Has Brazil fully industrialized? With a per capita GDP of less than ten thousand dollars and a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US) I'd say not yet. The west is trying to kick the ladder out from behind them.
Well, if we believe the climate science, then continuing on that old ladder isn’t good for Brazil or anyone else in the world. The goal is to figure out a way to decarbonize economic growth, so that we’re not closing the door on the developing world, but rather providing new avenues for growth.
If the west truly cares about solving the problem of climate change, then we have to accept that we’ve benefited disproportionately from ignoring the negative environmental externalities of our wealth expansion, and pay countries to protect natural resources that benefit the world.
It should be more lucrative for brazillians to protect their forest than it is to burn them down to grow animal feed.
I mean... I am just a random internet person but I've spent a great deal of money to make my commute not use a single drop of gasoline. My house also is a net positive in energy production. It'll take a while to offset the production of the items I had to buy but I have a horizon of a couple of decades - and they'll be recyclable afterwords.
More to the point though is it isn't A) US has to fix itself or B) the developing world needs to be mindful of how it develops - it's both. It's perfectly possible to be "Holy shit guys, the US needs to change how it consumes!" and be like "Holy shit, the developing world needs to change how humans have developed historically!" Hopefully, we'll get back on track in 2020 nationally on A...
I can only make changes by being politically active and making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others. I do these things, but don't have the power to force systemic change.
It looks like the Brazilians are doing a better job at that than you are. All I'm trying to say here is we aren't really in a position to wag the finger at anyone. Least of all the people of Brazil.
What good is industrializing recklessly going to do for Brazil or any other developing nation when climate catastrophe destroys all of those GDP gains and more, causes food crises, destroys trillions of dollars of coastal real estate, and causes climate refugee crises? This is not a case where any country is going to benefit from ignoring climate change for more than a few decades.
Climate catastrophe is going to hit the lower GDP nations the hardest, because they're starting with less capital to adapt and mitigate the effects. All they'd be doing by developing carbon intensive economies is flooring the accelerator towards the cliff.
At any rate, it's a false dichotomy. With the current state of renewables, countries like Brazil, India, China, and Nigeria can continue to industrialize with clean energy and skip coal-based industrialization. They can also develop cities and infrastructure to support mass transit much better than some other nations did.
> a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US)
It's 10% of the population, about a quarter of GDP, so not "mostly". Brazil is usually put into the Newly Industrialised Country category. It has quite a bit of secondary sector giants too.
Fair enough. I didn't look up Brazil specially but I am familiar with the rates in the region and assumed they were similar.
Western countries have not eliminated a quarter of their GDP to prevent climate change, shouldn't they do that before telling those much poorer than they to do so?
Stopping the deforestation isn't going to affect the GDP at all, let alone slash a quarter of it.
Keep in mind that the deforestation is purely caused by the livestock industry trying to squeeze profits. There are other ways to produce meat that don't involve invading and burning forests.
According to the government, in 2017 only 5,7% of the GDP is directly related to agriculture and livestock production [1]. And according to an industry website livestock was responsible for only 31% of that [2].
The rest of that "one quarter" is related to processing and distribution, which can happen in urban areas closer to the southeast, far away from the Amazon, and those things don't benefit at all from the deforestation.
And the processing/distribution industry could exist by itself without local production, as proved by places like Hong Kong, the largest importer of Brazilian beef. [3]
By the way, the biggest producer of beef in Brazil is the state of Sao Paulo, which is on the other side of the country, not at all related to Amazon. [3]
So nope. Stopping the Amazon deforestation RIGHT NOW won't even make dent in our GDP.
If this is so inexpensive why not agree to pay producers the costs incurred for not engaging in the practice plus a small fee if they don't engage in deforestation? They would be stupid to turn down free money and given so many people are concerned and the total amount being so low this measure could be funded by donations easily. This could be handled in a few days if what you say is true.
Because those people are operating outside the law. It's not as if we know who they are.
It happens to be a crime here in Brazil to invade lands and burn preserved areas. People should and have been arrested for it.
The deforestation is purely a political problem, this has nothing to do with economics as you've tried to portray here.
--
Btw, by "political problem" I mean that the government was outright saying that the deforestation and fires "are normal" [1], or they're accusing NGOs of starting the fires [2], or even denying external help to avoid the fires in Amazon [3].
