Michael Duffy interviewed James Smith from the BBC, on ABC radio earlier this week, about his documentary ‘Battle for the Amazon’, which will be will be screen on SBS TV tomorrow, Sunday 23 April at 8.30pm.
Duffy remarks at his website:
“In the 1970s and 1980s, environmental campaigners sounded the alarm about deforestation in the Amazon and the impact it would have on the planet’s ecoystem and climate. We were told an area of the rainforest the size of Belgium was being destroyed every year. By now you might expect there’d be no trees left.
But the documentary … reveals that 87 percent of the rainforest remains untouched. Deforested areas have not turned to desert, but productive farm land. So, has the scale of environmental threat caused by the logging of the rainforest been overstated?”
I’ll be watching the documentary tomorrow night.
You can hear the interview by clicking here.
—————————————
Update Monday. The doucumentary referred to 83 percent, not 87 percent, of the rainforest being intact.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
One of the threats to the forrest is, paradoxically, “Green activism”. The EU switched massively away fron US sourced soybeans to buy largely Brazilian soy. This was supposeldly to avoid US GM animal feed (although the Brazilian soy was partly (~25%) illegally GM. This market switch created a significant extra pressure on clearing of forrest for soy cropping, and for several years now the Brazilian soy output has boomed. Much better to have continued importing US soy from the prairies.
CSIRO are working to find an alternative source for Omega3 oilsl fish stocks are being depleted. Their aim is to use GM to grow the oil on land http://www.csiro.au/csiro/content/standard/ps3u,,.html
Will greenies protest at the conservation of fish stocks via a GM product?
James Smith (documentary maker) says now there’s approx 80% of Amazon left. He said although the doc knocked the enviros their warnings served a good purpose by helping to arrest the destruction that was moving at a rapid pace in the 70s and 80s. So the Belgium comparison may have been correct and still leaves 80% of the forest. How much should be kept then? He says rapid deforestation continues.
The documenter did seem a bit uninformed about the local sociopolitical situation though, he assumes a trickle-down effect to the shanty towns occurs, although I’ve read research that does not support this assumption. Brasil has one of the highest rates of income and wealth inequality in the world. He was delighted with the warm hospitality of the latifundio farm owner but he wouldn’t surprised if knew of latin ways and he shouldn’t have let this influence his doco (perhaps he didn’t, but why was it so noteworthy? Did he expect the biggest farmer to chase him off the property with a dog & a gun?).
Questions:
a. IF rates of deforestation have fallen since 70s & 80s, why, and what caused this? (Do we have the greenie warnings to thank? Is post by Jen a thanksgiving to green activists?)
B. Who buys the bulk of Brazil’s soy beans? China, the biggest importer of soy – a far greater force than Europe. This growing trade partnership sees China having the biggest impact on the Amazon, not Europe. And didn’t the US recently have poor crops of soy – another factor driving the move toward buying Brazlian soy?
c. After clearing this land is quickly leached of nutrients and requires lots of fertilisers – is an integrative approach taken to protect the ecosystems? Are smallscale farmers moving land regularly?
d. How much of the ‘forested’ land includes degraded, illegally cleared and farmed land? (Has the world been mislead by misleading satellite images of cleared land?)
e. Does it matter if we lose biodiversity in the Amazon?
f. Has rainfall in the Amazon basin changed lately? If so, why?
Pinxi,(=Thinksy?)
Responding to some of your Questions:
“a. IF rates of deforestation have fallen since 70s & 80s, why, and what caused this? (Do we have the greenie warnings to thank? Is post by Jen a thanksgiving to green activists?)”
Well I’m sure activists has achieved much good, but they need to also consider unintended consequences too: the problem raised by unintended harms is relevant to other topics (Kyoto, GM food, Banning DDT) too where sadly the poor in the developed word bear the brunt of ininded harm promoted by rich country activists)
“B. Who buys the bulk of Brazil’s soy beans? China, the biggest importer of soy – a far greater force than Europe. This growing trade partnership sees China having the biggest impact on the Amazon, not Europe.”
Well yes trade from China does have an effect but the big shift in European trade was very substantial adding to this effect. Doesnt this mean there is extra reasions for the EU not to ban US soy imports for arbitrary reasons?). The Chines demand for feed is largely to improve diets of poor people, but the European demand for Brazilian soy is driven by emotions fanned by irrational hysteria, largely “Green” activist sourced, in the interests of rich subsidised EU farmers. There is a morality difference here.
