Brazil unveils deforestation plan

[hefler]

The Brazilian government has pledged to end net deforestation by 2015.

It is one of the key commitments in a draft climate change plan, which stops short of setting specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The plan - setting out how Brazil will help prevent climate change, and how it will adapt to it - was promised nearly a year ago by President Lula.

But the environmental group Greenpeace criticised it for simply highlighting existing proposals.

It said the draft did not explain how they would be brought into action.

Aggressive plan

In the provisional version which will go for public consultation before being finalised, no specific targets are set for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions amongst Brazil's industrial sectors.

But with deforestation accounting for 75% of the country's emission, it sets out a timetable to reduce forest loss to a point where by 2015, more Brazilian trees are being planted than are cut down.

According to the Environment Minister Carlos Minc, this will be possible through an aggressive programme of restoring native forests, as well as further crackdowns on illegal logging.

Other measures outlined in the document are incentives to improve energy efficiency and to encourage renewable energy sources such as wind power.

[sparky]

Brazil's government has been named as the worst illegal logger of Amazon forests by one of its own departments.

The Environment Ministry has drawn up a list of the 100 worst offenders and says all of them will be charged.

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Brazil government 'worst logger'

So much for that then.

[emz]

Geez that sucks. What hope is there when the government don't even give a damn?

[karmakop]

It is shocking but sadly not uncommon for Lula to say one thing and do another.

[include]

Happens all over the place now. 'Going green' is the latest way for developing countries to con money out of us all.

[Canuck]

Austrialia is far from being a "developed" country. Nor is Canada. You should read more.

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by Canuck

Austrialia is far from being a "developed" country. Nor is Canada. You should read more.

Please explain as to why you think that. I'm not saying you are wrong, but you may have a different idea what developed mean than us.

[Canuck]

Well, working within the parametres of a working definition that could be broadly agreed upon by most development views. That is, a sufficient minimum of industry and technological independence.

Neither Canada nor Australia have such. They both heavily depend upon their natural resources and although have industrial bases, which are largely foreign owned, they fall well within the standards for a "peripheral" country. They both have such high standards of living largely due to the convenience that they have such small populations. Canada about 30 million and Australia with about 20 million. If there were 300 and 200 million, respectively, the socio-economic conditions would be much different.

In short, both countries have no achieved sufficient industrial or capital independence to be safely placed within the core or "developed" section of the world.

I would encourage those of you, who are not Canadian, to look into the case of Ontario's auto industry. Canada's largest manufacturing sector's growth and decline is directly correlated to the economic conditions in the US. This would fit well into understandings of dependency and underdevelopment from Andréas to Wallerstein to Frank.

In these respects, Canada nor Australia is any more developed then Brazil, Argentina or Mexico.

[Windguy]

Well I don't agree with your definition, mainly because it is the standard of living that really defines the rich western nations and the poor third world and the developing.

Australia is an intellectual powerhouse even though most inventions are produced overseas in manufacturing. Australia is an engineering major amongst most countries and we export and provide information and advice around the world. We are also a major resources giant, which overall Australia has a higher standard of learning and living then America has. Australia continually comes in the top ten in most economic, environmental and health and knowledge studies per capita. Australia by exporting to most economically powerful countries is fairly well protected from the American economy (except now the american economy is nearly belly up and is affecting the world).

[Canuck]

I am not denying Australia's standard of living at all nor it's ability to produce it's own technology. However, Australia's economy would not be able to survive on its own. An essential feature of developed countries is that their economies are sufficiently independent to not be affected,largely, by changes in foreign economies. They are not dependent on other economies. Australia and Canada do not fit this.

Unless you are prepared to go about re-evaluating the construction of the word "development", my definition fits well from right wing "diffusionists" to the radical left of "dependistas".

It is historically obvious why Canada and Australia (New Zealand) are so developed compared to other former colonies around the world. They were once parts of the largest and most determinant capitalist system in the world-Great Britain. Secondly, they have such small populations compared to their natural resources. I argue that if Canada and Australia had 300 million and 200 million people, respectively, the socio-economic conditions would be much different.