soil erosion. No, deforestation does not lead to soil erosion. Look at the soil in Europe, is it eroded because we deforested 1500 years ago? If the soil is not bound by any kind of root system, doesnt have to be trees, and is not bounded by physical barriers (to wind or rain), then it can erode.

While CO2 is a GH gas, and does cause warming, it doesnt cause that much warming. Actually it is very mild warming, less than a degree C for doubling it (we added 45% already), and with it's huge impact on plant growth (it has already made the planet much greener) it is a net benefit, particularly to poor countries, as their crop yields go up.

Sea level rise has been an issue for thousands of years. We have coped with it so far, we will continue to do so.
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#10
Report 2 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Well, the carbon in the felled trees normally ends up in expensive furniture, if it is good timer. Or used for local building, or if it is junk just burned.
What happens to it when it is burnt?

(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Soil erosion. No, deforestation does not lead to soil erosion. Look at the soil in Europe, is it eroded because we deforested 1500 years ago? If the soil is not bound by any kind of root system, doesnt have to be trees, and is not bounded by physical barriers (to wind or rain), then it can erode.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/threat...nd-degradation
(Original post by https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation)
The transition to agriculture from natural vegetation often cannot hold onto the soil and many of these plants, such as coffee, cotton, palm oil, soybean and wheat, can actually increase soil erosion beyond the soil’s ability to maintain itself.

Half of the topsoil on the planet has been lost in the last 150 years. In addition to erosion, soil quality is affected by other aspects of agriculture. These impacts include compaction, loss of soil structure, nutrient degradation, and soil salinity. These are very real and at times severe issues.
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
While CO2 is a GH gas, and does cause warming, it doesnt cause that much warming. Actually it is very mild warming, less than a degree C for doubling it (we added 45% already), and with it's huge impact on plant growth (it has already made the planet much greener) it is a net benefit, particularly to poor countries, as their crop yields go up.

Sea level rise has been an issue for thousands of years. We have coped with it so far, we will continue to do so.
Why do you think that you know better than the scientific community? Clue: You don't.
Last edited by RogerOxon; 2 weeks ago
2
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by RogerOxon)
What happens to it when it is burnt?


https://www.worldwildlife.org/threat...nd-degradation



Why do you think that you know better than the scientific community? Clue: You don't.
When burnt? It goes into the carbon cycle. Probably ends up in crops on your plate.

Yes, when it isnt managed properly the soil erodes. How is that not what I said?

One simple technique is to put little rock dams up in the fields. They dont need to be that high. Just enough to stop water flowing across the field and taking the soil with it.
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 2 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
When burnt? It goes into the carbon cycle. Probably ends up in crops on your plate.
Wrong. It goes into the atmosphere. Defoestation leads to less carbon being trapped in plants.

(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Yes, when it isnt managed properly the soil erodes. How is that not what I said?
You said:
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Soil erosion. No, deforestation does not lead to soil erosion.
Deforestation, particularly in poor countries, is not responsible, or sustainable, land management. That's why there's so much more every year.

(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
One simple technique is to put little rock dams up in the fields. They dont need to be that high. Just enough to stop water flowing across the field and taking the soil with it.
You know what works best? Leaving the sodding forests!
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Wrong. It goes into the atmosphere. Defoestation leads to less carbon being trapped in plants.


You said:

Deforestation, particularly in poor countries, is not responsible, or sustainable, land management. That's why there's so much more every year.


You know what works best? Leaving the sodding forests!
Yes, and plants take CO2 from the air. You do know this of course.

Deforestation by itself does not cause soil erosion. If it is replaced by something with a tight root system and good ground coverage, such as grass, the soil will be bound.

You get problems where you have large areas between crops where the soil is bare. As I said, this can be corrected by putting low dams in fields to trap the water.

So who are you to live in a country that deforested the hell out of it for thousands of years, and then tell the peasant farmer in some third world country he cant do the same?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#14
Report 2 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Yes, and plants take CO2 from the air. You do know this of course.
Yes, but not if we chop down the trees!

(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
So who are you to live in a country that deforested the hell out of it for thousands of years, and then tell the peasant farmer in some third world country he cant do the same?
The people who know better, who can educate, and who those countries turn to for aid, food, medicine and money...
Last edited by Drewski; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by Drewski)
Yes, but not if we chop down the trees!
Well, the CO2 goes into all kinds of plants. Man made CO2 has made the planet 20% greener


(Original post by Drewski)
The people who know better, who can educate, and who those countries turn to for aid, food, medicine and money...
So you want the third world to be permanently dependent on the first?
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 2 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Well, the CO2 goes into all kinds of plants. Man made CO2 has made the planet 20% greener




So you want the third world to be permanently dependent on the first?
If they can't learn from our mistakes, what good are we?
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Drewski)
If they can't learn from our mistakes, what good are we?
Does anyone ever learn from others mistakes?

Best thing is to let them modernise as quick as we can. The sooner they catch up, the sooner they will have less impact on the earth.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 2 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Does anyone ever learn from others mistakes?

Best thing is to let them modernise as quick as we can. The sooner they catch up, the sooner they will have less impact on the earth.
And part of modernising is not doing the same **** we did 100 years ago...

...because we've learnt from our mistakes.

Doesn't matter how you dress it up, it amounts to the same thing.
0
reply
RogerOxon
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 2 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
Well, the CO2 goes into all kinds of plants. Man made CO2 has made the planet 20% greener
Your logic is flawed. Any effect on vegetation is not enought to stop the rise in CO2. Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is, therefore, reckless.

(Original post by MonkeyChunks)
So you want the third world to be permanently dependent on the first?
We should be helping them to develop without the damage that we have done. We should not be trading with countries that abuse the environment.
Last edited by RogerOxon; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
MonkeyChunks
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by RogerOxon)
Your logic is flawed. Any effect on vegetation is not enought to stop the rise in CO2. Putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is, therefore, reckless.


We should be helping them to develop without the dmaage that we have done. We should not be trading with countries that abuse the environment.
I am not saying it does all go into plants, but a lot does. Anyway, the more there is the greener the earth gets, increasing CO2 is a good thing.

I agree, we should tackle real pollutants, and produce much more CO2. This is the best outcome for the environment.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (10)
18.87%
Labour (27)
50.94%
Liberal Democrats (5)
9.43%
Green Party (5)
9.43%
Brexit Party (0)
0%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (0)
0%
SNP (2)
3.77%
Plaid Cymru (0)
0%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (1)
1.89%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (0)
0%
UKIP (2)
3.77%
Other (0)
0%
None (1)
1.89%

Watched Threads

View All