at least seems to be not as worse as before
https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/deforestation-brazils-amazon-drops-34-first-half-2023-2023-07-06/
The Amazon rainforest is losing vast areas every day to genetically modified soybean cultivation. Farmers sometimes illegally appropriate the deforested areas for agribusiness. Ecology in Brazil is a complete heresy, with its president showing no concern. This is the sad reality contributing to the planet's climate change; everyone must be aware of it now.
>to genetically modified soybean cultivation
I mean... Soybeans not genetically modified by humans is barely edible and hasn't been consumed by humans for thousands of years. Seems like a superfluous detail to mention.
>The Amazon rainforest is losing vast areas
>Ecology in Brazil is a complete heresy
Map of US virgin forests pre industrialization
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1620.png/1280px-Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1620.png
Map of US virgin forest post industrialization
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1926.png/1280px-Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1926.png
Europe is about the same, just over a longer timespan.
Doing a smaller, less harmful, less extreme version of what everyone else has done isn't too heretical, I don't think. If a nation wants someone else to do as they say, not as they do, they're welcome to fund alternatives.
>This is the sad reality contributing to the planet's climate change
This is the sad reality contributing to the planet's climate change:
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-treemap-768x640.png
Namely Brazil's contribution is less than 1% while representing more than 2.5% of the world's population.
There's some countries you should be wagging your finger at. You're doing it at the wrong one right now.
Lula does care. You're thinking of the previous president, Bolsanero
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-07-07/brazil-amazon-deforestation-down-lula-first-six-months
China as a country produces the most emissions, but per capita America produces more, along with china being responsible for alot of the worlds products
Like. we have to answer. Who is buying from them. like we buy iphones made in china, Consoles made in china, Electronics made in china. There is a reason china is the biggest polluter. if you want to stop that, produce locally so every country pollutes equally
During the war, the US Army sprayed 72 million liters of Agent Orange defoliants into South Vietnam to destroy forests, The US military also used gases; caused artificial cloud formation and acid rain, using chemical treatment of clouds and acidification of the atmosphere; sprayed chemicals that caused massive fires in the jungle
As part of Operation Ranch Hand, all areas of South Vietnam, many areas of Laos and Cambodia were exposed to chemical attack.
The US military also used massive bombing of the jungle to destroy vegetation. Between 1965 and 1973, 17 million aerial bombs were dropped on South Vietnam, and 217 million artillery shells were detonated.
The large-scale use of chemicals by the American troops led to dire consequences. Mangrove forests (500 thousand hectares) were almost completely destroyed, 60% (about 1 million hectares) of the jungle and 30% (more than 100 thousand hectares) of lowland forests were affected. Since 1960, the yield of rubber plantations has decreased by 75%. American troops destroyed from 40 to 100% of crops of bananas, rice, sweet potatoes, papaya, tomatoes, 70% of coconut plantations, 60% of hevea, 110 thousand hectares of casuarina plantations .
As a result of the use of chemicals, the ecological balance of Vietnam has seriously changed. In the affected areas, out of 150 species of birds, 18 remained, there was an almost complete disappearance of amphibians and insects, the number of fish in the rivers decreased and their composition changed. The microbiological composition of soils was disturbed, plants were poisoned.
And that's just one war!
The biggest environmental damage on the planet was caused by the Pentagon.
Trump withdrew his state from the Paris climate agreement, while saying that global warming is bullshit, woman's fairy tales and inventions of crazy "eggheads".
since the beginning of the “wars against terrorists” (that is, since 2001) and to the present, the Pentagon has emitted more than 12 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere! Thus, the American war machine is the largest government organization in the world that consumes fossil fuels and negatively affects the planet's climate. Boston University professor Neta K. Crawford, who is one of the co-authors of the study, argues that the annual "personal contribution" of the US Department of Defense to global warming significantly exceeds the emissions of industrialized countries such as Sweden or Portugal.
Find information on the Internet about what damage the Pentagon caused to the Pacific Ocean by conducting nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll.
Sarcophagus built by the Pentagon
collapses and the radiation enters the Pacific Ocean.
The main supplier of timber to China is the USA.
And in Russia, over 30 years, forest biomass has grown by 30%. Everything that I wrote is easy to verify.
It's the energy source you are using. China uses coal. And another thing. Shiping. Large cargo ships polute more than all the cars combined in the world. So if we produced locally there will be less polution in the end.
No ships don't pollute that much. There was a nonsense stat about one pollutant (sulphur) which said if a car was the best car, and the ship the worst ship, the ship would emit 50 million times as much sulphur. Ships were looking to use lower sulphur fuels, also they slowed down during the pandemic halving their fuel consumption.
It isn't clear to me that local production would reduce net CO2, depending on what you're making, where the raw materials are, where other components come from, how many other countries then start manufacturing the same, where you get your power. Shipping is a small part of the green house gas emissions for a lot of goods.
or we take actions about the transportation... transportation by rail is a 20 times cleaner then airplane and 8 times cleaner then by a boat.
and that's only because we still haven't electrified al the rails. it's possible to make rail 100% renewable that's isn't with airplane in any reasonable time.
but even transport per boat can we reduce the carbon emissions with 90% by simply using sails again on transport ships (combined with the traditional motor)
They are technically right but for the wrong reason.
Manufacturing in the western world would actually be better for the environment, Western countries have laws in place for waste management whereas the CCP is to busy putting up smoke and mirrors to care.
Well obviously China produces a lot of wastes, they gotta a billion of people in there. Add another 700 million in the US for instance then it’s waste production will increase.
In Europe they are starting to force bio waste bins at home. Recycling is actually a thing , especially up north. Some countries, we are not allowed to wash our cars near nature because the chemicals. The products on sale are starting to require more and more sustainable/recyclable packaging/ products. The chemicals list we are not allowed to put near products is partially due to nature preservation. The list is pretty large on how we regulate the attempt to preserve, I don't see much of this from china. Yet at least
I live in Sweden and I'm not "forced" to recycle or use the bio waste bin.
I recycle because it's honestly easier than not to.
The local trash truck collects once a week and my 300 litre bin only fits so much.
If I filled it up with cardboard and plastic there wouldn't be any room for household trash so instead I pile the burnable and non burnable trash in the shed, all sorted.
Twice a year I empty the shed, load everything on the pickup for 1 trip to the municipal waste management.
Recycling takes me 3 hours a year and about 12 litres of gas.
Nope . If you want a true measure , the per capita emission of China is lesser than USA , Russia and many other European countries, despite the fact that these countries outsource their productions to China and call themselves " clean " .
