SPECIAL REPORT-Is the Amazon near a tipping point? Three real-world studies are ominous

[CousinIT]

https://apple.news/AH0jCiANwTSSV6BBrKVeW2Q

. . .

Some scientists fear we are nearing a point of no return in the Amazon rainforest, which exerts power over the carbon cycle like no other terrestrial ecosystem on Earth. Evidence is mounting that in certain areas, localized iterations of irreversible damage may already be happening. Reuters has tracked three decades-long observations of the region to give a real-world view of degradation once only predicted by computer simulations.

. . .

A family that has farmed this once-lush part of rainforest for almost 50 years. A scientist couple who have monitored thousands of individual trees for decades. And an atmospheric chemist who has collected air samples from far above the canopy for years. Their perspectives reveal the long-term impact of deforestation: on rainfall, on the remaining forest and on global emissions. Taken together, they show the dangerous extent of the changes wrought on the world's largest rainforest, and a possible glimpse of things to come.

Even as science learns more about the far-reaching impact of destruction that began many years or even decades ago, deforestation has surged under President Jair Bolsonaro, who supports further opening the Amazon for mining and agriculture. Last year, an area larger than Lebanon was cut from the rainforest, and though preliminary data for 2021 points to a slight year-on-year decline, deforestation remains at a level not seen in Brazil since 2008.

Ecologist Paulo Brando, one of the leading scientists studying the changing health of the Amazon rainforest, sums it up: "There's a limit to how much shit the system can take."

. . .

“This is the border of the Amazon, its protective wall, and it’s dying.” -- Ecologist Ben Hur Marimon Jr.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Where is it said that any nation, thanks only to its arbitrary borders, has the final say in the...

future of the planet?

Brazil should not have the ability to cut down the Amazon just because it is there. It is the property of the Earth.

[Dial H For Hero]

2. What should be done to stop them, then?

[TreasonousBastard]

3. This was part of the point of the UN. Otherwise, quite simply, war, as was the answer throughout...

history.

War, however, was normally not proposed for any particularly noble causes (no matter what the Pope claimed the Crusades were to accomplish) but for simple greed-- either for riches or power. Or both.

In more recent times, as Stalin was reputed to ask "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

And when we fought Spain for the Philippines "to bring Christianity to the Natives", yet another Pope asked what about the natives already converted after hundreds of years of Spanish rule?

As long as the ability to go to war can be declared by the losing side, we are doomed to repeat this losing pattern.

[CousinIT]

4. Seems the UN or some such body could take control of some areas most critical to human survival

These areas need to be controlled internationally and blocked from profit-driven destruction by any one leader.

[Dial H For Hero]

5. How likely is the UN Security Council to authorize such wars?

Because military action is what would be needed to accomplish that.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. They can't be stopped. We pretty much have to accept that the Amazon is doomed.

[Irish_Dem]

6. I guess we have to decide if we want to survive as a species.

If we do, then we have to take appropriate measures to do whatever it takes.

This will require some bravery and thinking outside the box.

[CousinIT]

7. Two things humanity are not capable of. n/t

[Irish_Dem]

8. I agree, not looking good that humans can pull off fighting climate change.

We cannot even successfully fight a global pandemic, the will to do so is just not there.
And a big chunk of people actively fight common sense health measures.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. We'll survive as a species. Maybe just not so many of us, or in the manner to which

we have become accustomed.

Sadly, many, many other species will not survive, but biodiversity tends to bounce back after a few million years. From the macro perspective.

I think the Amazon is probably doomed.

[Irish_Dem]

12. Yes there could be a drastic reduction in the number of humans and quality of life on this planet.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I'll mourn more for the extinct species.

If I'm still around.

[Irish_Dem]

14. Yes some animals may be gone for good. Or take a long time to re-populate.

Right, we may or may not be around to witness it.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. Many, maybe most, will be gone for good.

We're heading into a mass extinction, or already in one.

[Irish_Dem]

16. The wealthy know this, that is why they are hell bent on terraforming Mars.

And why they could care less about stopping climate change.
They have an escape pod.

[Crunchy Frog]

17. They won't find the accommodations on Mars to be very comfortable.

If that's their plan I think they're going to be disappointed.

[Irish_Dem]

18. These are people who are used to getting what they want.

They think if they can throw billions of dollars at a project, all will be fine.
Or they think they can build safe havens here on Earth.

But the wealthy who are building space stations and space ships obviously have something in mind.

[Dial H For Hero]

20. No one alive today is going to live on a terraformed Mars.

It would take centuries....at least.

[Irish_Dem]

21. Maybe not terraform then, but some sort of livable habitation.

[Dial H For Hero]

22. Even the most optimistic habitations on Mars in the next century won't be nearly was comfortable

and/or luxurious as a compound one could build here on Earth for less than 1% of the money. This will still be the case even in a worst-case climate disaster.

No one is seriously contemplating Mars (or anywhere else off planet) as an "escape hatch".

[marie999]

9. There will be plenty of wars when there isn't enough food to feed the White people.

There are always small wars being fought but nothing compared to the food wars that will take place.

[Irish_Dem]

19. And fighting over territory that is habitable. Land with water and livable temperatures.

[MineralMan]

23. In the early 1980s, I was working as a woodworking project designer

and writer for various magazines. One of my unbreakable principles was never to specify or use tropical hardwoods for the projects I designed. All were designed using domestic hardwood species, since no deforestation was involved in the production of oak, walnut, ash, maple, birch, and fruitwoods.

I built all of those projects, photographing the process, doing detailed drawings, and writing DIY instructions for them.

If asked to design something that used a tropical hardwood, I simply said no. Since they were readily available in the hardwood lumber market, often for less cost than domestic hardwoods, it was a fairly common request. Even then, though, I could point to a number of research studies that showed the damage to rainforests caused by clear-cutting designed to open up land for agriculture in Brazil and many other rainforest areas.

I convinced several magazines to make that a policy for their woodworking projects. It wasn't much, but that was important to me.