It is at this level we get such gems as “Capitalism is the best means of protecting the environment.”
This crossed my mind the other day when I came across a little article in the Herald detailing the areas of the Amazon Basin that had been cleared over the past few years. The rub of the article was that 2004 apparently was the highest year since the Brazilian government placed “restrictions” on the clearance of the area in 2000/01.
For the record, the area cleared in 2004 was approaching 26,000 sq kilometers. That is an area roughly 160 km square, or as I understand it, about the same size as Belgium.
Now in the past that would be chalked up in my brain as “same ol’, same ol’ ” on the basis that it was the landless poor out to do their best that were clearing the bush. It turns out not so.
The greatest increase in clearance took place in Mato Grosso.
But then this morning, my breakfast was rudely interrupted by this little piece of news…
The ruthless obliteration of the Amazon rainforest is continuing at a headlong rate, new figures reveal. The man who more than any other represents the forces making it happen is Blairo Maggi, the millionaire farmer and uncompromising politician presiding over the Brazilian boom in soya-bean production. He is known in Brazil as O Rei da Soja - the King of Soy.
Now, that name did not ring anything beyond “strange coincidence” until I read just a little further on in the article where I meet up with –
Half the destruction alone was in the state of Mato Grosso, where Maggi, whose Maggi Group farming business is the world's biggest soya bean producer, also happens to be the state governor.
No, there is no connection to the Nestle Group…
But, to those few who might pass this way and who believe that “Capitalism is the best means of protecting the environment.” this is a supreme example of environmental protection by capitalism.
Oh, the market for the soy? It sure is not soy sauce!
Stockfood.
So, there y’go. Capitalism is turning all of that wasted, tree and snake infested wilderness into truly wonderful productive country that produces an excellent and cheap stockfood supplement.
8 comments:
But Greenpeace's Amazon co-ordinator Paulo Adario said the scale of the destruction was a tragedy, and showed that deforestation "is not a priority for the Lula Government".
The level of emotion seems disproportionate to reality.
Maggi, whose company grossed US$600 million ($846.7 million) last year, does not see the future as one of restricted soya plantings. He has called for a tripling of the amount of land planted with soybeans during the next decade.
The wealth created in this endeavor is circulated (invested or spent), rather than buried in a pit. So, much needed jobs are created, as Maggi surely doesn’t get his own hands dirty.
How many jobs do you reckon? 1,000? 10,000? 25?
You obviously have no concept of what is happening here.
26,000 sq km, an area the size of Belgium, was cleared LAST YEAR.
And to put that in perspective, that is something like 17% of the total area of the Amazon Basin.
Well, in your mind, Robert, I guess this ranks alongside of global warming - just another of those urban myths.
Do you think that Maggi, or yourself, will be able to pay for the damage if you turn out to be wrong?
Check out this article: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1086279/posts
The government is in the way down there. The entrepreneurs just try to get the Government out of the way.
Another myth is that they are clearing the rain forest for soybeans. That's not true. They are clearing scrub bush, grass and snakes. Even so, the government requires them to leave 20% of the land in its original state. They leave this along the rivers and riparian areas of smaller streams.
If you are an investor and you buy land for farming, you have five years to clear it and begin generating a crop. If you don't, the taxes go from $2 an acre to $30 an acre. If you do clear it and raise a crop, the government gets a percentage of the crop value -- about 6.5%.
Farther north, in the real Amazon, there are some acres of rain forest being developed. But up there the environmental rules are tougher, and you must leave 50% of the original land in its original state.
On the other hand, take a look at the picture on the second to last comment. Though those problems weren't caused by soybean production.
Stuff like that used to happen here.
Al, try here -
http://www.aebrazil.com/highlights/2005/mai/20/57.htm
""It should be made clear that areas of under 300 hectares are the responsibility of Ibama (the Brazilian Environmental Protection Agency), a federal government inspection body," said Maggi.
"In 2004, areas of up to 300 hectares and therefore the responsibility of Ibama, saw deforestation on a total of 748,000 hectares", he added.
As for areas of over 300 hectares, which are the responsibility of the Mato Grosso government, 890,000 hectares were deforested. Of this total 400,000 hectares were deforested legally, that is, with correct licensing. The remaining 490,000 hectares were illegally cleared and were appropriately fined by the Mato Grosso government, he went on.
These fines totaled R$ 77 million (approximately $30 million) in 2004, with 94.8% of illegal clearing activity thus fined.
Maggi went on to say that when he became state governor in 2003 only 1,587 rural properties had environmental licensing and that over 2003 to 2005 4,793 properties received licenses. He said this means a greater monitoring and control of clearances.
At present 15 million hectares have this licensing, of which 11.1 million hectares were granted by the Maggi government."
On that basis, the fines constitute about USD34 per hectare. I would imagine that would not take long to recover...
and here -
http://ifcln001.worldbank.org/IFCExt/spiwebsite1.nsf/2bc34f011b50ff6e85256a550073ff1c/2669ef337ceccab785256bb40073e7a7?OpenDocument
Oh, and to add to the perspective just a little, the 15 million hectares mentioned at the end of the article is 150,000 sq kms or 6 times the area in the original report I mentioned...
How do you characterize the Brazilian government? I suppose it could still be an inept kleptocracy on its way to becoming a full-blown fascistic oligarchy. Although they look to be at a cross-roads really. I'd say they look like they may be on the verge of rising above the old level of corruption, and when they do, they'll clean up their messes.
In the meantime, they'll put our farmers out of business and make a complete joke of our efforts toward biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel), forcing the proponents of biofuels to insist on protectionist measures that will send us on the way to fascism.
Then charges will be trumped up and we'll have to invade them to save the rainforest.
I want to make a few comments.
First off, the premise of this post is based on a straw man arguement.
Conservatives do say, after a fashion, that "“Capitalism is the best means of protecting the environment.”
I have never heard any argue though that Capitalists never abuse the environment or that there should be no environmental regulations. What is argued, is that wealth and economic development naturally lead to higher environmental standards. A lot of this is due to the simple fact that having a clean environment is seen as a luxery, something to worry about after you have food and clothing and shelter. Rich countries can afford luxeries, poor countries cannot. In addition, modern infrastructure, even the worst examples like dirty coal plants, is more efficient and less polluting that individual efforts (the asian brown cloud, cause mostly by individual dung fires for example.) Lastly, it is argued, that capitalism is the most effective method to produce wealth.
I also find your facts to be unlikely. In one of the comments you claim that 17% of the Amazon Basin was cleared last year, earlier in the post, you claim that last years total was the highest since 2000.
Lets look at those two 'facts' for a moment. That would mean that in 1999, more than 17% of the rain forest was cleared. Lets call it 17% though. That means that in those two years, over one third of the rainforest was destroyed. Lets then imagine that in the intervening 4 years (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003) they managed to reduce deforestation to half of what it had been previously (an unlikely achievement to happen so quickly.) That would mean that another third of the rainforest was destroyed in those for years. This means that since 1999, we have destroyed 2/3 of the rain forest.
Of course destruction of the rain forest was happening before 1999, presumably at high levels as well. Lets say that the four years before 1999 were only half as bad as 1999 was. That would be another third of the rainforest right there. Since it is now apparently all gone, it seems your post is too late to solve this problem.
Obviously this is not the case. The Amazon Rainforest is considerably larger than 6 Belgiums. That does not mean that Rainforest destruction is not a problem, but getting the facts on the problem right is important if you want people to take your arguments seriously.
Question: What economic system is better for the environment?
Post a Comment