This issue does however highlight another common activist view that agriculral yield improvements are no needed today because the world supposedly has enough food, when the practical reality is there is a very direct TRADE based link between better harvests everywhere outside Brazil, better crop technology everywhere, and LESS pressure on the Brazilian rain forest (because, this clearly reduces demand for imports from Brazil). Despite this issue being bought up over many years, about the only time it has been discussed by a prominent “Green” activisy is when George Monbiot recently came to the realisation that biofuels (biodiesel, ethanol) have a downside when it comes to demand on land.
I see this as denial, caused by unwillingness to realise a cause based on moral righteousness can do unintended harm.
“And didn’t the US recently have poor crops of soy – another factor driving the move toward buying Brazlian soy?”
No. The latest US soy crop is an all time record yield see for instance
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/us-cotton-posts-record-crop-2005-soy.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/ge-gm-expert-charles-benbrook-comments.html
Just where did you get your factoid on low soy performance from Pinxi/Thinksi?
“e. Does it matter if we lose biodiversity in the Amazon?”
“Biodiversity” is just one measure of the value of the rainforest. It’s a catchall word that has many meanings, and is not sacred, but yes, there should be a comprehensive future outcomes based effort to manage Brazilian rainforest better , and it should include all the realistic drivers of change, including trade factors.
“f. Has rainfall in the Amazon basin changed lately? If so, why?”
Again, if it has changed for the worse, isnt that even more reason not to add to pressures for relatively trivial reasons?
We now have Greenpeace jumping on the Amazonian bandwagon, saying that “Fast Food giants like McDonald’s are trashing the Amazon for cheap meat. Every time you buy a Chicken McNugget you could be taking a bite out of the Amazon.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190947,00.html
On a global scale McDonalds have successfully provided a cheap quality food to the masses of ordinary people, a feat that GreenPeace have yet to achieve.
Interesting story rog.
Greenpeace is arguing that McDonalds is responsible for rainforest destruction because it buys chickens fed on soybeans from northern Brazil. What the article didn’t say was that McDonalds and other companies in Europe are sourcing soybeans from northen Brazil as this is the only large source of non-GE soybeans available on the world market. The other main exporting countries, Argentina, USA and Paraguay do not segregate GE from non-GE soybeans – neither does southern Brazil.
Some time ago we had had a campaign where Greenpeace lambasted Inghams in Australia and New Zealand over using GE soybeans.
See:
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/features/features_details.html?site_id=45&news_id=1386
Inghams eventually backed down and now imports soybeans from northern Brazil, so they will be GE-free.
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/features/features_details.html?site_id=45&news_id=1605
It is indeed ironic that Greenpeace activism is contributing to pressure on the Amazon rainforest.
Is there a specific or clear point detribe in your loose generalisation about ‘activists’? Did the exactsame ‘activists’ who warned of deforestation in Brasil in 70s & 80s cause unintended ‘harms’ in ‘Kyoto, GM food, Banning DDT’ etc? Gee those activists get around. Which harms did they cause (including the local Brasilian activists on the ground) and what’s your balanced scientific reference to show their unintended harms exceeded the benefits? You’re blending different people, times and issues into an unhelpful generalisation and taking a one-eyed view (only ‘activists’ cause ‘unintended harms’?).
US soy crop production fell in 2004 from memory and this helped to drive up production in Brasil along with demand by China & Europe.
detribe no thoughtful or informed ‘green activist’ would argue there’s no need for agricultural yield improvements. Where did you collect this factoid? I hear arguments FOR yield improvements to protect biodiversity, but you think biodiversity is a meaningless term (!!?? where the hell did you get that meaningful factoid?). How else do you propose to measure the value of a rainforest – by the height of its tallest tree or the black market value of its rarest mammal or by the yield of the crops grown illegally within forest areas? How much Amazon would you keep intact detribe, which bits & why?
**We’ve established that there’s surging demand for crops grown in the Amazon basin (& even GM can only do so much to increase yields) so should we be concerned with the rates of deforestation or dismiss these concerns as brainless greenie activist plots by people who probably manipulate the otherwise happy local minifundios?**
rog thanks McDonalds for providing the masses with quality nutrition. Yeeeaaah. Yuo guys will argue anything. Is there any point trying to have a learning exchange? Didn’t think so. I’m off, going to grab a quarter pounder. I’ll leave it to joe to maintain some balance, given his recent admission to holding an open mind on all of these issues, he’s sure to maintain the balance this blog needs.
“We now have Greenpeace jumping on the Amazonian bandwagon…” Greenpeace have been campaiging on various issues concerning the Amazon for years.
