Amazon rainforest fire burning at 'record rate' as smoke blocks out sun in Brazil

[Jet-Fighter7700]

Not really.
1) Technological progress has allowed us to use more concentrated energy sources like coal, and eventually nuclear. These sources use less land and such than anything else.
2) Technological progress also allows for more concentrated food production. Thus less land is needed for more food.
3) When you pull people out of dire poverty, they start to care about their environment. Thus public opinion for policies that make the world a nicer place to live in goes up.

The data for this is here:

https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1295

and coal and nuclear are environmental? they simply cause MUCH more pollution as they produce greenhouse gasses that make climate change much much worse.
and nuclear? yes in theory.

except we have yet to figure out a way to dispose of old nuclear waste without harming future generations.

 

[ShaunSA]

Humans are part of the earth as well.

For example, we do not know how widespread sentient life is in the universe. For all we know, we could be the only planet with sentient life in the universe.

Talk about an ego

Of course it still doesn't mean we need to be around.

 

[konfab]

and coal and nuclear are environmental? they simply cause MUCH more pollution as they produce greenhouse gasses that make climate change much much worse.
and nuclear? yes in theory.

except we have yet to figure out a way to dispose of old nuclear waste without harming future generations.

We do have a way. It is to put it underground away from everyone else till it decays.

You have to remember that the decay rate for nuclear waste is inversely proportional to how much radiation it releases. The very long half lives of hundreds of thousands of year that you hear ignorant people talk about are the ones that are not the problem. It is the stuff with the short half lives that is the most dangerous.

 

[The Voice]

Fire can form part of the ecosystem though.

Indeed. The mountain fires in the Western Cape are a perfect example: without them, fynbos wouldn't exist.

 

[Ninja'd]

As long as humans are wiped out before we break the planet beyond repair.

You say that now but when I slit the throats of a few toddlers I'm suddenly a monster.

 

[cyberghost47]

Humans are part of the earth as well.

For example, we do not know how widespread sentient life is in the universe. For all we know, we could be the only planet with sentient life in the universe.

Cancer was part of my uncles body too...

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

We do have a way. It is to put it underground away from everyone else till it decays.

You have to remember that the decay rate for nuclear waste is inversely proportional to how much radiation it releases. The very long half lives of hundreds of thousands of year that you hear ignorant people talk about are the ones that are not the problem. It is the stuff with the short half lives that is the most dangerous.

problem comes when you bury nuclear waste in the middle of nowhere to decay slowly,
what then happens is people are naturally curious and dig holes and disturb permanent resting places,
places like the tombs of Egypt and such things.

unleashing toxic substances into their world, so there isn't a permanent solution to nuclear waste.
so yes, in theory, nuclear is the way to go to generate power, problem comes with what is left
how do we dispose of the waste without (potentially) harming future generations.

 

[Nanfeishen]

except we have yet to figure out a way to dispose of old nuclear waste without harming future generations.

We do have a way - Nuclear reprocessing , however it can also be costly. Its cheaper to dump the waste rather than process it.

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

www.world-nuclear.org

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

We do have a way - Nuclear reprocessing , however it can also be costly. Its cheaper to dump the waste rather than process it.

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel - World Nuclear Association

Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes. New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.

www.world-nuclear.org

again, costly, and not an efficient way to deal with lots of nuclear waste,

 

[konfab]

again, costly, and not an efficient way to deal with lots of nuclear waste,

Firstly, you need to distinguish between different types of nuclear waste.
The vast majority of the "waste", is relatively safe:

Low-level waste (LLW) has a radioactive content not exceeding four giga-becquerels per tonne (GBq/t) of alpha activity or 12 GBq/t beta-gamma activity. LLW does not require shielding during handling and transport, and is suitable for disposal in near surface facilities.

LLW is generated from hospitals and industry, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. It comprises paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters, etc., which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. To reduce its volume, LLW is often compacted or incinerated before disposal. LLW comprises some 90% of the volume but only 1% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste.

Intermediate waste is a bit more dangerous:

Intermediate-level waste (ILW) is more radioactive than LLW, but the heat it generates (<2 kW/m3) is not sufficient to be taken into account in the design or selection of storage and disposal facilities. Due to its higher levels of radioactivity, ILW requires some shielding.