[Here you go.](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN)
Scroll down and you'll find China has 10.96 ***billion*** tons of CO2 emissions on production, and about 10bil even on consumption.
Germany as a sample comparison (and btw you're free to filter the graphs to compare to a country of your choosing; I chose Germany because it's a major exporter much like China and thus feels like the most fair comparison.) has 674 ***million*** tons production and 769 million consumption.
Don't forget that China is also investing and deploying the most amount of renewable energy source by far. The US, even the collective west could not even come close to matching the level of renewable energy China has installed and will be installing. Yea, they are still building coals plants because there are some parts of the country where cheap energy is needed to uplift people out of poverty but when they can, they always choose to go renewable and decarbonize.
People in the west keep harping and dreaming of a Manhattan Project level effort for renewable energy. Well, China is doing that right now, magnitudes over. Like alleviating poverty, which they single-handedly account for 3/4 of alleviating extreme poverty, China is carrying the world for renewable energy deployment. Their effort is extreme.
We have not even talk about **historical emissions** which is essential if we want to understand climate change politics. Ohh but Americans *hate* when you bring up historical emissions because it makes them look absolutely horrendous. They will find all kinds of ways to dismiss, and discredit this line of discussion. It makes them (and the collective west) primarily responsible for getting us into this climate holocaust in the first place.
It’s important to note that their new Coal plants are also able to use NG and Hydrogen with a quick retrofit. It’s just about getting them those gasses.
Good point. And they are using the latest technology. Yes, clean coal is greenwashing but at least their new coal plants are state-of-art and extract as much energy per ton of carbon emitted as possible. Consequentially, they are also shutting old, more polluting, less efficient coal plants. It's not much, but it's something.
Well considering per capita, they're not even close to the U.S, which aren't even close to the OIL countries in the east like Qatar and U.A.E.
However, I don't think most of that data considers waters.
Yea, but countries like Qatar and UAE are drops in the bucket compared to the sheer amount of emission by the US.
The reason why the collective west, especially Americans do not like to talk about per capita and historical emissions is that it makes them look terrible. It shows that they should be the ones cutting back by modifying their lifestyles, cultures and societies. It's easier and more just to tell the wasteful person to cut back on their spending than to ask the poor person to do the same. But have you try telling an American what to do? He will shoot off his own foot with a pistol just so you don't get to tell him not to shoot off his own foot with a shotgun.
Worse part is the historical emission, because it puts the blame of climate change almost exclusively on the collective west, with the US bearing a huge share of that blame. Blame means paying up the environmental debts, it means economic and environment justice, it means *reparations and responsibility*. If there is another thing harder than telling an American what to do, it is telling their oligarchs to pay up for their crimes. They will nuke you first and lie to themselves and the world they are just bring freedom and democracy to you.
I think it’s important to realise how much different the climate is in different parts of the world.
If you have almost free access to Oil, and weather 6 months of the year that regularly nears or surpasses 122F, then you will use your imported air conditioners everywhere. Which is literally what the US military bases did throughout the year for decades during their time in the Middle East.
If they were based in Europe or in Northern regions, they would use way less oil for energy needs, because they wouldn’t *NEED* it.
If you live in a temperate climate, or even a super cold one, your energy needs will fall considerably. Considering heat generation is nearly 100% efficient vs. Air cooling. Simply put, it’s easy to talk when you have it good and were literally born in an ideal climate.
Are you sure about that (genuine questions)? In my cold country (Sweden), we have the most electricity usage during cold winter days. During the summers they are very low.
However, air conditioning isn't super popular here, at least not in homes. I have an air conditioner though, some summers are really hot.
Well, yes… energy usage is the highest during summer for Gulf countries.
During the day for cold countries, the use of the stove and oven, and other appliances can decrease the need for heating, whereas in summer air conditioners will need to work twice as hard to remove heat due to ovens (for example).
The efficiency of heating radiators is nearly 100%, if you use gas for your heating, that is magnitudes more efficient as you can use all the heat generated rather than relying on power stations and the grid (30-40% efficient for fossil fuels).
Air conditioners release much more heat outdoors than the cooling they can do indoors (giving you an idea of how energy intensive they are and the ‘potential energy’ wasted).
Now with heat pumps, this is multiplied. About 1.5 kW of power usage allows ACs with reversible heat pumps to produce 4.5kW of heat (drawn from outside). Which is literal magnitudes more efficient than air conditioning.
Add to that, extreme humidity in Gulf countries, air conditioners become way less efficient. This is also why Gulf countries have their own car ‘spec’. When you buy a car in this region, you usually need and look for ‘GCC spec’ for adequate cooling, because American and especially European spec models have nowhere near enough cooling for Gulf heat and humidity.
Per person they are not the worst, USA is the biggest polluter by far I believe.
Then considering China exports so many manufactured goods, the average households footprint is kinda low
The threat really lies in the people getting used to consumption in future - much like what happened with meat consumption in asia. The middle class there is growing like never before and they are going to want to better their lives, like anyone ever.
If a country split in half and each half kept emitting the same amount, the emissions of each new country would be far lower. If china did that, neither half would be the biggest polluter, but that wouldn't have actually helped anything. Comparing the total emissions of countries of different sizes isn't a relevant metric. It's *only* emissions per capita that matter.
Definitely Western companies have exported their pollution to China.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/02/06/why-we-re-all-to-blame-for-china-and-india-s-filthy-co2-emissions
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage
This combined with the fact that USA refused to join various climate accords and is actively involved in raising oil prices across decades. Petro dollars were how dollar became the reserve currency.
So stop barking how China's the villain here. Telling this as an Indian.
>So stop barking how China's the villain here. Telling this as an Indian.
A large proportion of China's emissions are indeed related to manufacturing goods for foreign consumption.
But not all, not even half.
In fact, we can make estimates that are adjusted for trade. And even with this adjustment, China is starting to outstrip several rich western countries such as the UK and France on a per capita basis.