“On a global scale McDonalds have successfully provided a cheap quality food to the masses of ordinary people, a feat that GreenPeace have yet to achieve.” Oh please. Cheap yes, quality, highly questionable. It has only been in the last few years that people who visit these outlets have been able to buy something to eat that vaguely resembles real food, such as salad, and even then, it was due to criticism from nutritionists around the world.
Last I knew, Greenpeace’s reason for existing was not to feed the world and get filthy rich doing so whilst the “cheap” food put the pounds on the populace and the sloths made way for the cattle ranches.
My favourite is the McOz, thats because I am an Australian.
Nobody is forced to eat at McDonalds, there is no compulsion to use their product. They do not impose, they only provide a service and their popularity is increasing.
What do GreenPeace do?
Is that the Mc Oz with real Aussie potatoes? No, they don’t impose. There are no billboards or television ads, or litter with the golden arches blowing in the wind. No compulsion to use their product, except the sugar and other additives in the foo, not to mention the fact the sesame seeds are counted and buns cooked to a colour chart to ensure that you know exactly what you are getting each time. Yes, their popularity is increasing – be it a sleepy Australian town, at a cross road in Cairo, a picturesque port in Tierra del Fuego.
Travis, The Mc Oz has beetrot. No potato.
Everyone, I just watched the documentary. I found it interesting, but contradictory in parts. Also, it seemed the figure is 83% not 87% of the Amazon is still intact?
In the audio interview jennifer the doco maker says latest figures weren’t available when they made the doco so now less than 83%, so he says, let’s say 80% (as per my comment above).
He also says thanks that the alarm button was pushed years ago. The only clear message to emerge from this post thread then is thanks for the awareness created by the deforestation warnings from the 70s and 80s (but shame about the damage already done & continuing).
***Logging of the Amazon is now proceeding at a McHappy pace. Are we ok with this or do we think it should be slowed? (Tip: if it’s slowed there’s a stronger beef & soy export mkt for Aust).
Q: Whats the connection between Greenpeace, the Amazon and McDonalds?
A: nothing, except as a cause celebre for the agitated.
Sorry Rog. Thought you’d like fries with that burger.
French fries?
:s there a specific or clear point detribe in your loose generalisation about ‘activists’? Did the exactsame ‘activists’ who warned of deforestation in Brasil in 70s & 80s cause unintended ‘harms’ in ‘Kyoto, GM food, Banning DDT’ etc?”
I am not generalising about all activists, neither did I say all activists. I do however hold accountable those ongoing organations that remain silent about this issue.
Perhaps Thinksi Pinksi you could give a list of those well known “activist” organisations that have commented or analysed and decried this unexpected outcome?
I think the list will be very short. I don’t really count even George Monbiot who has focussed mainly on biofuels.
” a one-eyed view (only ‘activists’ cause ‘unintended harms’?)”
No, any active policy advocacy organisation might cause unintended harm. It called “The Law of Unintended consequences”, and Calum Turvey has a great economics paper on it, about which I’ve posted at GMO Pundit.
“detribe no thoughtful or informed ‘green activist’ would argue there’s no need for agricultural yield improvements. ”
Several activist organisation argue repeatedly “There’s plenty of food”. “Hunger is “caused” by things other than food shortage – its distibution thats the problem” or similar lines eg Mara Bun when with ACA.
In my opinion Pinksi you’re in a state of denial on this, or need get out more and read the newspapers.
” you think biodiversity is a meaningless term “.
I don’t think this, and did not say it. I think it is a complicated concept with many different meanings and is easily misused, and is not, I repeat NOT, “sacred”.
“How else do you propose to measure the value of a rainforest – by the height of its tallest tree or the black market value of its rarest mammal or by the yield of the crops grown illegally within forest areas? ”
Yes, indeed, and by, consideration, of variious biodiversity parameters, but importantly many other parameters and concrete consequences related to any and all policy decisions, included those that intend to preserve biodiversity, but may not do so in fact.
“How much Amazon would you keep intact detribe, which bits & why?”
Well thinksi , I am not arguing with NOT keeping a large part of the Amazon intact, AS far as specifs I can’t do it staight away, but off the cuff would and do suppoert reasoned policies to limit further change, and to promote regrowth at other locations, at say achieve 80% preservation within 5 years, something like that. Whats your number?
**We’ve established that there’s surging demand for crops grown in the Amazon basin (& even GM can only do so much to increase yields) so should we be concerned with the rates of deforestation or dismiss these concerns as brainless greenie activist plots by people who probably manipulate the otherwise happy local minifundios?”
