Consider donating to Da Silva's campaign (if that is possible). If he wins, there's some chance of reversing Bolsonaro's recent neglect. He's by no means perfect, but he's certainly better on the environment (and forest policy) than the right.
Some context: Lula currently has 41% of voting intentions (against Bolsonaro's 26%) [1]. He was elected president twice, from 2003 to 2010.
He's a very contested figure in Brazil. On the one hand, he earned popularity for creating social welfare programs such as Bolsa Família [2]. On the other, he's been involved in various corruption scandals, including the Mensalão vote-buying scandal [3] and the Petrobras scandal [4], one of the biggest the world has seen.
Some more context, Bolsa Família wasn't actually created but became an umbrella social program to simplify all social benefits that were split into multiple programs before Lula.
Mensalão happened, and the Petrobras scandal, both involves much more than just Lula, it's how politics in Brazil work. Car Wash involved virtually every single party in Brazil, Mensalão involved every single one of the "center" parties (we should just call them "opportunistic parties") in Brazil.
At the same time, Lula's government lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty, kickstarted numerous infrastructure projects for the poorest areas of Brazil and so on.
Everything is a double-edged sword in Brazilian politics, given the prospects for the next 5-10 years I don't see any other politician than Lula that has enough political clout to beat Bolsonaro while implementing social policies such as Lula's previous governments.
Oh come on, you can't expect any good from one of the most corrupt men of South America? Really?
He's from the same corrupt political lineage as the Kirchner family in Argentina, do you really want to fund the people that only mange to bring misery to these countries?
The interview you link is just our everyday populist discourse: show yourself aligned to whatever is the hop topic of the moment, get elected, do nothing about it and continue to use the power to finance your own corrupt agenda. Didn't work? No worries, you can always use the "heavy heritage" from Bolsonaro as an excuse.
He is known in Brazil as Lula. Only Brazilians can legally donate to political campaigns, so you might as well refer to the candidate as he is known among the possible donors.
Yeah, fair enough. Are there organizations who foreigners can legally donate to who work on get-out-the-vote or other voter base initiatives that would benefit him?
We are at brink of starting another World War.
Climate change is only accelerating.
Pandemic is not over yet.
Is it only me or does future look gloomy? I'll set a low bar, as long as we don't kill enough skilled workers (pick your flavor of annihilation) we, humans, should be able to carry on trajectory of technical evolution even if world order changes in next few decades.
No it's not just you and as a 40-something sci-fi fan I feel like I've neglected the basics to pursue a Star Trek-ish post singularity dream. My lesson? You can't ignore politics. Not ever. You can't ignore the environment. Not for a generation or three. Working towards a techno-utopia is fine, as a sideline. It cannot and should not be your primary focus, or the real world can and will turn to shit while you're not looking.
The fact that vaccination rates remain as low as they are is one of the most convincing arguments I've ever heard that we, as humanity, have done messed up.
Wars between autocrats and an inability to conceive of the damage your actions will take on long future generations (it's more immediate now but a lot of folks are still stuck in this mindset) all pale in comparison to "Hey, we just discovered that you'll die if you don't eat a baked potato in the next week" and getting the response "Hey - what's with all these free potatoes all the sudden, is the state of idaho lobbying the government? What is the hidden tuber agenda? My friend ate a turnip - that was enough for his grandfather! I've heard that potatoes can be used to power world-ending test executing AIs - I don't want that in my digestive system!"
This always reminds me of the fact that there are now no trees on Easter Island although there were trees on it. And that humans deforested it. And at some point the people there must have gone, "Well ... we might as well cut down that last one, too."
Although I can easily imagine one neighbor cutting down the last tree on another neighbor's space out of spite.
Rich countries are already paying Brazil a lot of money - to destroy the rainforest.
The cleared land is mostly used to produce meat, and Brazil is the largest meat exporter[1] in the world.
You are paying subscribtion, if the forest is destroyed no future money. You don't kill the goose that lays golden eggs, even dictators and idiots know that
We are cutting more and more trees, despite their well-established effectiveness at absorbing CO2[1]. What can we even do? We are pushing in the right direction for EVs - albeit 10 years too late in my opinion, but we are hurting the planets in many more ways.
We are polluting oceans, space, and now that we realize how big of a problem it is I begin to wonder why they even allowed it in the first place.
