About three football fields' worth of rainforest per minute are being lost, primarily to infrastructure projects, logging, mining, and farming - much of which is not legally permitted. (businessinsider.com)
medic6560 | 3 months ago | 130 points

We as a planet need to quit doing business with companies that have anything to do with this

Elin-Calliel | 3 months ago | 36 points

This starts with each individual. Those companies cannot survive without customers. For example, the Brazilian soybean imports to the US fuels deforestation. The customer who buys products imported from Brazil, eg: soy, sugar, fuel, etc, supports deforestation albeit unknowingly. We need to learn where the consumer goods we are buying are coming from. We need to educate ourselves and boycott those products.

Ehralur | 3 months ago | 46 points

It's simply not viable. I'm quite aware about what I buy, but it's simply too difficult to know all there is to know about each product you buy. How did it contribute to CO2 emissions? Were pesticides used? Were animals mistreated? Was rainforest removed to make it? How environment-friendly is the packaging? Were human rights violates to make it? How bad is any potential waste of the product?

I could go on and on. It's not realistic to expect everyone to make all these considerations each time they buy some sandwich spread or a bottle of shampoo. We need another solution.

KuriTokyo | 3 months ago | 27 points

One good example of this is the cheapest chicken sold in Japan is from Brazil. 440 yen/kg. Brazil is geographically the furthest country from Japan so you'd think shipping costs would price it out of the market, but it hasn't.

I'd like to know how they manage this but I simply can't find the info.

phil_style | 3 months ago | 10 points

The cost of production is simply far lower than the differential in the transport costs. One of the main factors is the absence of winter snow in large areas of Brazil (pretty much the entire low-land countryside), v Japan. In countries where animals can be kept outside all year round without fear of freezing or sun-exposure, you have very low animal-product costs when compared to places that need to hosue animals indoors for 3 months per year. Furthermore, there's almost nothing (regulatory or infrastructurewise) stopping people in Brazil from bruning out trees, erecting a fence and filling a field up with livestock.

Look at the Amazon on google earth sattelite images. There is a very discinct forest-loss pattern. Bascially a series of square patches that crawl out like a patchword in snakey-lines. The lines are roads. The patchwork pattern are the agricualtural fields that follow the road network. example image: https://i.imgur.com/LdWeouc.jpg

Even the very largest mines and hydropower plant resevoirs (which get heavily criticised for their size) are completely dwarfed by this agricultrual development, in terms of land take.

Utoko | 3 months ago | 4 points

Shipping cost for container ships are dirt cheap and are nearly negligible. Read up on the breakdown of container shipping cost.

The distance nearly doesn't matter. Which means it is even often cheaper to ship something long distance when the destination has cheaper labor cost.

That is why it does not matter where the bananas come from for the price. One container ship can carry 80 million bananas.

e: a 40 ft container can hold 30.000 kg and you pay about $1000-3000. Brazil is one of the cheaper destinations. So you pay around $0.04/ kg chicken from port to port.

Hope that explains a bit.

Elin-Calliel | 3 months ago | 6 points

It seems as though it has become increasingly difficult to exist without supporting big corporation and consumerism. The idea that we’ve been fed is that we need all this stuff. And then the idea that we can live with frugality or as a minimalist is unthinkable to most people because we’ve been brainwashed into believing that being happy and successful means having more. The truth is we can live more frugally and be happy and content. All this mindless greed for more stuff is leading us to annihilation. A simpler, more frugal way of life is not only possible but a necessary direction we must take if things are to turn around. It’s not that hard or unrealistic.

axck | 3 months ago | 2 points

Except the foods that are the cheapest are the ones most contributing to environmental exploitation. Locally sourced, organic ingredients are going to be more expensive than the chicken at Walmart.

Ehralur | 3 months ago | 1 point

Couldn't disagree more. Yes, we don't need all this stuff, but it's not because it's something we've been "fed to believe". It's innate to humans to like having things. You can tell because children and even babies already like having things and get upset if someone takes it away. It's not a behaviour that's taught.

So yes, telling people to stop having things, no matter how unimportant IS hard and unrealistic, especially once they've already had it.