If you read what I said Pixsi I do not dismiss concerns. I actually criticise Greenpeace for promoting forest loss via stupid policies!
(BTW are you the same Think/Pinksi that objected to my mis-interpretations of their position)
I think Ive hit a nerve. Good.That really encourages me that you understand my point. Please spread you response around so we can make real progress.
Meanwhile Ive just posted at GMO Pundit on this.
I suspect your statements about China trade stats are wrong too, but that is all for now.
detribe yr blending issues again in a sloppy way.
I said
“detribe no thoughtful or informed ‘green activist’ would argue there’s no need for agricultural yield improvements. ”
detribe said:
” Several activist organisation argue repeatedly “There’s plenty of food”. “Hunger is “caused” by things other than food shortage – its distibution thats the problem” or similar lines eg Mara Bun when with ACA.”
Detribe where in any of yr quotes is there anything on the point against increasing ag productivity? Yr confusing different but related issues. Yuo said it’s a “common activist view that agricultural yield improvements are no(t) needed” and you quoted on a different point altogether in a failed effort to support your point (and used that failure of logic to accuse me of being in denial – silly silly diatribe). Sloppy thinking again by someone who fancies themselves a noble educator & who regularly criticises the intellectual position of others.
To repeat it: 2 different points. The activists you attack are correct in saying that famines & malnutrition have root sociopolitical and structural causes. Many economists & development professionals say the same. I don’t believe that you’re naive enough to think that ag yield increases on their own (ie basic science alone) will end hunger (or poverty) in 3rd world nations. If you do think this, pls pull yr head out of the sand and see some real lessons from development experiences. eg programmes that focused on urban development widened the urban-rural gap so that rural people couldn’t afford food and had few entitlements while urban people had increased living stds. The recognition of the factors that cause famines has seen the introduction of govt work-for-food programmes during regional shortages that have successfully avoided potential famines/shortages eg in India. Political will, in other words, can avoid famines and malnutrition and has done so in some instances.
This is a different issue to claiming that ‘activists’ (general lumped category!) are against improvements in ag yields. Many environmentalists AND development professionals argue FOR improved yeilds to slow landuse change eg rates of deforestation and to create more sustainable livelihoods.
But I’m sure you get all this detribe & would eventually agree, you just have yr default setting stuck on ‘wooden-headed’ so you argue a lazy foggy point until pressed, then you’ll agree in principle but still misconstrue a couple of points to continue yr diatribe as you’ve done too many times before. A pointless exchange yet again then & unlikely to improve. I’m off for some Maccas. Gunna eat myself into a saturated fat coma with fries and hallucinate over golden arches. It’s gotta to be more intellectually stimulating than the guff on this blog.
btw if you want 80% preservation of the Amazon: according to the documenter above, we’re already at 80% so no further deforestation then. As for ‘preservation’ well aint that the argumentative domain of lumpy-headed greenies. Informed greenies will argue for conservation, not preservation (do you want to pickle it & put it in a museum glass case or fence it off & push out the locals?).
Thinksi: Specific evidence you believe, apparently, doesn’t exist on undervaluation of agricultural yield improvement by representative activists groups foolws below;
“detribe no thoughtful or informed ‘green activist’ would argue there’s no need for agricultural yield improvements. ”
Alternatively you must think Greenpeace and Oxfam are not informed or not thoughtful, or neither.
Evidence that follows are quotes from websites
Greenpeace International Website
“Most hungry people live in countries that have food surpluses rather than deficits. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are already producing one and a half times the amount of food needed to provide everyone in the world with an adequate and nutritious diet, yet one in seven people is suffering from hunger.
Rather than growing food to meet the needs of local communities for a healthy, diverse diet, industrial agriculture produces crops to sell on world markets. While world crop production has trebled since the 1950s, more people go hungry now than 20 years ago. Small family farmers are driven off their land and local people cannot afford to buy what is grown. Too often, the result is a downward spiral of environmental destruction, poverty and hunger.
Food security will not be achieved by technical fixes, like genetic engineering (GE). People who need to eat need access to land on which to grow food or money with which to buy food. Technological ‘solutions’ like GE mask the real social, political, economic and environmental problems responsible for hunger.”
Oxfam WorldFoodDay Website Comment
“The world has enough food to feed everyone,” said Oxfam Canada Executive Director Rieky Stuart, “but 800 million poor people can’t afford it.” Oxfam Canada warned that genetic engineering will only increase the vast inequalities that keep people hungry. “There is no techno-fix to the problem of hunger,” Ms. Stuart added. “Resources would be better spent on sustainable development.””
