Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Brazil Beginning to Seize Livestock to Protect Rain Forest
nytimes.com — Brazil's new Environment Minister is serious about protecting the rain forest from unauthorized destruction, beginning with the seizure of 3100 cattle from a convicted rancher. His message to others "Those that don ’t respect environmental legislation, your cattle are going to become barbecue for ... the government’s food program for the poor."
jquipp- 837 diggs
- digg it
- phreak79, on 06/25/2008, -7/+31Good to see deforestation getting the attention it deserves. From both a climate and wildlife perspective it's probably the most important environmental issue out there but gets scant attention.
- jquipp, on 06/25/2008, -0/+13Agreed, especially on the heels of the comments from NASA scientists yesterday ... "if we don't start taking action now we're toast".
- phreak79, on 06/25/2008, -0/+6Hopefully Lula will walk the walk this time. He's been known in the past to exagerate his claims on protecting the Amazon and boosting the amount of land protected/saved each year, so he has slight credibility issues in this area. It is crucial though and it would be lovely if political leaders around the world gave it more attention, but I suppose it's not as headline grabbing as other measures that let them impose control over various things domestically.
- bratterscain, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3Good for us, not as good for Brazil in the short run. Some countries get economic incentive from oil, some from man-made exports, and misc. natural resources that others in the world needs. But what does Brazil get for owning the rainforests that have been called, "the lungs of the world"? Brazil probably has more economic incentive to cut it down continously to make room for more urban development than to preserve it. Maybe the world should give them some sort of economic incentive when we realize how important it is globally? idk, just doesn't seem fare for us to ask it of them when we're raking in dough off of our commodities while their lumber industry has to be cut down, no pun intended, and Brazil could probably use the money.
- fpaudon, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Then again,some people's lives depend on deforestation for farming; it's a Catch-22 really. And for the people who truly believe that letting the Brazilian farmers die is worth it in the long run, I'd invite you to starve to death for the Rain Forest in their place.
- phreak79, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Especially when you consider that Brazil gets a large chunk of its energy from biofuels. So they earn from the timber cleared and from the crops grown in their place. The international community do need to act on this, both in Brazil and places like Indonesia.
- funkywood, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1Everybody who benefits from the rainforests, i.e. everybody, should be paying the native people to be the world's gardeners and park rangers and to keep living the sustainable lives they were leading whilst looking after the natural world we all rely on.
That is their most valuable contribution to society, so an economic system that worked properly would have them get paid most for that while farmers on more fertile lands grow the food.
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/
- jquipp, on 06/25/2008, -0/+13Agreed, especially on the heels of the comments from NASA scientists yesterday ... "if we don't start taking action now we're toast".
- kdfrawg, on 06/25/2008, -4/+17It's about time something started to happen on this front. This has got to be Brazil's job and they are finally starting to step up to it.
- funkywood, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1It should be everybody's job. We should be rewarding them for this. If we want all rainforest to remain then we have to make it more valuable as rainforest than as palm oil plantations.
Until our economic system catches up with the need to value all resources, not just consumption, we're going to have to be generous.
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/
- funkywood, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1It should be everybody's job. We should be rewarding them for this. If we want all rainforest to remain then we have to make it more valuable as rainforest than as palm oil plantations.
- pws1970, on 06/25/2008, -4/+7Its shocking, its been in the news for years as far back as I can remember, we were taught in school that an area the size of Wales is lost to deforestation each year. Simple math, how many times can Wales fit into Brazil? Horse, Gate, Bolted, springs to mind.
- Puppetfunk, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7409 Wales (The Country) can fit in Brazil.
THE MORE YOU KNOW~~~~~~~~~~* - pws1970, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1everyday is a school day :)
- Puppetfunk, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7409 Wales (The Country) can fit in Brazil.
- bincoder, on 06/25/2008, -5/+7Good.
Its silly for enviropeeps to want to burn fuel and spend money to build 'scrubbers' or what have you to remove CO2 from the air. The rainforest has been doing that for eons and it does so much better than anything man can build. Trees also work for free.
Try to point that out to people and many will treat you as a fool and insist that the only answer to global warming is to ride a bus. They totally ignore the effect of mowing down most of the worlds trees. Once a tree is chopped down, not only is it not removing CO2 anymore, the tree itself becomes another source of CO2.- nick111, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Well there's a load of misrepresentations..
Since when have "enviropeeps" ignored mass felling of rainforests? We've been campaigning on this for ***** decades.
What is it with you people? Why can't you ever tell the truth? - funkywood, on 06/30/2008, -0/+1This what pisses me off about governments. The go on about CO2 emissions but never mention the idea of preserving that which absorbs it again. Then they subsidise biofuels that leads to deforestation to plant palm oil plantations. They are making it worse.
- nick111, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Well there's a load of misrepresentations..
- Bluetar, on 06/26/2008, -7/+21Awesome, first they have the most ethenol and now they're takin back the rain forest...Brazil is the *****!!!!!
- idavidtang, on 06/26/2008, -0/+22And hosting possibly the biggest bbq ever.