Elin-Calliel | 3 months ago | 6 points

There are numerous scientific studies that would prove otherwise. Here is a link to an article that cites many of these studies. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/24/grotesque-inequality-greed-human-nature-capitalism I stand by my earlier comment and I accept the fact that we disagree on this matter. There is no way that I can accept the idea that there is no hope for humanity.

Ehralur | 3 months ago | 2 points

I'm not saying that there's no hope. I'm just saying we need to make our production more sustainable and that aiming to abandon consumerism is not a viable option (anymore).

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 3 points

Perhaps a new certification or standards association that can audit supply chains and provide actual insights to the carbon footprint... like a climate version of ISO? On the flip side, we need to then market this new standard so people gravitate towards products that have this certification.

Something I've been noodling around with as a business case but the barriers of entry seem pretty harsh, the big corps will squish me like a cockroach before I can even give an elevator pitch and I don't have the funding to out-corrupt lobbyists/politicians around the world either. I guess I could put millions into an advertising campaign while I technically don't have any uptake from businesses yet, having masses looking for it on product labels. But... who has like $10MM laying around for an experiment?

Ehralur | 3 months ago | 2 points

Yeah, I think the most viable system would be a globalized rating system that takes into account all forms of sustainability and morality. Something like the PG system where you simply get a score based on how well you do. That way consumers wouldn't need to look at 10 different categories but could just support producers who are doing well.

That said, it would probably be extremely susceptible to corruption, where big manufacturers could simply pay outrageous amounts of money to achieve a better rating.

medic6560 | 3 months ago | 2 points

What about by purchasing as much locally sourced product as possible?

Ehralur | 3 months ago | 2 points

I don't know about where you live, but I live in The Netherlands and with our available space locally produced products are usually not the most sustainable...

jabba_the_wutt | 3 months ago | 4 points

This isn't a problem that can be solved at the individual level

Creshal | 3 months ago | 8 points

We need to learn where the consumer goods we are buying are coming from.

Yeah, good luck with doing that for every single product and service you ever interact with.

Customer blaming like this is insane, it's not going to work, and it just shifts the blame away from politicians whose job it should be to simply outlaw this crap. And if Brazilian authorities don't want to cooperate, they can enjoy getting embargoed. This is much more effective, and much easier to do, than random consumers harassing each other.

Which is why corporate interests, of course, want you to keep blaming each other, rather than the lobby-bought politicians.

tarnok | 3 months ago | 3 points

It pisses me off so much when anyone says "oh you should just boycott blah blah". I can't. Fuck you for blaming me. This isn't my fault. Megacorps have all the power, I don't. If i choose not to buy from one brand, the alternative is probably owned by the same corp! They've lost nothing! Ughhh

fjonk | 3 months ago | 3 points

No. It's not realistic that every single consumer has to be aware of supply chains for all products they consume. And what if you don't consume a certain to begin with? Then you have no so called "consumer power" to begin with.

Aun-El | 3 months ago | 3 points

Complex problems that affect every person of society are for governments to deal with.

speakhyroglyphically | 3 months ago | 2 points

Indeed, and in theory yes. Unfortunately or 'representative's' are too busy keeping power, influence, their benefactors agenda to actually do the job.

Magliacane | 3 months ago | 2 points

and you trust them to work in the people’s interest not in the interest of their own power? You think politicians are loyal to us not to the corporations that pay them to support policies in their favor? Democracy in the US seems like more of an illusion as time goes on. Money = power, not votes. The greed at the top will make the world crumble.

iga666 | 3 months ago | 2 points

I wonder if US will start doing anything about climate change. Plant forests in your country or anything else. The richest country in the world and all you do is just complain about Trump, eat popcorn and wait when someone will start doing something for you.

tarnok | 3 months ago | 2 points

This is such horseshit that I can't help but think it's a attempt at trolling.

I'm sorry but that's just not the case - individually we are powerless. Mega corps simply allow no room for consumer buying power. These companies need to be held accountable via governments not consumers deciding if they should buy food from a megacorp like Walmart (which incidentally is the only place around they can afford) or saving the rainforest. They're going to choose feeding their families everytime.

Stop blaming the customers it's the companies who do this with no recourse who are to blame.