Will genetically engineered foods feed the world?
(Greenpeace Australia)
“There is no simple solution to end world hunger. Genetic engineering is not the answer, just as pesticides weren’t the answer. Even increasing food production is not the answer.
World hunger will only end when the underlying causes of poverty are addressed. Poverty prevents people from securing their basic right to food – either because they have no means to purchase food or they have no access to the farmland and natural resources necessary to meet basic food needs. Genetically engineering crops does nothing to address the poverty that causes hunger – in fact it threatens to make it worse. ”
The last quote is a direct of dismissal of the role of better agricural productivity in poverty reduction and hunger.
As far as your gratuitous advice about my supposed personal vanities, by venturing into this area you are actually shooting yourself in the foot. Any personal vanity I suffer from is completely untrelated to my efforts in public debates on websites and the like. I actually get involved at this blog because I care about the issues, as anyone who knows me personally will confirm. Attempts to disintagle nonsense I perceive in other comments are just a necessary rather tedious part of the task. Professional achievements like publishing scientific papers are a much more substantial way of feeding an ego, should I really want to do that sort of thing.
detribe you responded as I predicted. You’re discussing one issue to make a point about another. I suggest you reread my comment above. 2 different issues. You started on one issue and you keep talking about a separate issue to make your point. It’s flawed logic.
detribe yr discussing one issue to make a point about another. 2 different issues. I politely suggest that you order yr thinking as you may find your good intentions accidentally causing ill-effects.
issue 1: whether informed activists generally hold that agricultural yield improvements arent needed
issue 2: the root cause of hunger/malnutrition/famines and whether there is a lack of food
Many ‘activists’ for environmental & human reasons want to see improvements in agricultural productivity as this reduces social & environmental & political pressures. Making blanket arguments otherwise is misinformed, naughty, or wooden-thinking.
I recognise both the issues that you’re talking about here thinksy, and in my judgement, they are both confused and jumbled by many activists. I see my comments as relating to both the issues you number 1 and 2: I don’t agree that I am discussing one issue to make a point about another, as in several sense my comments relate to both the ideas you describe as separate issues.
If you want to take them one at a time, fine.
But lets be factually accurate about those issues.
“whether informed activists generally hold that agricultural yield improvements arent needed”
is your construction, not mine.
You misrepresent my view by use of the words “generally” and “informed”, unintentionally, I’m sure, stating something I did not say in my original post, but on which I have already at least once in this thread bought my dissent to your wording to your attention.
As you say, that would be “Making blanket arguments otherwise is misinformed, naughty, or wooden-thinking”, but it would be just plain outrageous for you to represent me as saying something that I did’t. It puzzles me why you seem jump to such a conclusion in the absence of me saying it.
My statements refer to “some” activists, and I regard those that I’m am refering to as either uninformed, dopey, careless or duplicious, which I don’t know (I can’t read their minds).
Re issue 2: I also don’t usually make statements in terms of lack of food; I would tend to talk more in terms of local productivity and incomes, food prices and poverty elimination, so the framing of the second issue needs to be carefully done too.
You seem confident that there are many “activist” organisations who are pleased to promote better agricultural productivity and who understand the role of it in poverty reduction. That’s good. I’d like to hear names of them, and probably I may agree with you if you tell me who they are. Greenpeace and Oxfam, plus the ACF in Australia are not on the list.
I can name good organisations that do – IFPRI, FAO, The Rockefeller Foundation are three. I’m not criticising them though , but I don’t think they are “activists” either.
In short, please say explicitly who are these activist organisations that are fully informed on this issue and whom have also spoken about the foolishness of not using American soy, when there is a probability that shift of demand for Brazilian soy will excacerbate problems with rainforest clearing, which is the issue we started taking about.
I’m even interested to hear more about those “activists” who air general arguments along these lines about land use, so I can contact them and encourage them (may even joint them in activism). The scientists/economists who do so include Tony Trewavas and Indur Goklany so its not diffult to recognise this activity-it does exist.
PS. Possibly you’re thinking of Norman Borlaug, who is associated with several developmental organisations.”:
“Growing more crops and trees per acre leaves more land for Nature,” says Dr.
Norman Borlaug, the famed plant breeder who’s credited with saving a billion
people from starvation. “We cannot choose between feeding malnourished children
and saving endangered wild species. Without higher yields, peasant farmers will
destroy the wildlands and species to keep their children from starving.
Sustainably higher yields of crops and trees are the only visible way to save
both.”
He’s the kind of “activist” I’m proud to publicise.