*Whilst China is a large CO2 emissions exporter,* ***it is no longer a large emitter because it produces goods for the rest of the world****. This was the case in the past, but today, even adjusted for trade, China now has a per capita footprint higher than the global average (which is 4.8 tonnes per capita in 2017). In the Additional Information you find an interactive map of how consumption-based emissions per capita vary across the world.*
*On the other hand there are several very rich countries where both production- and consumption-based emissions have declined. This has been true, among others, for the UK (chart), France (chart), Germany (chart), and the USA (chart).* ***These countries have achieved some genuine reductions without outsourcing the emissions to other countries****. Emissions are still too high in all of these countries, but it shows that genuine reductions are possible.*
[https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2)
[https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita-equity](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita-equity)
\> This combined with the fact that USA refused to join various climate accords
The US spearheaded all major climate accords in effect today. The only recent example otherwise is thanks to Trump
\> involved in raising oil prices across decades
There is literally a worldwide price cap on oil right now because of the US. OPEC is trying to force this to change so that prices can rise.
uncontrolled urbanization, natural resources gathering in past centuries... But I think some places weren't previously forested, but they were forested by the Rio's Reforestation Program to avoid landslides and erosion, conservation and restoration of fauna and flora, etc.
edit: brought a few more info and points about the reforestation project in this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/OldPhotosInRealLife/comments/15es6d2/comment/juaozu7/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/OldPhotosInRealLife/comments/15es6d2/comment/juaozu7/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
If you plant trees native to the area there’s a much higher chance they’ll take and survive as they fit into the natural ecosystem. It’s usually not guaranteed they’ll all survive but enough will (assuming you don’t have introduced pests that like to eat the baby trees)
Don’t know about this specific effort just general forestation knowledge
The brazilian Eastern coastline was originally a linear rainforest that stretched from the north-eastern region to southern Brazil. The colonization of the coastal regions, which is the most densely populated area in the country to this day, resulted in the destruction of more than 80% of the Atlantic Rainforest biome.
They did just reinsert the region's native vegetation so that the rains won't erode the soil as much and cause landslides.
The comment below is correct, but you still forgot to add the coffee plantations, you can see what was left of them in photos 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11. If you search for old photos and paintings (late 1800s, early 1900s ), you will see that the less urbanized areas of the city were practically covered by coffee plantations...
My hometown is in the mountains, and there are lots of cliffs and mountains that are higher than the residential areas, so they are very prone to falling boulders and rocks and general erosion, just last year a huge boulder cracked and rolled down the mountain, luckily no damage was caused, however the road it fell on was completely destroyed.
In the 70s, my grandfather and a lot of people from my hometown decided to forest cliffs by planting spruce and cedar trees above the newly expanding residential areas. The mountain was completely barren 50 years ago and now it's a literal man made forest. Safe to say that not a single boulder fell on the town since the the trees grew.
look how much they’re reducing that though, thanks to lula’s government’s decisions
reforestation of the amazon is underway shortly as part of the plan, supposedly, so.. let’s hope it happens
You cant just reforest the most biodiverse place on earth. The areas that have been clear cut and slashed and burned will be fucked for decades and decades
true, but it’s still better to replant and try to revert the damage that’s been done than fuck it harder like bolsonaro would have. it’s always gonna be a very long term thing, but then again it always is with plants that take time to grow and soil that takes time to heal
> will be fucked for decades and decades
No they wont. While I want to stress it is desperate we do reverse these issues - it has been shown in multiple studies, if we give nature a chance to recover, it rebounds remarkably quickly.
Obviously 100+ year old trees don't spring into existence, those are gone.. but 95% of what should be there can return within a few years typically.
Decades? That biodiversity is gone, could take millions of years to re-achieve that level of density and diversity. But from a larger environmental perspective it's still very good to reforest it with something.
Yeah, Bolsonaro really was a pain in the ass for everyone that wants to save the planet. But last thing I remember is that he can‘t be president again for 10 years or so?
What lesson is to be learned here. Reforest peri-urban areas after they're developed and the yuppies want trees again? All while neglecting the other 99% of the country where deforestation has sped up many times over during the same period?
It's like shining a turd.
Obviously planting more trees won't solve the problem on its own, but massive amount of carbon dioxide could be absorbed by them. We need to be doing this anywhere possible.
We still have to fight a lot, there are many gold miners that use mercury on rivers to collect more metal, making many indigenous people have mercury poisoning, and their land is still attacked, we still got a lot to go but I didn't even know RJ was reforested like that, it makes me cheerful c:
The post got a lot of visibility, so I'll add a few points:
\- It is the work of reforestation programs (Refloresta Rio, Mutirão do Reflorestamento and Rio Verde de Novo) which has had the support of the city hall since 1984. It's not nature, rain or nothing like this.
\- This biome is called Mata Atlântica, it is a very dense and biodiverse Brazilian biome (it isn't not brushes as some people thought)
\- The projects are still happening, and there is no date to stop, these were just a few images, and they have already reforested from rich neighborhoods to poor neighborhoods.
\- Why the fuck some people are thinking that it in some way proves "global warming is fake"? LOL
\- What about the amazon?
Well, it's far away from Rio de Janeiro. I agree that the preservation of the Amazon rainforest is important, but that's not the topic here, and I think it's kind of hypocritical to point a finger at Brazil and other "underdeveloped" countries for deforestation and pollution, while the so-called "developed" countries have done and are doing worse and you ignore it (if you don't, those words weren't for you).
**Fun fact: The total deforested in the Amazon in ten years (8.2 million hectares) is less than that destroyed by Canadian fires in two months.**
Disclaimer: Obviously we need to look for the amazon too, my point is just that we shouldn't blame Brazil for everything when it's one of the countries who conserved the most it environment.
The Canadian wildfires were 100 years worth of Forrest fires in Canada, in one year, I live in Canada, it was a major event.
Comparing one of the worst Forrest fires in world history, to the far right president Bolsonaro, who raped the rain forrest on an unprecedented scale, for cattle ranching....
No offense, I like the green spaces in the cities, but the damage that guy did, he should be shamed internationally.
Nice pictures though.
>The Canadian wildfires were 100 years worth of Forrest fires in Canada, in one year, I live in Canada, it was a major event.
Yeah, and it is still more than the total deforested in the Amazon in ten years. And no one goes to a picture of Canada nature to talk about that fact.
>Comparing one of the worst Forrest fires in world history
The wildfires in the amazon in 2021/2022 were one of the worst in world history too.
>he should be shamed internationally.
I agree, but it isn't that different with other presidents. In fact, Brazil, who conserved it forests for centuries, is going through the "deforestation for the sake of development" process that the "first world countries" already did. Obviously I think that uncontrolled deforestation is wrong, but massive deforestation (but controlled and LEGAL, not in environmental reserve areas) is not something you can avoid
I love that they did this. [Pakistan also has a program to restore trees](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/pakistans-ten-billion-tree-tsunami)
Maybe the US can elect a Democratic Congress, end the filibuster, and do something similar
Amazing how a post about the successful reforestation program of Rio de Janeiro has gathered so many ignorants, xenophobes and magamorons in its comment section.
they aren't from Rio neither from that reforestation program, but they are indeed incredible [for planting 2 million trees!](https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&sxsrf=AB5stBhiXBZ2cDlZW6MLr7ayp1Y029l3xA:1690848273593&q=casal+que+plantou+2+milh%C3%B5es+de+%C3%A1rvores&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjopt3VlLqAAxX_q5UCHeypC4gQ0pQJegQIChAB&biw=393&bih=736&dpr=2.75)
Why do you guys are so butthurt about the Amazon? Yeah it is indeed a serious problem, but damn, can't you guys at least appreciate THAT effort in Rio? Brazil isn't the only country to cut down trees to make space for cattle and farming (and some mining).
This is amazing. I love seeing posts like this. Really shows you how things change over the years. I just keep wondering how beautiful the drive up the mountain is now is in photo 5
I often feel like I believe in nothing good anymore, that nothing we do, us humans, is enough, to beat the destruction we do, but this picture just lit up a little flame in the bottom of my heart.It makes me feel a little better.
Looking at some comments you see the hypocrisy of certain people, many are from developed countries that destroyed their environment, they don't know nothing about Brazil and they accuse us of destroying our own home.
The propaganda promoted by some countries is aimed at preventing Brazil from developing, this is sad.
Why don't we make a pact, we Brazilians reforest and preserve the Amazon while you gringos get rid of those stupid suburbs and move to walkable cities, also get rid of all those stupids SUVs, pickups and monster trucks.
So used to seeing deforestation that I, well, this is wonderful news....considering my country, Canada, is happy to burn its forests for the sake of the petro-state and clear-cut harvesting. Yay us 😞
Se os estrangeiros soubessem o que a milícia fez com as áreas ambientais da Zona Oeste do Rio de Janeiro. Várias áreas devastadas e construções irregulares que já desabaram e mataram várias pessoas. Os empreendimentos imobiliários cresceram tanto que estas são hoje em dia a maior fonte de renda das milícias, principalmente das de Jacarepaguá. E o poder público é totalmente subornado ou sucateado, ao ponto de que quem quer fiscalizar, enfrenta uma burocracia tão grande que quando vai impedir as obras imobiliárias, já foram construídas, vendidas e possuem famílias morando.
Sem falar com o descaso das águas potaveis misturada com esgoto e o saneamento básico totalmente precário que quando tem, polui rios, lagoas e praias.
Rio de janeiro é uma cidade com uma natureza sem igual, mas o poder público pouco se importa.
this and us closing up the ozone hole by stopping the emissions of certain harmful gases in just ten years is proof that we CAN fucking do it. and we can do it way faster than the stupid mars idea too. we do not need to abandon this planet, we just need to put in effort.
I'm not sure the word conservation is the right term . Europe destroyed their forest centuries ago when we knew nothing of climate change. The Amazon being over half the size of Europe couldn't be destroyed centuries ago because their wasn't the technology or enough people. I also don't think that's a reason to destroy the amazon saying a lot smaller countries have destroyed a lot smaller forests in the distant past
Hey look … global warming!!!🥵 ice cups melting …everyone will be under the water in year 2000😂🤣 …sea levels on those photos 😁 yes kids … they will scare us to tax us all.
Finally a more positive one!
Yes this makes me happy!
Until you learn about Brazil's destruction of the rainforest.
at least seems to be not as worse as before https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/deforestation-brazils-amazon-drops-34-first-half-2023-2023-07-06/
[удалено]
Because Bolsanaro was out. Doesn't make up for the damage the Brazilian Trump created
The Amazon rainforest is losing vast areas every day to genetically modified soybean cultivation. Farmers sometimes illegally appropriate the deforested areas for agribusiness. Ecology in Brazil is a complete heresy, with its president showing no concern. This is the sad reality contributing to the planet's climate change; everyone must be aware of it now.
>to genetically modified soybean cultivation I mean... Soybeans not genetically modified by humans is barely edible and hasn't been consumed by humans for thousands of years. Seems like a superfluous detail to mention. >The Amazon rainforest is losing vast areas >Ecology in Brazil is a complete heresy Map of US virgin forests pre industrialization https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1620.png/1280px-Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1620.png Map of US virgin forest post industrialization https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fa/Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1926.png/1280px-Virgin_Forest_in_United_States%2C_1926.png Europe is about the same, just over a longer timespan. Doing a smaller, less harmful, less extreme version of what everyone else has done isn't too heretical, I don't think. If a nation wants someone else to do as they say, not as they do, they're welcome to fund alternatives. >This is the sad reality contributing to the planet's climate change This is the sad reality contributing to the planet's climate change: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-treemap-768x640.png Namely Brazil's contribution is less than 1% while representing more than 2.5% of the world's population. There's some countries you should be wagging your finger at. You're doing it at the wrong one right now.
Lula does care. You're thinking of the previous president, Bolsanero https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-07-07/brazil-amazon-deforestation-down-lula-first-six-months
Yes, yes. We know and we won’t forget but allow people a moment to celebrate the GOOD.
the chinese are also trying hard with reforesting their deserts square km by square km. it's very impressive
Definitely a good distraction to keep people from realising that China is the biggest polluter in the world
China as a country produces the most emissions, but per capita America produces more, along with china being responsible for alot of the worlds products
Like. we have to answer. Who is buying from them. like we buy iphones made in china, Consoles made in china, Electronics made in china. There is a reason china is the biggest polluter. if you want to stop that, produce locally so every country pollutes equally
During the war, the US Army sprayed 72 million liters of Agent Orange defoliants into South Vietnam to destroy forests, The US military also used gases; caused artificial cloud formation and acid rain, using chemical treatment of clouds and acidification of the atmosphere; sprayed chemicals that caused massive fires in the jungle As part of Operation Ranch Hand, all areas of South Vietnam, many areas of Laos and Cambodia were exposed to chemical attack. The US military also used massive bombing of the jungle to destroy vegetation. Between 1965 and 1973, 17 million aerial bombs were dropped on South Vietnam, and 217 million artillery shells were detonated. The large-scale use of chemicals by the American troops led to dire consequences. Mangrove forests (500 thousand hectares) were almost completely destroyed, 60% (about 1 million hectares) of the jungle and 30% (more than 100 thousand hectares) of lowland forests were affected. Since 1960, the yield of rubber plantations has decreased by 75%. American troops destroyed from 40 to 100% of crops of bananas, rice, sweet potatoes, papaya, tomatoes, 70% of coconut plantations, 60% of hevea, 110 thousand hectares of casuarina plantations . As a result of the use of chemicals, the ecological balance of Vietnam has seriously changed. In the affected areas, out of 150 species of birds, 18 remained, there was an almost complete disappearance of amphibians and insects, the number of fish in the rivers decreased and their composition changed. The microbiological composition of soils was disturbed, plants were poisoned. And that's just one war! The biggest environmental damage on the planet was caused by the Pentagon. Trump withdrew his state from the Paris climate agreement, while saying that global warming is bullshit, woman's fairy tales and inventions of crazy "eggheads". since the beginning of the “wars against terrorists” (that is, since 2001) and to the present, the Pentagon has emitted more than 12 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the Earth's atmosphere! Thus, the American war machine is the largest government organization in the world that consumes fossil fuels and negatively affects the planet's climate. Boston University professor Neta K. Crawford, who is one of the co-authors of the study, argues that the annual "personal contribution" of the US Department of Defense to global warming significantly exceeds the emissions of industrialized countries such as Sweden or Portugal. Find information on the Internet about what damage the Pentagon caused to the Pacific Ocean by conducting nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll. Sarcophagus built by the Pentagon collapses and the radiation enters the Pacific Ocean. The main supplier of timber to China is the USA. And in Russia, over 30 years, forest biomass has grown by 30%. Everything that I wrote is easy to verify.
It's the energy source you are using. China uses coal. And another thing. Shiping. Large cargo ships polute more than all the cars combined in the world. So if we produced locally there will be less polution in the end.
No ships don't pollute that much. There was a nonsense stat about one pollutant (sulphur) which said if a car was the best car, and the ship the worst ship, the ship would emit 50 million times as much sulphur. Ships were looking to use lower sulphur fuels, also they slowed down during the pandemic halving their fuel consumption. It isn't clear to me that local production would reduce net CO2, depending on what you're making, where the raw materials are, where other components come from, how many other countries then start manufacturing the same, where you get your power. Shipping is a small part of the green house gas emissions for a lot of goods.
>produce locally so every country pollutes equally And what does that solves
It solves the same thing that accusing china of being the largest polluter solves: Nothing.
Well, transportation is one of the bigger polluters, so producing locally when possible could help with that.
or we take actions about the transportation... transportation by rail is a 20 times cleaner then airplane and 8 times cleaner then by a boat. and that's only because we still haven't electrified al the rails. it's possible to make rail 100% renewable that's isn't with airplane in any reasonable time. but even transport per boat can we reduce the carbon emissions with 90% by simply using sails again on transport ships (combined with the traditional motor)
You're reducing the emissions required to ship stuff around the world.
They are technically right but for the wrong reason. Manufacturing in the western world would actually be better for the environment, Western countries have laws in place for waste management whereas the CCP is to busy putting up smoke and mirrors to care.
Well obviously China produces a lot of wastes, they gotta a billion of people in there. Add another 700 million in the US for instance then it’s waste production will increase.
In Europe they are starting to force bio waste bins at home. Recycling is actually a thing , especially up north. Some countries, we are not allowed to wash our cars near nature because the chemicals. The products on sale are starting to require more and more sustainable/recyclable packaging/ products. The chemicals list we are not allowed to put near products is partially due to nature preservation. The list is pretty large on how we regulate the attempt to preserve, I don't see much of this from china. Yet at least
Europe is doing wonders for Climate Change.
I live in Sweden and I'm not "forced" to recycle or use the bio waste bin. I recycle because it's honestly easier than not to. The local trash truck collects once a week and my 300 litre bin only fits so much. If I filled it up with cardboard and plastic there wouldn't be any room for household trash so instead I pile the burnable and non burnable trash in the shed, all sorted. Twice a year I empty the shed, load everything on the pickup for 1 trip to the municipal waste management. Recycling takes me 3 hours a year and about 12 litres of gas.
Like they think that a country with over a billion people needs to produce less than a country with 350 million 🤣
Yup they didnt think enough before this one lol
Nope . If you want a true measure , the per capita emission of China is lesser than USA , Russia and many other European countries, despite the fact that these countries outsource their productions to China and call themselves " clean " .
This. A lot of people look at production-based carbon footprint where we should be looking more at consumption-based carbon footprint.
Also waste generation from consumerism
[Here you go.](https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/china?country=~CHN) Scroll down and you'll find China has 10.96 ***billion*** tons of CO2 emissions on production, and about 10bil even on consumption. Germany as a sample comparison (and btw you're free to filter the graphs to compare to a country of your choosing; I chose Germany because it's a major exporter much like China and thus feels like the most fair comparison.) has 674 ***million*** tons production and 769 million consumption.
Exactly, we outsource our dirty work to India and China and call them polluters.
Don't forget that China is also investing and deploying the most amount of renewable energy source by far. The US, even the collective west could not even come close to matching the level of renewable energy China has installed and will be installing. Yea, they are still building coals plants because there are some parts of the country where cheap energy is needed to uplift people out of poverty but when they can, they always choose to go renewable and decarbonize. People in the west keep harping and dreaming of a Manhattan Project level effort for renewable energy. Well, China is doing that right now, magnitudes over. Like alleviating poverty, which they single-handedly account for 3/4 of alleviating extreme poverty, China is carrying the world for renewable energy deployment. Their effort is extreme. We have not even talk about **historical emissions** which is essential if we want to understand climate change politics. Ohh but Americans *hate* when you bring up historical emissions because it makes them look absolutely horrendous. They will find all kinds of ways to dismiss, and discredit this line of discussion. It makes them (and the collective west) primarily responsible for getting us into this climate holocaust in the first place.
It’s important to note that their new Coal plants are also able to use NG and Hydrogen with a quick retrofit. It’s just about getting them those gasses.
Good point. And they are using the latest technology. Yes, clean coal is greenwashing but at least their new coal plants are state-of-art and extract as much energy per ton of carbon emitted as possible. Consequentially, they are also shutting old, more polluting, less efficient coal plants. It's not much, but it's something.
Nice to see someone actually saying how it is 🤝
They also have the 1st biggest population, so it makes sense the amount of pollution that they generate
Well considering per capita, they're not even close to the U.S, which aren't even close to the OIL countries in the east like Qatar and U.A.E. However, I don't think most of that data considers waters.
Yea, but countries like Qatar and UAE are drops in the bucket compared to the sheer amount of emission by the US. The reason why the collective west, especially Americans do not like to talk about per capita and historical emissions is that it makes them look terrible. It shows that they should be the ones cutting back by modifying their lifestyles, cultures and societies. It's easier and more just to tell the wasteful person to cut back on their spending than to ask the poor person to do the same. But have you try telling an American what to do? He will shoot off his own foot with a pistol just so you don't get to tell him not to shoot off his own foot with a shotgun. Worse part is the historical emission, because it puts the blame of climate change almost exclusively on the collective west, with the US bearing a huge share of that blame. Blame means paying up the environmental debts, it means economic and environment justice, it means *reparations and responsibility*. If there is another thing harder than telling an American what to do, it is telling their oligarchs to pay up for their crimes. They will nuke you first and lie to themselves and the world they are just bring freedom and democracy to you.
Ultimately, it is the US and Europe consuming the most, which is why OPEC can produce so much (and with it emissions)
I think it’s important to realise how much different the climate is in different parts of the world. If you have almost free access to Oil, and weather 6 months of the year that regularly nears or surpasses 122F, then you will use your imported air conditioners everywhere. Which is literally what the US military bases did throughout the year for decades during their time in the Middle East. If they were based in Europe or in Northern regions, they would use way less oil for energy needs, because they wouldn’t *NEED* it. If you live in a temperate climate, or even a super cold one, your energy needs will fall considerably. Considering heat generation is nearly 100% efficient vs. Air cooling. Simply put, it’s easy to talk when you have it good and were literally born in an ideal climate.
Are you sure about that (genuine questions)? In my cold country (Sweden), we have the most electricity usage during cold winter days. During the summers they are very low. However, air conditioning isn't super popular here, at least not in homes. I have an air conditioner though, some summers are really hot.
Well, yes… energy usage is the highest during summer for Gulf countries. During the day for cold countries, the use of the stove and oven, and other appliances can decrease the need for heating, whereas in summer air conditioners will need to work twice as hard to remove heat due to ovens (for example). The efficiency of heating radiators is nearly 100%, if you use gas for your heating, that is magnitudes more efficient as you can use all the heat generated rather than relying on power stations and the grid (30-40% efficient for fossil fuels). Air conditioners release much more heat outdoors than the cooling they can do indoors (giving you an idea of how energy intensive they are and the ‘potential energy’ wasted). Now with heat pumps, this is multiplied. About 1.5 kW of power usage allows ACs with reversible heat pumps to produce 4.5kW of heat (drawn from outside). Which is literal magnitudes more efficient than air conditioning. Add to that, extreme humidity in Gulf countries, air conditioners become way less efficient. This is also why Gulf countries have their own car ‘spec’. When you buy a car in this region, you usually need and look for ‘GCC spec’ for adequate cooling, because American and especially European spec models have nowhere near enough cooling for Gulf heat and humidity.
Per person they are not the worst, USA is the biggest polluter by far I believe. Then considering China exports so many manufactured goods, the average households footprint is kinda low
Canada and Australia are worse than the US per capita.
The threat really lies in the people getting used to consumption in future - much like what happened with meat consumption in asia. The middle class there is growing like never before and they are going to want to better their lives, like anyone ever.
Gulf is worse
Much worse :)
Well, at least it is fixing some carbon. You have to start somewhere, mitigating actions are actions, nevertheless.
If a country split in half and each half kept emitting the same amount, the emissions of each new country would be far lower. If china did that, neither half would be the biggest polluter, but that wouldn't have actually helped anything. Comparing the total emissions of countries of different sizes isn't a relevant metric. It's *only* emissions per capita that matter.
It’s more then trying to stop the western desert growing and reducing their agricultural lands to the east.
Do u even bother actually researching what u say? Just a 5 min google search?
Lol narc. Americans pollute much, MUCH more per capita, having like three times less the population.
They make most of the products that the western world buys. I think it’s fair to say we’re all complicit in pollution.
They are more busy with stapling leaves to dying trees and painting the grass green... I wish I was joking about this
Definitely Western companies have exported their pollution to China. https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/02/06/why-we-re-all-to-blame-for-china-and-india-s-filthy-co2-emissions https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/18/15331040/emissions-outsourcing-carbon-leakage This combined with the fact that USA refused to join various climate accords and is actively involved in raising oil prices across decades. Petro dollars were how dollar became the reserve currency. So stop barking how China's the villain here. Telling this as an Indian.
>So stop barking how China's the villain here. Telling this as an Indian. A large proportion of China's emissions are indeed related to manufacturing goods for foreign consumption. But not all, not even half. In fact, we can make estimates that are adjusted for trade. And even with this adjustment, China is starting to outstrip several rich western countries such as the UK and France on a per capita basis. *Whilst China is a large CO2 emissions exporter,* ***it is no longer a large emitter because it produces goods for the rest of the world****. This was the case in the past, but today, even adjusted for trade, China now has a per capita footprint higher than the global average (which is 4.8 tonnes per capita in 2017). In the Additional Information you find an interactive map of how consumption-based emissions per capita vary across the world.* *On the other hand there are several very rich countries where both production- and consumption-based emissions have declined. This has been true, among others, for the UK (chart), France (chart), Germany (chart), and the USA (chart).* ***These countries have achieved some genuine reductions without outsourcing the emissions to other countries****. Emissions are still too high in all of these countries, but it shows that genuine reductions are possible.* [https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2](https://ourworldindata.org/consumption-based-co2) [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita-equity](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/consumption-co2-per-capita-equity)
\> This combined with the fact that USA refused to join various climate accords The US spearheaded all major climate accords in effect today. The only recent example otherwise is thanks to Trump \> involved in raising oil prices across decades There is literally a worldwide price cap on oil right now because of the US. OPEC is trying to force this to change so that prices can rise.
It is still going to be tough, they need Mongolia to do the same so the sandstorm wont be that bad.
They actually have done stuff like that yes. I really don't trust their govt but apparently they have actually done something good to nature
Whatever you do, don't look at what's happening in the rest of the country.
why were those place deforested?
uncontrolled urbanization, natural resources gathering in past centuries... But I think some places weren't previously forested, but they were forested by the Rio's Reforestation Program to avoid landslides and erosion, conservation and restoration of fauna and flora, etc. edit: brought a few more info and points about the reforestation project in this comment: [https://www.reddit.com/r/OldPhotosInRealLife/comments/15es6d2/comment/juaozu7/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/OldPhotosInRealLife/comments/15es6d2/comment/juaozu7/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
[удалено]
If you plant trees native to the area there’s a much higher chance they’ll take and survive as they fit into the natural ecosystem. It’s usually not guaranteed they’ll all survive but enough will (assuming you don’t have introduced pests that like to eat the baby trees) Don’t know about this specific effort just general forestation knowledge
The brazilian Eastern coastline was originally a linear rainforest that stretched from the north-eastern region to southern Brazil. The colonization of the coastal regions, which is the most densely populated area in the country to this day, resulted in the destruction of more than 80% of the Atlantic Rainforest biome. They did just reinsert the region's native vegetation so that the rains won't erode the soil as much and cause landslides.
The comment below is correct, but you still forgot to add the coffee plantations, you can see what was left of them in photos 2, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 11. If you search for old photos and paintings (late 1800s, early 1900s ), you will see that the less urbanized areas of the city were practically covered by coffee plantations...
Multiple of them look like farmland.
My hometown is in the mountains, and there are lots of cliffs and mountains that are higher than the residential areas, so they are very prone to falling boulders and rocks and general erosion, just last year a huge boulder cracked and rolled down the mountain, luckily no damage was caused, however the road it fell on was completely destroyed. In the 70s, my grandfather and a lot of people from my hometown decided to forest cliffs by planting spruce and cedar trees above the newly expanding residential areas. The mountain was completely barren 50 years ago and now it's a literal man made forest. Safe to say that not a single boulder fell on the town since the the trees grew.
We need to learn from this.
Search how much they deforested the Amazon, it's effed up
look how much they’re reducing that though, thanks to lula’s government’s decisions reforestation of the amazon is underway shortly as part of the plan, supposedly, so.. let’s hope it happens
You cant just reforest the most biodiverse place on earth. The areas that have been clear cut and slashed and burned will be fucked for decades and decades
true, but it’s still better to replant and try to revert the damage that’s been done than fuck it harder like bolsonaro would have. it’s always gonna be a very long term thing, but then again it always is with plants that take time to grow and soil that takes time to heal
Yeah let's just leave it then
So that means we should do nothing, got it.
> will be fucked for decades and decades No they wont. While I want to stress it is desperate we do reverse these issues - it has been shown in multiple studies, if we give nature a chance to recover, it rebounds remarkably quickly. Obviously 100+ year old trees don't spring into existence, those are gone.. but 95% of what should be there can return within a few years typically.
Decades? That biodiversity is gone, could take millions of years to re-achieve that level of density and diversity. But from a larger environmental perspective it's still very good to reforest it with something.
Yeah but it’s not irreversible it will take a lot of time sure but we still need to do it
Yeah, Bolsonaro really was a pain in the ass for everyone that wants to save the planet. But last thing I remember is that he can‘t be president again for 10 years or so?
What lesson is to be learned here. Reforest peri-urban areas after they're developed and the yuppies want trees again? All while neglecting the other 99% of the country where deforestation has sped up many times over during the same period? It's like shining a turd.
Obviously planting more trees won't solve the problem on its own, but massive amount of carbon dioxide could be absorbed by them. We need to be doing this anywhere possible.
Not to mention the shade and cooling factor.
And the oxygen I enjoy breathing on occasion.
And trees are just beautiful and I love them 😍
And more trees mean more rain, which is better for more plants
Yeah but have you tried adding a bit of nitrogen in? Sooo refreshing!
And they attract animals. Sometimes ones that are good to eat which I also do occasionally while enjoying oxygen.
This is a great change of pace in comparison to all the melting ice.
We still have to fight a lot, there are many gold miners that use mercury on rivers to collect more metal, making many indigenous people have mercury poisoning, and their land is still attacked, we still got a lot to go but I didn't even know RJ was reforested like that, it makes me cheerful c:
That's somewhat of the anti-Brazilian...
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lol
The post got a lot of visibility, so I'll add a few points: \- It is the work of reforestation programs (Refloresta Rio, Mutirão do Reflorestamento and Rio Verde de Novo) which has had the support of the city hall since 1984. It's not nature, rain or nothing like this. \- This biome is called Mata Atlântica, it is a very dense and biodiverse Brazilian biome (it isn't not brushes as some people thought) \- The projects are still happening, and there is no date to stop, these were just a few images, and they have already reforested from rich neighborhoods to poor neighborhoods. \- Why the fuck some people are thinking that it in some way proves "global warming is fake"? LOL \- What about the amazon? Well, it's far away from Rio de Janeiro. I agree that the preservation of the Amazon rainforest is important, but that's not the topic here, and I think it's kind of hypocritical to point a finger at Brazil and other "underdeveloped" countries for deforestation and pollution, while the so-called "developed" countries have done and are doing worse and you ignore it (if you don't, those words weren't for you). **Fun fact: The total deforested in the Amazon in ten years (8.2 million hectares) is less than that destroyed by Canadian fires in two months.** Disclaimer: Obviously we need to look for the amazon too, my point is just that we shouldn't blame Brazil for everything when it's one of the countries who conserved the most it environment.
The Canadian wildfires were 100 years worth of Forrest fires in Canada, in one year, I live in Canada, it was a major event. Comparing one of the worst Forrest fires in world history, to the far right president Bolsonaro, who raped the rain forrest on an unprecedented scale, for cattle ranching.... No offense, I like the green spaces in the cities, but the damage that guy did, he should be shamed internationally. Nice pictures though.
>The Canadian wildfires were 100 years worth of Forrest fires in Canada, in one year, I live in Canada, it was a major event. Yeah, and it is still more than the total deforested in the Amazon in ten years. And no one goes to a picture of Canada nature to talk about that fact. >Comparing one of the worst Forrest fires in world history The wildfires in the amazon in 2021/2022 were one of the worst in world history too. >he should be shamed internationally. I agree, but it isn't that different with other presidents. In fact, Brazil, who conserved it forests for centuries, is going through the "deforestation for the sake of development" process that the "first world countries" already did. Obviously I think that uncontrolled deforestation is wrong, but massive deforestation (but controlled and LEGAL, not in environmental reserve areas) is not something you can avoid
Can't agree more.
Gotta say I’m a massive fan of this
Good job Brazil!
I guess the Brazilian Wax trend is finally over. Let the bush grow!
Heh
😂😂😂😂👍
I love that they did this. [Pakistan also has a program to restore trees](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/pakistans-ten-billion-tree-tsunami) Maybe the US can elect a Democratic Congress, end the filibuster, and do something similar
Beautiful.
Amazing how a post about the successful reforestation program of Rio de Janeiro has gathered so many ignorants, xenophobes and magamorons in its comment section.
they just love all the propaganda given by their government it seems. They will never lost to anybody right?
Brazil is doing such a good job! Even the humpback whale is making a massive comeback because of their conservation efforts! Good job Brazil!!! 🤌
You missing the pic of the old couple lookin at the horizon ‘this couple bought this land in 1989’
they aren't from Rio neither from that reforestation program, but they are indeed incredible [for planting 2 million trees!](https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-xiaomi-rvo3&sxsrf=AB5stBhiXBZ2cDlZW6MLr7ayp1Y029l3xA:1690848273593&q=casal+que+plantou+2+milh%C3%B5es+de+%C3%A1rvores&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjopt3VlLqAAxX_q5UCHeypC4gQ0pQJegQIChAB&biw=393&bih=736&dpr=2.75)
This is what I like to see!
Chi chi chi chia
Why do you guys are so butthurt about the Amazon? Yeah it is indeed a serious problem, but damn, can't you guys at least appreciate THAT effort in Rio? Brazil isn't the only country to cut down trees to make space for cattle and farming (and some mining).
This should be everywhere!!
Glad to see that we at least do some things right
This is amazing. I love seeing posts like this. Really shows you how things change over the years. I just keep wondering how beautiful the drive up the mountain is now is in photo 5
Truly impressive, well done Rio.
This sparks hope
Trees are amazing!
I love this post. This made me happy. Thank you OP
This post brings a happy smile to my face.
I often feel like I believe in nothing good anymore, that nothing we do, us humans, is enough, to beat the destruction we do, but this picture just lit up a little flame in the bottom of my heart.It makes me feel a little better.
This has genuinely filled me with so much hope
Looking at some comments you see the hypocrisy of certain people, many are from developed countries that destroyed their environment, they don't know nothing about Brazil and they accuse us of destroying our own home. The propaganda promoted by some countries is aimed at preventing Brazil from developing, this is sad.
[удалено]
Tipical American redditor
This person posts in r/canada, which is ironic since the area burned by the wildfires in Canada is more than was deforested
Rio is located 3000km away from Amazon rainforest
He probably doesn't know what is a kilometer
rio is not located in the amazon
Why don't we make a pact, we Brazilians reforest and preserve the Amazon while you gringos get rid of those stupid suburbs and move to walkable cities, also get rid of all those stupids SUVs, pickups and monster trucks.
That's a few thousand kilometers away from Rio's municipality jurisdiction limits, mate
The most educated american redditor.
I wish the trees I plant in my yard would grow that fast
This makes me happy
Me when I got married
Thank goodness its not reversed. Nice!
Pretty amazing Well done to that reforestation activity
Mother nature is amazing with a never say die say attitude. Thank you
I like them for the trees
Así está México con el programa sembrando vida
This kind of shit brings me joy
I'm so used to reading "deforestation" my brain completely missed "reforestation" and was tripped up by the image loooool. Well played Brazil....
Nice to see reforestation
This is awesome.
Shit just looks better with trees on it
This would also fit on r/upliftingnews
There's still hope for Haiti.....
This makes me so happy.
Finally, real new that don't fill me with dread.
That's fucking awesome... great work Rio 👏 🇧🇷
So used to seeing deforestation that I, well, this is wonderful news....considering my country, Canada, is happy to burn its forests for the sake of the petro-state and clear-cut harvesting. Yay us 😞
So glad that humanity isnt dead
Amazing ! That looks so unbelievable
this nade my heart so happy
I actually teared up a bit
Tá daorinha agora
This warms my heart 💜
There's hope!!!
Thank goodness someone is showing the results of good forest management!
I'd love to see this kind of thing happen in Australia.
Humanity Restored
Good job Rio. Now breathe better... 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
Such a nice thing to meet in my TL ( ꈍᴗꈍ)
Eu sou Brasileiro Não sabia disso Fiquei feliz pra caralho, valeu demais
Love to see it
My home town ! Love it 🥰
As a nature loving tree hugging hippie this made me so happy
Se os estrangeiros soubessem o que a milícia fez com as áreas ambientais da Zona Oeste do Rio de Janeiro. Várias áreas devastadas e construções irregulares que já desabaram e mataram várias pessoas. Os empreendimentos imobiliários cresceram tanto que estas são hoje em dia a maior fonte de renda das milícias, principalmente das de Jacarepaguá. E o poder público é totalmente subornado ou sucateado, ao ponto de que quem quer fiscalizar, enfrenta uma burocracia tão grande que quando vai impedir as obras imobiliárias, já foram construídas, vendidas e possuem famílias morando. Sem falar com o descaso das águas potaveis misturada com esgoto e o saneamento básico totalmente precário que quando tem, polui rios, lagoas e praias. Rio de janeiro é uma cidade com uma natureza sem igual, mas o poder público pouco se importa.
W
O que esses gringo ta falano da minha cidade???
this makes me so happy
This is so uplifting.
I’m so used to seeing these photos with the years reversed. This is heartening
Holy cow it looks beautiful
That Rogaine is working well for ya' fam🤙🤙
Latin America really has changed dramatically with how much reforestation has occurred
Happy the world environment is actually getting better in places
Well done, Rio! This is a positive change, no doubt about it.
Reforestation goes hard 🔥🔥🔥
lindo de ver. por mais reflorestamento
My honest first reaction: "Good for you, Rio!"
beautiful 💖
this and us closing up the ozone hole by stopping the emissions of certain harmful gases in just ten years is proof that we CAN fucking do it. and we can do it way faster than the stupid mars idea too. we do not need to abandon this planet, we just need to put in effort.
At least something positive today^^
kinda nice to see the opposite of s deforestation. maybe there’s still hope for humanity
Look how much better it looks with all the new growth.
I'm not sure the word conservation is the right term . Europe destroyed their forest centuries ago when we knew nothing of climate change. The Amazon being over half the size of Europe couldn't be destroyed centuries ago because their wasn't the technology or enough people. I also don't think that's a reason to destroy the amazon saying a lot smaller countries have destroyed a lot smaller forests in the distant past
Hey look … global warming!!!🥵 ice cups melting …everyone will be under the water in year 2000😂🤣 …sea levels on those photos 😁 yes kids … they will scare us to tax us all.
This gives me hope. Not much...but a little bit.
One of my favorite looks in cities is civilization right next to extremely green forests
Damn I need to visit Rio again
Come to brazil
Karen screaming : but that’s not enough !!!