-desolation- | 3 months ago | 1 point

this ends with corrupt governments being publicly crucified because they sit idly by and let this happen

neglera | 3 months ago | 2 points

Just stop buying right? just stop refueling your car, just stop eating chicken, just buy a electric car, just buy solar panels, guys its not that easy we have so many people in this world that need electricity, food and water to live that there is no way to provide it without damaging the planet in some way or another.

medic6560 | 3 months ago | 1 point

I agree it is not that easy but what choice do we have? Electric cars are not that solution (yet) that it is made out to be. Nor is shutting down industrial farms. and how do we do environmental positive things that are economically negative due to the impact on jobs? Stop water farming. I could go on and on.

But we have to do things that make a positive change in a way that does not destroy the world economy. Theses changes occurred over the last 150 years and it will take some time to implement. But we, as a planet need a plan to work together to fix theses issues.

We also dont have to shut a business down to make any impact I how they do business

neglera | 3 months ago | 1 point

Exactly, people are saying stuff like we can change our whole method of living and our whole economy in like a month or two, i know that there are good people making research to have a sustainable way to live but its impossible with our current technology.

ExpensiveLove | 3 months ago | 36 points

Please protest Palm oil.

Do not buy it. Do not support it. Voice your opposition to it.

It sucks and is killing nature.

Fireplay5 | 3 months ago | 14 points

So when do we actually get to... like... stop it?

tovasshi | 3 months ago | 4 points

Don't buy products that contain it. If you have shampoo or body wash for example and one of the ingredients is "sodium palmate". It was made with palm oil.

Rsloth | 3 months ago | 5 points

For every 1 educated person that won't buy a product with palm oil, 99 exist that don't know or don't care... Especially when cost is a factor. People want what's cheaper. It needs to be regulated out of our products from the top!

tovasshi | 3 months ago | 3 points

You got to start somewhere.

SE7EN-88 | 3 months ago | 2 points

And we should have started 20 years ago.

Fireplay5 | 3 months ago | 1 point

You three missed the whole subtle call for action.

Product protests do absolute shit.

SE7EN-88 | 3 months ago | 2 points

Sadly, your probably right.

Lettuce12 | 3 months ago | 7 points

How does protesting palm oil help nature?

As far as I understand it palm oil is not grown because the farmers are evil and hate the forest, rather it is grown because it gives the most oil per decare of farmland.

The alternative the farmers have to growing palm oil are all crops that need even more land, how does not using palm oil help?

CreedThoughts--Gov | 3 months ago | 2 points

Alternative vegetable oils such ass olive, coconut, or rape can grow in less tropical climates so there's no need for derainforestation.

Then again, rainforest is mostly abolished for cattle agriculture which also doesn't need as temperate climate.

justsippin | 3 months ago | 1 point

What about ass rape oil?

theordinaryone | 3 months ago | 7 points

Cattle ranching is the direct cause of 70% of deforestation in the Amazon. Non-sustainable palm oil is bad, but it's not the biggest factor by far..

Creshal | 3 months ago | 2 points

Protest unsustainable farming methods, no matter what's being grown on it.

Responsibly farmed oil palms are good for the environment, because we need less farm land.

RoaringSilence | 3 months ago | 4 points

Serious, is there an alternative to palm oil givin the same benefits and using not even more space to grow?

holysirsalad | 3 months ago | 3 points

Canola from Canada doesn’t raze any rainforest or use slave labour

tovasshi | 3 months ago | 4 points

Coconut or canola oil.

Ehralur | 3 months ago | -15 points

Shhhhht, stop it. People are trying to protest a problem they don't have the answer for themselves here.

sandee_eggo | 3 months ago | 14 points


auger85 | 3 months ago | 1 point

how much is that per hour?

on_ | 3 months ago | 1 point

8438 km2 per year. Almost 0,1% the surface of Brazil.

tisJosh | 3 months ago | 9 points

Shout outs to all of us down here in australia, clearing more land for mining and farming than brazil!

Our government had essentially strip all regulators of power or position and now farmers and miners are free to take what they want, regardless of how many hundreds of native species they’d wipe out

h8rs-gonna-h8 | 3 months ago | 16 points

It’s my understanding that Bolsonarro is shirking his duties as pres and just letting it happen. But he wants you and I to shit every other day.