The current position of the government is different, however. Now is that the fires should be stopped, and the army has been sent to Amazon to arrest people. [4]
And that was thanks to both external and internal pressure. Why did it took so long? Because there were too many criminal apologists trying to justify why burning the country was needed. But it wasn't.
A lot of hackers I read about have a great deal of bravo about things like this. Yeah sure you found a vulnerability in a companies API and got something for free. What I look forward to see is his next hack, where he somehow gets past the part where the company sends men with guns to his home to throw him in jail. Hopefully he can use the free rides to go someplace without a extradition treaty.
Really he only managed to hack a small portion of the system and ignored the societal safeguards that are far more robust.
That's the beauty of crowd-sourcing. Fee free to use words that seem right, and if it turns out that there is a slight adjustment to be made, everyone learns for free.
Your view of modern republicans is outdated. Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We simply see the rampant corruption in government and propose it is a better solution to limit governmental power as opposed to increasing it.
If I were to paint democrats in a similar manner they would all be bike lock wielding liberal arts professors and that would be unfair.
The difference is that these things are written into Republic party platforms and are not merely the views of individual Democrats, and the average Republican voter absolutely picks up on this. Thus, even if bureaucrats considers themselves Republican, they appear to be Democrats to these voters.
"religious individuals and
institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public
debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door."
"The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific
institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy."
> "religious individuals and institutions can educate young people, receive government benefits, and participate in public debates without having to check their religious beliefs at the door."
That's not directed to science. It's directed to the separate issue of public education being a vehicle for eliminating religion from childrens' education, and replacing religious social values with government values developed by education boards. It's a legitimate concern when the government is deciding how you socialize your kids, and leaves you few avenues for opting out. (Also, it's a model that's by and large uncontroversial in most of Europe.)
As to your second quote, it appears 10 pages later. Is there some sort of connection you're trying to draw between the two?
That seems a little post hoc and doesn't mention teaching creationism in public schools. I get there are things in there that people disagree with but I was looking for the point made previously. Simply citing a large document and not having read it isn't arguing in good faith.
I don't live in Texas in 2012, so that isn't part of my parties platform. I suppose you agree with every element of every state democrat platform ever published. Well post Jim Crow of course.
> Many Republicans are non-religious like myself and align themselves closer to the views of the founding fathers. We simply see the rampant corruption in government and propose it is a better solution to limit governmental power as opposed to increasing it.
Surely the nomination of Donald Trump in 2016 should call into question how large of a subset of the Republican party this represents.
Republicans wouldn't elect the Trump that Democrat media outlets show, they would elect the Trump that Republican media outlets show. Listen to a Republican describe Trump and you'll hear about someone a sane person could plausibly vote for. Would a Republican vote for a womanizing Russia-serving friend of Epstien? No way! A charismatic business-oriented people's man? You bet!
Probably not. I grew up during Clinton’s “welfare to work” and continuing Reagan’s deregulation and trimming federal employment rolls. I always thought it was ridiculous that Republicans called Democrats “socialists.” Now when you have the crowd boo-ing candidates for saying socialism isn’t the answer, I’m not sure Republicans are wrong about what Democrats want. Maybe it was just the shadow of Reagan and Newt Gingrich that kept things on the rails for a couple of cycles.
Those booing crowds don't even know what socialism is and have likely confused it with Scandinavian-style social democracy. I can count on one hand the number of actual socialists I have ever met in the US, so that position is absolutely fringe.
The Democrat you're referring to never owned any Uranium to sell.
> whose husband is a womanizer and of a very good friend of Epistein no less.
A fault of association with a womanizing friend of Epstein vs. a fault of actually being a womanizing friend of Epstein's does not seem like a very strong reason. The real reason they voted for Trump is the R next to his name.
Millions flowed to her foundation before the sale, too. Claiming she was paid for that deal is conspiracy theory lunacy, no different from Biblical creationism and climate science denialism. https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/
So you desire that conservatives be victimized while proclaiming that they have no reason to feel like victims? Does your intent to victimize them not count?
There is an example on creating a bullet chart in Excel. It starts with bar chart, which simple and easy to do and read. It then go through many steps to abstract and obscure some the information, to get to a chart that the author find more appealing. I don’t. I think a bar chart as more space and is more zen, while his chart feels crowded. Unless you start with only 3 bars, in which case it looks fine and doesn’t obstruct any information.
An unusual chart to convey simple information, and requires explanation, is a poor way to visualize your data. Only make a unique visualization if necessary to convey unique data. So, as you said, here just stick with the bar chart!