Instead of taking a defeatist attitude, think of it as a new challenge for mankind to tackle.
What can we do? Education and awareness goes a long way, taking a "top down" and "bottom up" approach, we can ensure that key stakeholders are cognisant of the climate impact, as well as educating the populous on it.
Sorry for the whataboutism, but what about european forests? Are we seeing them recovering any soon or we shouldn't care because it happened hundreds of years ago?
"As detailed in a recent report by Nature Research, biomass loss increased 69% across Europe between 2016 and 2018, with large losses occurring in the Nordic and Baltic regions. In the past five years, the rate of deforestation in Estonia has risen 85% – a surge linked to a 25% decrease in bird populations. "
We are on a fast track to deforest Europe in the name of CO2 reduction [0]
And sadly, not even the actuality of CO2 reduction. Burning those trees releases a lot of CO2, and has the same impact no matter where that CO2 came from.
The claim of course is that the trees will grow back, but that takes decades, and emission reductions are very time-sensitive at this point due to feedback loops kicking in.
Yup, this is why the line of “net zero” and “offsets” is another delay/distraction tactic. This is still the crucial decade for GHG reductions and it seems like every country is just ignoring the starting gun instead of running.
It's not about increasing or decreasing. It's about doing your share. Germany has half the forest cover percentage of Brazil. Either pay for the remainder to stay up or understand that as Germans burn fossil fuel to live in an inhospitable land (they will literally die if they don't fund the slaughter of Ukrainians) after they've clear cut their forests, others will not sacrifice without being paid or placed under duress.
If you add x CO2 to the atmosphere and take out y, then others who are adding x'<x and taking out y'>y will not just listen to you.
Sorry to switch to a meta-topic, accusations of "whataboutism" have shutdown self-awareness of hypocrisy and prevented holistic thinking in so many cases. It needs to go away.
reforestation and rewilding of the planet will require a vision of 'terraforming earth'. for every human habitat, farm, land used to sustain humanity, an equal acreage of land should be allowed go 'back to nature'.
example: if someone were to build a factory on an acre of land or a dense residential neighbourhood of an acre or farming on an acre land..all these activities should be compensated by re-naturing land or conserving habitat elsewhere where human activities arent feasible.
the problem with solutions like high density housing being touted as 'sustainable' is that they are truly sustainable only if the goal is to consume less. putting multiple high human density settlements next to each other and even looking at non habitable terrain to build homes and grow food is just daft because as super apex predators we need habitat and other species for our survival. if we cant eat or breathe or maintain air quality or bring down global temperature by 2 degrees, its the literal end of humanity.
even if we manage to survive, depopulation is a guarantee. when the world has lesser humans, we need sufficient resources for them to thrive and survive. if we dwindle or become handicapped due to no foundational habitat to rely on, again it will just be a slower and more deprived extinction of the species.
the replacement rate has been 2.2 forever. and we are living longer and our population has doubled in 40 years. population grows exponentially. resources don't. human needs also grows exponentially. thats the problem in the nutshell.
it's already too late. the carrying capacity of the planet is likely 2-3 billion. we can comfortably exist at 1 billion. people will die. our descendants need to survive. creating more people will jeopradise the entire species and shrink resources to a dangerously low level.
if our population continues to breed at the current rate, i would say that in 250-400 years, we might face the danger of extinction. but if we control population to 1/2 surviving child per woman, maybe in 150 years, we can stabilise population to carrying capacity.
we must also need to find ways to preserve genetic material for diversity of our species. only recently we have been able to create pluripotent and embryonic cells from skin/dermal cells. ectogensis or artificial wombs will be useful to create not just carefully curated humans but also for cloning purposes. it is possible that we might become an immortal species. it is certainly within the realm of possibility.
we could clone bodies to swap or replace failing organs or congenital illnesses. we could be our own children. we could have progeny with multiple partners and dna combinations.
if religion would permit us. that is the only stumbling block i see for us to become immortals.
because..if we could be immortal, we would be gods.
but thats thinking too far ahead. first, survival. for that we need to reforest and rewild planet earth. starting with soil and then forests and then protect watersheds and marine ecology. the sooner we get started the better.
https://newint.org/features/2021/08/09/interview-luiz-inacio...