- Daniel591992, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3And everyone who's gone to Brazil knows that they know how to do a real barbecue. You won't find hotdogs and hamburgers there!
- had3l, on 06/26/2008, -0/+12Man, I would love to see the look on PETA's members face right now. If they oppose the killing of those 3,000+ cows not only will they be aiding in destroying the rainforest, but they will also be denying food to the poor.
- LucasVB, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4No time for PETA, there's too much at steak!
- jabberwolf, on 06/27/2008, -2/+1Yep they're a bunch of nin-cow-poops (eats carrot)
- nick111, on 06/26/2008, -1/+1And PETA has personally affected you how exactly?
Where would you be without your imaginary enemies? Why can't you have imaginary friends like normal kids?
- LucasVB, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4No time for PETA, there's too much at steak!
- idavidtang, on 06/26/2008, -0/+22And hosting possibly the biggest bbq ever.
- Omega037, on 06/26/2008, -8/+21Overpopulation is the root of these problems. Fix that first.
- bratterscain, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Who keeps digging him down? He's right. When one organism over-thrives that uses the same resources on, basically, a marble in space, there's going to be a time when man needs to keep the population in control and/or find alternatives. Nothing lasts forever.
- Omega037, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Digg is a bit biased, unfortunately. I didn't include the fact that uncontrolled destroying of the rainforest is wrong(which I agree with in a general sense), I just pointed out that the fault lay not with mega corporations, governments, or even the cattle ranchers themselves, but a population who is too large for the resources in its area.
I am not advocating genocide or anything...the best way to bring overpopulation down is through education and lowering poverty. Poor and uneducated classes tend to have more for a variety of reasons. The irony is that these people who have more children are least likely to take care of them.- nerdmor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0As EdmontonEh points below, yes, worldwide overpopulation is a problem.
but, just to note, the area that is being deforested in Brazil is, by far, one of the least populated ones.
- nerdmor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+0As EdmontonEh points below, yes, worldwide overpopulation is a problem.
- Omega037, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2Digg is a bit biased, unfortunately. I didn't include the fact that uncontrolled destroying of the rainforest is wrong(which I agree with in a general sense), I just pointed out that the fault lay not with mega corporations, governments, or even the cattle ranchers themselves, but a population who is too large for the resources in its area.
- EdmontonEh, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4If you are saying world wide?.. then yes... Dugg
- MadHarvey, on 06/26/2008, -1/+0If we manufacture any more diseases, people are going to start to catch on....
- bratterscain, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Who keeps digging him down? He's right. When one organism over-thrives that uses the same resources on, basically, a marble in space, there's going to be a time when man needs to keep the population in control and/or find alternatives. Nothing lasts forever.
- uberchaoslord, on 06/26/2008, -2/+16responsible forestry = good because young trees take more carbon out of the air than old, barely-growing trees. deforestation when you don't replant trees = terrible.
- iMiXiMi, on 06/26/2008, -2/+7This is nice to see. Maybe the size of a football field wont be cut down every 5 minutes anymore.
- Ryan166, on 06/26/2008, -11/+4If this makes the price of a McDick's double cheeseburger go up, I WILL BE PISSED!!!!
- akohut, on 06/26/2008, -9/+3BUT NEVER SAY I DIDN'T GIVE MY ALL! NEVER SAY I DIDN'T GIVE MY ALL!
- chicoer2001, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Minc looks like he's stuck in the 1970's.
http://www.comciencia.br/200411/entrevistas/img/en ...- had3l, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Minc is the Environment Minister, if you were wondering.
- voodoosteve84, on 06/26/2008, -3/+7For all of the depressing news out there, it's great to see people with some balls taking a stand once in a while.
- hempydave, on 06/26/2008, -8/+3"Thou shalt eat the meat of the beast of the field" Lav:17:17
With hickey flavor sauce- Ryan166, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1***** hickory flavor sauce.
- Latigoliath, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1Banana nao tein carozo.
- waspbr, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2good effort but still fail
- EdmontonEh, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Unexpected..., cheers to you Brazil!
- Mannyy, on 06/26/2008, -6/+1I doubt the government over here in Brazil is going to act.. they just talk.
- mustang460, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4they just did act, thats what the article is about
- HubbertWins, on 06/26/2008, -2/+4Mmmmm bbq...
- Scopitone, on 06/26/2008, -1/+4Delicious justice!
- keviniskool, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4This is great having all this barbeque for free. All they have to do is hire a few bands, sell tickets to everyone in Brazil, and you now have the best concert of the year.
- FukUrCouch, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2bbq and brazilian women...what more can you ask for?
- nerdmor, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1brazilian beer
- Thrilltone, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2I like it but we're still cutting down forests here, when we've already clearcut 95% of America.
- haobaba1, on 06/26/2008, -5/+5Eating beef or pork is among the worst things you can do to the environment.
- DigTheDoug, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2That's a great source you used to cite that.
- marx2k, on 06/26/2008, -2/+2common knowledge needs a source?
