Illegal Amazonian logging increased fivefold

[AuroraGlacialis]

Brazil | Rainforest | Deforestation | Illegal Logging

Brazil’s environmental movement suffered two major setbacks last week when a gunman shot and killed a leading rainforest activist and the Congress passed a bill that environmentalists believe will trigger another wave of Amazon destruction.k I cannot exist.”
...
“Brazil woke up today to the news of the murder of an Amazon rainforest defender and went to bed with the news that the majority of our MPs back the murder of our forests,” lamented Greenpeace’s Amazon director, Paulo Adario.
...
But new satellite images show that in March and April this year nearly 593 square kilometers of forest were razed — an increase of more than 470 percent compared to the same period in 2010.
...
Of greatest concern was the northern part of the soy-growing state of Mato Grosso, where the highest jump was recorded.
“It was a very quick act — in 20 to 30 days there was an enormous volume of deforestation,” said Curt Trennepohl, the president of Brazil’s environmental protection agency, Ibama.
...
“This year the technique was completely different. They used the rainy period and used heavy tractors attached to big chains … destroying the whole forest,” Trennepohl said. “It was a shock to see the return of such a highly predatory technique.”
...
As Jatene spoke, about 2,000 angry and tearful protestors marched through the streets of Maraba, toward the city’s cemetery to witness Silva’s burial.
...
As the coffins were lowered, a group of mourners held up a spray-painted banner.
“The forest cries,” it read.
Disclaimer: "..." means I omitted parts of the original text. Read the full text to know more.

The forest cries indeed.

[HufweMakto]

The continued destruction of the rainforest and yet the news outlets don't mention a shred about the disapearing natural resources/habitats that sustain our Earth.

[CyanRachel]

Oh this is such sad news, Aurora!

What can be done?

[AuroraGlacialis]

Cyan, I don't know. This kind of thing is not even something one can write letters or sign petitions for because it is already prohibited. It probably thrives simply because of the economic system as it is and because there is corruption involved. As long as these people can make a profit by selling the wood or charcoal to other countries or use it for the own industry and as long as the demand for agricultural cropland (for cheap food, clothes, biofuels) rises, there will probably always be people doing these things.

I know in some places there are stewards in place to protect forests, but that is usually only so in either privately owned forests (usually because the owners want to do the logging themselves) or in national parks and often these are underfunded so they cannot really have an eye on all the forest all the time.

Its really sad - I am sad - because these things and others happen all over the world and at times I feel that at least some of these events happen more often all the time. And with the rise of the crisis at hands (this years food supply is predicted to drop by at least 2% due to droughts and floods in Texas, Central USA, Europe and China) I am really afraid that things get worse. - and what makes me really angry is that people do not even seem to notice or that they simply buy into seemingly easy technological fixes.

[FoxGhost]

How about handling these loggers the same way african park rangers handle poachers? Sure they officially try to arrest them but quelle suprise far more die 'resisting arrest'.They don't kid around. It's a harsh treatment but when respect for law and nature fail to deter anyone then maybe the fear of death will make them have second thoughts.

[tm20]

this is a bit off topic but here it goes: has there been any reseaarch done into growth hormones for trees? isn't there something that can accelerate the growth so these trees can be cut down more often for paper? and if so can't they setup a colony of these trees so their engineered genetics doesn't mix with the natural population? it's just that cutting down these normal trees and waiting for them to regrow seems inefficient. not only that but i have a feeling that not alot of recycling gets done in this world. im no expert, i don't read too many papers and don't know statistics of these issues so feel free to input information.

[Tsyal Makto]

The problem with that is that many of the areas being cleared are being cleared to become cattle farms, so trees never grow back period. Plus, too, even for paper production, an ecosystem doesn't recover as soon as trees are planted again. It takes years, decades, for other species in the ecosystem to recover fully to clearing, and by then, it's time for the trees to be cut back down again. The solution is in composites and other wood/paper-replacements, as well as reusable "paper" that can be printed on over and over. Plus, further use of electronic media, and composite construction materials to replace wood in construction. That way, wood production can be limited to farms completely seperate from forests.

And let's not forget overpopulation. I think Amazon deforestation is the pinnacle example of the problems of overpopulation. 7 billion human mouths need meet, 7 billion mouths need paper, 7 billion people need land and construction materials. I think before anything we need to get our numbers under control, as well.

But good luck either way. Both because people continue to spit out progeny at an expontential rate, and because of the organized crime thugs that are Big Ag, and other big industries that rape the Amazon for profit. The Brazilian government is currently working on legislation that will ease deforestation regulations, and will give amnesty for those who clear the forest illegally. I wonder what corporate pimps were pulling the string on that one?

[AuroraGlacialis]

Replacing forests with tree farms solves not much in the end. Basically I see forestry the same way as agriculture mostly. Of course people are already building tree farms massively - Germany has a lot of "forest" that is actually tree farms. They consist of fast-growing trees that can be harvested frequently. To throw in growth hormones or GMO trees or just fertilizer may make them grow even faster. But already they are susceptible to the same problems as other agricultural landscapes - pest infestation, climate change, weather events, massive loss in biodiversity. They may then require pesticides, herbicides and extensive menagement. The fast grow in monocultures makes the trees more suspectible to storms and fires and weakens them so they get infested by bugs and funghi. And removing the trees without giving back the products that come out of it depletes the soil there as well as it does in agriculture. Same same.
Now there might be sustainable forestry practices but they would certainly be less productive.

The idea of tm20 if I get it correctly is to "sacrifice" some parts of the landscape to save the rest. That idea is fantasy I believe. If it would be followed, it would not be the worst of ideas - to set aside a small part of the landscape for agriculture and tree farms and let the rest be. But that is not how it works - not with this economy and culture. Because in this culture every way to increase efficiency is in the end not used to actually save resources but to increase wealth and standard of living. It is called "Jevons Paradox". What happens is, that if you start to allow cutting down forests to replace them by tree farms that are more productive, you not only deplete that part of the land, you also increase output and profit. So people can then buy wood cheaper, use it as firewood or for more paper, which is then sold cheaper as the resources are more abundant and in the end the demand will rise enough for all of the increased production to be consumed and the demand for more tree farms comes up because suddenly people who never used toilet paper can afford it now and do want to keep it. Just as one small example.
So the big problem is not how to use resources more efficiently, but how to prevent the rising demand. Increasing efficiency does not really solve the problem, at best it prolongs the time the problem does not become apparent, at worst it creates massive overshoot as it happened with agriculture. There are now too many people on the planet that would not be there if it was not for an increase in efficiency of agriculture by using fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides. So now that population depends on these technologies but still has (because of Jevons Paradox) reached the limit of using all arable land. The food crisis was not averted but only shifted from the 1970ies to the 2010s where it collides with peak oil (the source of energy fueling the "green revolution").
Generally to produce more of anything (wood, food, energy) as a reaction to an increasing demand is relieving stress, but is no long term solution. Sadly most often however this part is the focus of all attention - how to make more of anything or how to be more efficient so that more of it is used in a better way. None of that adresses the underlying problem that overall the demand rises despite all that measures because of the myth of infinite growth being possible on a finite planet - or more generally because of the idea of perpetual growth as something desireable.

Think of it - any living being will grow but at some point it becomes an adult and stops growing. Humanity would if it wants to continue existing have to become a grownup and stop growing - not just in terms of population but also in terms of consumption. If it does not and actually promotes perpetual growth, it becomes like bacteria, like a "the blob"-monster or a cancer or if you have seen "Stargate SG1" the "replicators" (all of which grow until they consume everything).