• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Brazil’s President accuses NGOs of setting wildfires in Amazon rainforest

apdst said:
You don't understand that what's on the land (timber) has value, too. To not harvest it would be stupid.
Click to expand...

If the cost of getting it to market is higher than the price received it has no value. Burning of forests in Brazil for farm land is very common and has been done for decades
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If the cost of getting it to market is higher than the price received it has no value. Burning of forests in Brazil for farm land is very common and has been done for decades
Click to expand...

Should I take you back to where Hatuey said they wanted to sell the timber from the rain forests, so you can better understand the point I was making?
 
apdst said:
Should I take you back to where Hatuey said they wanted to sell the timber from the rain forests, so you can better understand the point I was making?
Click to expand...

Did I? Go for it.

Find me talking about anyone wanting to sell timber. I said they wanted to sell it off chunks by chunk. You said they couldn't cause of the timber. Lol, I explained to you that the amazon can still be sold. Then I explained mineral and water rights.

You're lying already. Shocking.






Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
Hatuey said:
Did I? Go for it.

Find me talking about anyone wanting to sell timber. I said they wanted to sell it off chunks by chunk. You said they couldn't cause of the timber. Lol, I explained to you that the amazon can still be sold. Then I explained mineral and water rights.

You're lying already. Shocking.






Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
Click to expand...

......

Hatuey said:
For a guy who just months ago was talking about selling off the Amazon chunk by chunk, he sure is worried about fires destroying it.

Isn't that the goal?
Click to expand...
 
apdst said:
......
Click to expand...

As I thought, you couldn't find it so you're making up words that aren't there.

The Amazon is being sold off chunk by chunk for (and again) LAND rights. This includes a whole multitude of income resources including but not limited to: water rights, farming rights, development rights, etc. You chose to focus on timber and made up a retarded argument that losing millions in timber was something to worry about when what's under the Amazon is far more valuable and would cause the destruction of the Amazon with profits far exceeding your imaginary timber income sum that will be lost because of these fires.

Lol, you're way out of your depth. Go back to the shallows where it is safe.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Sell off the Amazon chunk by chunk does not mean selling the lumber it means the land primarily for farming and ranching
Click to expand...

Also, mining. Tons of mining. Also, damnification projects. Apdst is thinking small. A tree here. A tree there.
 
apdst said:
You don't understand that what's on the land (timber) has value, too. To not harvest it would be stupid.
Click to expand...
You do not get that the Amazon can be sold without timber because what's being paid for is land use rights. That's impressive.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
The Mark said:
Few want it for the trees, rather they want what's under the trees.
Click to expand...

The trees have to go, either way and the trees are worth millions. Since crews and equipment have to be sent in, they might as well harvest what they can. Logging in the rainforests has been going on for decades.
 
apdst said:
The trees have to go, either way and the trees are worth millions. Since crews and equipment have to be sent in, they might as well harvest what they can. Logging in the rainforests has been going on for decades.
Click to expand...

The tree go and then we go, but cool someone made money......
 
apdst said:
Your point?
Click to expand...
I bet this is what talking to Dave Rubin feels like.

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
apdst said:
Your point?
Click to expand...

The planet is on fire and you're arguing we should let it burn because there is money to be made in the process.

That is the point.
 
The Mark said:
The planet is on fire and you're arguing we should let it burn because there is money to be made in the process.

That is the point.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm simply pointing out why Bolsonaro might not want the rain forests to burn.
 
apdst said:
I'm not arguing for anything. I'm simply pointing out why Bolsonaro might not want the rain forests to burn.
Click to expand...
Ah.

In his case I suspect it's closer to home, literally - some of his people live in or near those forests, and generally speaking having your country partially on fire is not a good look.
 
apdst said:
The trees have to go, either way and the trees are worth millions. Since crews and equipment have to be sent in, they might as well harvest what they can. Logging in the rainforests has been going on for decades.
Click to expand...

The burning does not need much in equipment
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The burning does not need much in equipment
Click to expand...

The fire alone isn't going to fell all the trees. At some point, the leftover snags will need to be cut and piled and burned. It takes equipment to do that.
 
It’s alarming that this far right wing “leader” has total control over a vast and vital resource that affects everyone on the planet. This is an evil man that responded to a female reporter when asked about his treatment towards women with “You’re too ugly to rape.
 
apdst said:
He can't sell it if it burns down.
Click to expand...

Hey, maybe Trump will buy it. He should make an offer to the President of Portugal.
 
Grand Mal said:
Hey, maybe Trump will buy it. He should make an offer to the President of Portugal.
Click to expand...

I think we should just take it. With the natural resources we'll have access to, we can tell Canada to piss off.
 
apdst said:
I think we should just take it. With the natural resources we'll have access to, we can tell Canada to piss off.
Click to expand...

You better get an e-mail off to your Dear Leader and tell him what you think.
Are you saying the US has been denied access to natural resources in Brazil? Running short of leaches and howler monkeys, are you? Need a few tons of spiders and snakes to stimulate your economy?
 
Carjosse said:
From The Globe and Mail:


Oh no, it could not possibly have anything to do with the fact Bolsonaro removed protections for the Amazon and removed funding from organizations who protect it. The right-wing really seems to struggle with the concept of cause and effect, Bolsonaro joins Trump in not understanding that decisions have consequences.
Click to expand...

This is a worldwide disaster. 1/5 of the worlds carbon is cleaned and oxygen is produced by the Amazon rainforest! The sad thing is, it can't be put out by conventional means. Really depressing!
 
HenryChinaski said:
It’s alarming that this far right wing “leader” has total control over a vast and vital resource that affects everyone on the planet. This is an evil man that responded to a female reporter when asked about his treatment towards women with “You’re too ugly to rape.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an American president I know :(
 
Grand Mal said:
Hey, maybe Trump will buy it. He should make an offer to the President of Portugal.
Click to expand...

LOL - I don't think Portugal still has sovereignty over Brazil - that that did make me laugh :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom