If you're curious you could have googled something like "rate of growth of amazon deforestation". If you would, you'd have seen in the summary of the 1st result from Wikipedia: "The annual rate of deforestation in the Amazon region dramatically increased from 1991 to 2003." The title of the third result is: "Brazil: deforestation in the Amazon increased 29% over last year". So if you want to dismiss an idea that you had, maybe step outside your head. If you want to draw historic correlations maybe don't try to do so based on completely different examples. There are very few South American issues on which I'd use U.S. historical data points for which to draw forward looking conclusions. Military growth? Energy policy? Monetary policy? Natural resource utilization? I wouldn't for any of those. But you boldly chose,,, deforestation?
If you're gonna try to sound smart by dismissing something out of hand, then be smart. But for the love of god don't trivialize deforestation just as climate change is in the beginning stages of getting really, really bad, based on some half baked hunch you have, and then suggest I read some 64 page document that has, more than likely, no value add to the discussion.
(Sorry but not sorry for the tone. Trivializing this issue is not ok. The logic was not correct. Patronizingly suggesting I read a 64 page doc, like a professor handing out homework. This is climate change, and the arguments were weak to wrong.)
> If you're curious you could have googled something like "rate of growth of amazon deforestation". If you would, you'd have seen in the summary of the 1st result from Wikipedia: "The annual rate of deforestation in the Amazon region dramatically increased from 1991 to 2003." The title of the third result is: "Brazil: deforestation in the Amazon increased 29% over last year". So if you want to dismiss an idea that you had, maybe step outside your head. If you want to draw historic correlations maybe don't try to do so based on completely different examples. There are very few South American issues on which I'd use U.S. historical data points for which to draw forward looking conclusions. Military growth? Energy policy? Monetary policy? Natural resource utilization? I wouldn't for any of those. But you boldly chose,,, deforestation?
The numbers also dropped off significantly in 2009 and the latest figures seem to jive with my back of the envelope math. The "football pitch per minute" level quoted in the article is is below the averages for the past decade.
> If you're gonna try to sound smart by dismissing something out of hand, then be smart. But for the love of god don't trivialize deforestation just as climate change is in the beginning stages of getting really, really bad, based on some half baked hunch you have, and then suggest I read some 64 page document that has, more than likely, no value add to the discussion.
> (Sorry but not sorry for the tone. Trivializing this issue is not ok...
Being outraged does not give any additional credibility to your opinion. Far from it.
> ... The logic was not correct. Patronizingly suggesting I read a 64 page doc, like a professor handing out homework. This is climate change, and the arguments were weak to wrong.)
I linked to an article that lists out estimates of the timber resources of the USA over the past 100-years. It seemed relevant to me as, though it's not apples to apples to compare any two countries across the globe, it's more relevant than arbitrarily claiming any level of cutting is going to end the world.
If you're gonna try to sound smart by dismissing something out of hand, then be smart. But for the love of god don't trivialize deforestation just as climate change is in the beginning stages of getting really, really bad, based on some half baked hunch you have, and then suggest I read some 64 page document that has, more than likely, no value add to the discussion.
(Sorry but not sorry for the tone. Trivializing this issue is not ok. The logic was not correct. Patronizingly suggesting I read a 64 page doc, like a professor handing out homework. This is climate change, and the arguments were weak to wrong.)