ILW typically comprises resins, chemical sludges, and metal fuel cladding, as well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning. Smaller items and any non-solids may be solidified in concrete or bitumen for disposal. It makes up some 7% of the volume and has 4% of the radioactivity of all radioactive waste.

High level waste is the most dangerous, but the least volume:

High-level waste (HLW) is sufficiently radioactive for its decay heat (>2kW/m3) to increase its temperature, and the temperature of its surroundings, significantly. As a result, HLW requires cooling and shielding.

HLW arises from the 'burning' of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor. HLW contains the fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. HLW accounts for just 3% of the volume, but 95% of the total radioactivity of produced waste. There are two distinct kinds of HLW:

• Used fuel that has been designated as waste.
• Separated waste from reprocessing of used fuel.

HLW has both long-lived and short-lived components, depending on the length of time it will take for the radioactivity of particular radionuclides to decrease to levels that are considered non-hazardous for people and the surrounding environment. If generally short-lived fission products can be separated from long-lived actinides, this distinction becomes important in management and disposal of HLW.

HLW is the focus of significant attention regarding nuclear power, and is managed accordingly.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...lear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx

The actual volume of this waste is actually ridiculously low:

The U.S. commercial power industry alone has generated more waste (nuclear fuel that is "spent" and is no longer efficient at generating power) than any other country—nearly 80,000 metric tons. This spent nuclear fuel, which can pose serious risks to humans and the environment, is enough to fill a football field about 20 meters deep.

https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/disposal_of_highlevel_nuclear_waste/issue_summary

So you basically have to secure an area about the size of a few football fields. That is really easy compared to other types of waste management.

 

[Pineapple Smurf]

those drug mules in the amazon must be crying seeing their coke crops going up in flames

 

[diabolus]

So i am curious to understand what exactly about the new president is causing these fires? I see a lot of these rainforest issue blame this new president, who's only been there for like 7 months . Is he flying people there to set fires? What did the previous president do that prevented these fires? Did they have people that patrolled the forest before or what?

While i understand that bolsonaro has some stupid environmental policies going, i find it hard to belief these would already be enacted to the extend that fires are suddenly breaking out everywhere .

If they allowed a big corporate to start mining in there and thus burning down trees, surely that would be mentioned?

 

[krieg]

again, costly, and not an efficient way to deal with lots of nuclear waste,

You make it seem as if there are mountains of nuclear waste lying around.

 

[access]

except we have yet to figure out a way to dispose of old nuclear waste without harming future generations.

theres a giant furnace in the sky, just need to nudge it in its direction.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Fire can form part of the ecosystem though.

Indeed. The mountain fires in the Western Cape are a perfect example: without them, fynbos wouldn't exist.

They can be, in limited scope, but there's a point where it becomes a pretty grim cycle:

Fires in the Amazon could be part of a doomsday scenario that sees the rainforest spewing carbon into the atmosphere and speeding up climate change even more

In a “dieback” scenario, rising temperatures could dry trees, meaning they absorb less carbon and become more flammable, eventually turning the rainforest into a savannah and releasing billions of tons of stored carbon.

So i am curious to understand what exactly about the new president is causing these fires? I see a lot of these rainforest issue blame this new president, who's only been there for like 7 months . Is he flying people there to set fires? What did the previous president do that prevented these fires? Did they have people that patrolled the forest before or what?

While i understand that bolsonaro has some stupid environmental policies going, i find it hard to belief these would already be enacted to the extend that fires are suddenly breaking out everywhere .

If they allowed a big corporate to start mining in there and thus burning down trees, surely that would be mentioned?

The right-wing populist wave is a threat to the climate

The Amazon rainforest fires reveal a lot about this political movement.

www.vox.com

Bolsonaro, who took office in January and has been referred to as “Captain Chainsaw,” gutted funding for agencies protecting the massive rainforest, essentially giving wink-and-nudge approval for illegal loggers to do their thing. Fire is used as a tool for clearing Amazon land for ranching, and the more trees are cut down, the more vulnerable the rainforest is to wildfires. There have been almost twice as many fires detected in 2019 so far as there were in the entirety of 2018.

Between 2003-2011, a left-wing Brazilian government managed to cut Amazon deforestation rates by 80 percent.

Brazil's Amazon Rainforest Is Disappearing Under President Jair Bolsonaro

Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon is soaring under far-right President Jair Bolsonaro. It is even happening in a vast highly protected reserve named after a murdered environmentalist.

www.npr.org

Preliminary data from Brazil's Space Research Institute shows deforestation this July was up nearly 300% on July last year. Bolsonaro's called the institute's data lies. He's replaced its chief with a military official.

Brazil space institute director sacked in Amazon deforestation row

Far-right leader Jair Bolsonaro calls satellite data showing rise in deforestation ‘lies’

www.theguardian.com

The director of Brazil’s National Space Research Institute (INPE) has been sacked in the midst of a controversy over its satellite data showing a rise in Amazon deforestation, which the far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, has called “lies”.

Ricardo Galvão, who had defended the institute and criticised Bolsonaro’s attack, was dismissed on Friday after a meeting with the science and technology minister, Marcos Pontes.

And this was before the most recent fires.

So in short, guts funding for agencies meant to protect the rainforest, fires and slanders the agency head and officials that show the evidence of deforestation, then lies and spreads conspiracy theories about the fires.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Oh, and:

Brazil's president is actively trying to devastate the Amazon rainforest, leaked documents show

Brazil’s government plans to build bridge, motorway and hydroelectric plant through world's largest jungle

www.independent.co.uk

Jair Bolsonaro hopes to sabotage conservation efforts in the Amazon, leaked documents have revealed.

The Brazilian government intend to build bridge, motorway and hydroelectric plant in the jungle to “fight off international pressure” to protect the world’s largest rainforest.

 

[Dolby]

There are also (surprisingly) more trees on earth than a hundred years go. Mainly because wood is no longer needed for cooking, heat and shelter. Also, thanks to technology and recycling, there has probably been a huge reduction in the production of paper

Interesting - I had no idea, but you're right

Earth has more trees than it did 35 years ago - but there’s a huge catch

There is a net gain in the number of trees on Earth, but only thanks to an increase in man-made plantations. Tropical rainforests continue to be destroyed.

www.weforum.org

But t seems to be man made plantations that don't compensate for the loss of forests

On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.
And man-made forests do not compensate for the damage and degradation done to ecosystems through land clearance.

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

You make it seem as if there are mountains of nuclear waste lying around.

yes and no, while its disposed of properly and sealed underground for safety and security.
what worries me is humanities curiosity.

I mean what stops one from drilling for oil through a nuclear waste dump?
what if many decades from now, when the fences and signs are long gone

somebody drills for oil through an old nuclear waste dump, and unleashes radioactive poison into future generations.

also those high level waste, that require shielding and monitoring.
they constantly need power? otherwise they can boil the cooling ponds water, correct?

yes its unlikely and cant happen as the generators can last months to keep the water cool.
but when they fail, as can happen without maintenance or human hands controlling it.

what then?

so while I do agree nuclear is safe, and the best way to generate power without releasing more poison than it consumes.
is the cost worth it?

more burning of rainforests and polluting the last natural resources of the planet?

 

[konfab]

They can be, in limited scope, but there's a point where it becomes a pretty grim cycle:

Fires in the Amazon could be part of a doomsday scenario that sees the rainforest spewing carbon into the atmosphere and speeding up climate change even more

Sorry to douse your apocalyptical fantasies, but these fires are pretty normal according to Nasa.

As of August 16, 2019, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicated that total fire activity across the Amazon basin this year has been close to the average in comparison to the past 15 years. (The Amazon spreads across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and parts of other countries.) Though activity appears to be above average in the states of Amazonas and Rondônia, it has so far appeared below average in Mato Grosso and Pará, according to estimates from the Global Fire Emissions Database, a research project that compiles and analyzes NASA data. (Note that while the chart label says 2016, the 2019 data is listed on all of the plots as a green line. Roll your cursor over the green 2019 block below the plot to isolate the 2019 numbers.)

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/145464/fires-in-brazil

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

Interesting - I had no idea, but you're right

Earth has more trees than it did 35 years ago - but there’s a huge catch

There is a net gain in the number of trees on Earth, but only thanks to an increase in man-made plantations. Tropical rainforests continue to be destroyed.

www.weforum.org

But t seems to be man made plantations that don't compensate for the loss of forests

On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.
And man-made forests do not compensate for the damage and degradation done to ecosystems through land clearance.

Precisely.
It's not just about the trees; you destroy an entire biological universe when you destroy old-growth forests.