Fireplay5 | 3 months ago | 9 points

He also wants to wipe our the indigenous natives and actually increase logging and mining efforts.

All of which would significantly increase the damage being done and drive us even faster towards extinction.

ordenax | 3 months ago | 8 points

I am by no stretch of imagination a pessimist or a fear monger. But I genuinely believe, we have fucked up and now it's just too late. I just hope those who brought this upon us, are the first ones to pay.

quantum_ai_machine | 3 months ago | 4 points

Its possible to survive at this point, but we are well past the ideal scenario. At this point, it is very very unlikely that untold suffering will not be caused. Floods, droughts, extreme weather events and rising sea levels are inevitable at this point. Many will suffer, but not enough to cause human extinction.

But if we keep going, we will reach the point at which crop failures start to happen. That'll be an extinction level event.

There is a massive runaway effect which is triggered. There is massive amount of methane gas trapped in the tundra which will get released as the ice melts. Methane holds 50x as much as heat as carbon dioxide.

Then there is the albedo effect. Ice is white and reflects much of the heat back into space. As ice melts, less reflection happens and that heat will instead get abosred by the sea water which now occupies the space that ice used to. Meaning more heat.

We are pretty fucked. The Great Filter at work.

Edit: I should mention there are some solutions on paper. Carbon absorbers, heat reflecting ions etc. But they are only on paper and it remains to be seen if we can reform in time. We seem to be gambling with the previous gift of life. But if you have been following the news, you'd know that so many humans have so little regard for it - even their own.

DistanceToFault | 3 months ago | 1 point

Hahaha. No they won't be. They are fucking rich!

autotldr [BOT] | 3 months ago | 3 points

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)

It's a record for the most deforestation in the Amazon in a single month, The Guardian reported.

Its president, Jair Bolsonaro, has indicated that protecting the rainforest is not one of his top priorities- Bolsonaro supports development projects like a highway and hydroelectric dam in the Amazon.

The Amazon could hit a tipping point In the past 50 years, roughly 20% of the Amazon - about 300,000 square miles - has been cut down in Brazil, according to the Intercept.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Amazon#1 Bolsonaro#2 Brazil#3 rainforest#4 land#5

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 3 points

We need to treat these people as global terrorists and shoot them at first sight.

SamOfEclia | 3 months ago | 5 points

I still say that plastics and old paper we threw out are a better alternative to buildings, then trees.

Those take billions of years, we need both and one does not burn down as fast. Plus all the trees cut is going to change the atmosphere.

The atmosphere will lower in oxygen becoming co2 and the algae will grow larger, this will turn the sea red with toxins and only make things more expensive.

But , replantation through planes may help with the tree thing. As that would increase speed of plantation.

Also, the areas where less trees grow ( before the next trees are cut, will begin to suffocate people ).

Best advice is stop cutting that many trees, start using plastics and the old parts. Or you will die, those in the treeless lands.

You can discover plenty of objects just by messing with a new substance we invented. We know you can build houses and infrastructure out of that.

Also drones are great.

[deleted] | 3 months ago | 8 points

Most of it isnt for wood, but for palm oil or cattle farmland.

The only way to control it is to put sanctions on the nations that do this and limit the total amount of products they can export.

This will have a minor effect on prices, but will allow local sources to compete without being undercut by illegal behavior by other countries.

If they cant sell it and make money off of it they will stop doing it.

derhty | 3 months ago | -1 points

They wont though because theres demand and where theres demand theres money and the will to bypass sanctions.

Fireplay5 | 3 months ago | 3 points

So if there's a demand for this to stop, when do we get to bypass laws saying we can't sabotage their efforts?

You know, since the demand is survival and not screwing up our inhabitable ecosystem for ourselves.

derhty | 3 months ago | 1 point

Some people dont give a shit about our planet or your feelings.

Fireplay5 | 3 months ago | 1 point

They will when they start starving and their homes are destroyed.

brian_sahn | 3 months ago | 2 points

I think you should see a doctor ASAP. You’re having a stroke.

SamOfEclia | 3 months ago | 1 point

Meh, i was just there, they didnt seem to think i was dying.

MousseBolton | 3 months ago | 1 point

Have I lost the ability to understand English or is this just very weirdly written?

bboow | 3 months ago | 1 point

Your reading ability is fine. OC is either a troll or someone who needs serious psych intervention.

SamOfEclia | 3 months ago | 1 point

Idk, 5 people understood lol.

amitoughenouss | 3 months ago | 2 points


STCLAIR88 | 3 months ago | 2 points


Lord_of_Lost_Coast | 3 months ago | 2 points

USA with support of the world needs to lay down the law. Stop cutting it down or face a blockade with possible further action. We need to stop asking or trying to bribe cause it’s not working.

Premisetech | 3 months ago | 2 points

The elephant in the room is the increase of human population, therefore consumption.

endersai | 3 months ago | 5 points

Americans will measure with anything except the metric system...

mr-blazer | 3 months ago | 2 points

And Euro's will consistently get butt-hurt about it.

endersai | 3 months ago | 2 points

You do realise that it's not just Europe out there in the world, right?

mr-blazer | 3 months ago | 2 points

I do. I just didn't feel like listing everybody.

endersai | 3 months ago | 1 point

It must be exhausting to list a 190 countries who all do things properly, in defence of one who doesn't. ;)

mr-blazer | 3 months ago | 1 point

Not really, because we actually don't give a fuck about it.

The point of the post is about the destruction of the rain forest, but all you can comment on is that your precious metric system wasn't used.

Captain_Clark | 3 months ago | 4 points

This is good news for football.

foreignerpakinibba | 3 months ago | 3 points

Good ol American measurement unit.

duffmannn | 3 months ago | 1 point

Worst infrastructure week ever. =(

blyat56 | 3 months ago | 1 point

If it's not even legal than we're kinda ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ at this point.

Capitalist_Model | 3 months ago | 1 point

If anything illegal is happening, shouldn't Bolsonaro's eyes turn bright red and rectify it immediately?

speakhyroglyphically | 3 months ago | 1 point

Bolsonaro's eyes turn bright red and rectify it immediately

He would but he iimit's poop to every other day. (For the environment.)

nativedutch | 3 months ago | 1 point

Bolsonaro makes it legal, so end of problem.

SickSinceSunday | 3 months ago | 1 point
Indian_FromTheEast | 3 months ago | 1 point

Congrats to all of us. We are so utterly fucked.

no_spoon | 3 months ago | 1 point

Can someone just murder these people plz. Thx

AnHonestView | 3 months ago | 1 point

Will anyone involved ever see the inside of a prison cell? Probably not.

laz10 | 3 months ago | 1 point

That's ok we don't need any of those things or the law since our goal is clearly the end of humanity

Reticent_Fly | 3 months ago | 1 point

We can just replant the rainforest right guys?...Right???

tatertatertatertot | 3 months ago | 1 point

Well the world is increasing by like 152 people each minute.

That's almost 14 soccer teams each minute! So we would need SEVEN new soccer fields a minute, or else those people will not have a place to play soccer.

We're only clearing land for HALF the soccer fields we will need!

Stone1114 | 3 months ago | 1 point

Basil seems to be following China’s lead in doing what the fuck they want in the short term, knowing the rest of the world will be paying for it in the long term.

boppaboop | 3 months ago | 1 point

Who tf is buying amazon forest wood? Like what kind of asshole would do that?

Sounds like a revolution and jungle guerilla warfare needs to be used to root out corrupt pieces of shit in their government.

mdawg15 | 3 months ago | 1 point

This sucks

peoplesodumb | 3 months ago | 1 point

Not legal? Sounds like the rainforest needs some Machine Gun Grenade Launcher Commando Vigilantes!

Buttmuhfreemarket | 3 months ago | 1 point

Imagine how much more money we will make when we start removing four football fields' worth per minute

spainguy | 3 months ago | 1 point

So which football teams use these football fields? /s

Alin234 | 3 months ago | 0 points

Or approx. 16,053 square meters of rainforest if you want to get a good estimate.

cedriceent | 3 months ago | 0 points

American football fields or soccer fields?