- dartmanx, on 06/26/2008, -2/+3They've already been slaughtered, cut up, packaged, and shipped to my grocery store! It would be even worse to let that juicy, succulent meat go to waste!
- ryanarchy, on 06/26/2008, -1/+2Get real. If you don't demand it, no one will supply it. Stop living in a bubble.
- waspbr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+2So you are not coming for the barbecue? gr8 , more for me
- DigTheDoug, on 06/26/2008, -3/+2That's a great source you used to cite that.
- nmnnotmyname, on 06/26/2008, -1/+6Good thing or bad thing, at least they aren't being pussies about it.
- liuite, on 06/26/2008, -0/+5bem feito! although the bitter rancher would probably call the judge a communist.
- pentakle, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4About damn time!!
- alenonimo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1The program "Zero Hungry" will benefit a lot from these pesky ranchers.
About damn time too.- waspbr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1*zero hunger
- m0n0kr0m3, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6Do you think the US could ever take drastic action on this scale?
- ZenMojo, on 06/26/2008, -0/+9No, the Republicans would call it Communist insanity and Fox News would be hammering it daily in the news as anti_American.
- Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1You want the government to have MORE seizure power than it already has? What happens when they continue to expand the list of "crimes" they consider asset forfeiture fair game for?
- TheSkunkMonkey, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4So your saying that criminals should be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains?
This rancher was convicted of raising his cattle illegally on protected land, was convicted of said crime and punished by having his cattle seized.
- TheSkunkMonkey, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4So your saying that criminals should be allowed to keep their ill gotten gains?
- Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -4/+1Apparently Brazil is another country without the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."
Are you people really so ignorant as to trust the government with the right to seize and redistribute personal property like this? Are you content to allow an ever expanding list of "crimes" for which you consider it acceptable that they do this? You should not be supporting this just because it happens to currently align with your political causes. Imagine what I'd do with that seizure power, I'd confiscate all your organic arugula and fruit smoothies and feed it to the pigs.- nick111, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Yea, right. Freedom for the wealthy and ***** everyone else.
The welfare of the planet comes before American law, and your bush-esque "ownership society" notions of freedom in which the world isn't free until every square inch has a fence round it.
We are all stakeholders in this.- Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -3/+1This is a country founded on protecting individual rights. We are not ants, we do have have more value as a collection than we do as individuals. Just because you say there is a problem doesn't mean there is. You live your life the way you want, but absent real hard evidence that my actions directly hurt you, I am free to do as I please. You're more than welcome to try and stop me, but you wouldn't dare try to yourself, so you'll try and corrupt the State to intimidate those who would disagree.
- waspbr, on 06/26/2008, -0/+4What are you on about, if people break the law they should face the consequences, Brazil has been plagued with a sense that the rich can get away with anything, your argument is complete FUD, doesn't apply here.
- Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1The consequences are usually prison time and financial penalties. Surely you can understand why the government taking your stuff for infractions is a bad idea. You know some States have laws dictating just what percentage of a counties revenue can come from traffic enforcement, because what they were finding is that the local government was using fines as a method of financing itself. This sort of nonsense opens up all sorts of new avenues for abuse and intimidation.
- FairDinkumMate, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Stop trying to apply your American values & concepts to a country you obviously know very little about. What wasp is trying to tell you is that this has been done because the wealthy in Brazil(like this farmer) have little fear of the legal system. Is this perfect? No. But it will have a more effective deterrent effect than the threat of being taken to court. Yes it would be better if the legal system in Brazil could be fixed to be more effective but that is another issue & will take a long time. If the Brazilian government waited for the legal system to be fixed to take these farmers on, the Amazon would be gone before the first successful prosecution occurred.
- Barackalypse, on 06/26/2008, -2/+1The consequences are usually prison time and financial penalties. Surely you can understand why the government taking your stuff for infractions is a bad idea. You know some States have laws dictating just what percentage of a counties revenue can come from traffic enforcement, because what they were finding is that the local government was using fines as a method of financing itself. This sort of nonsense opens up all sorts of new avenues for abuse and intimidation.
- eiffleduarte, on 06/26/2008, -0/+6What the hell are you talking about? See if you can understand this simple sequence of facts:
1) People were raising cattle on land where it is illegal to do so;
2) These people are judged for this environmental crime;
3) A court finds these people guilt and orders the cattle to be removed;
4) The convicted offenders refuse to remove the cattle; so
5) Government agents remove the cattle, as per the court order.
RTFA. It would also help to not blatantly ventilate your prejudices without a second thought. You know, we brazilians are not exactly living in the rock age, under a dictatorship or in a police state where the latest federal elections were stolen. I hope someday you will understand there is a whole big world outside the borders of your country, and that all these nations have somehow managed to build whole civilizations! Just like we brazilians did. Just as imperfect as yours, not worse.
- nick111, on 06/26/2008, -0/+3Yea, right. Freedom for the wealthy and ***** everyone else.
- beesaretasty, on 06/26/2008, -3/+0"'your cattle are going to become barbecue for Fome Zero,' he said, referring to the government’s food program for the poor"
How many metal garbage cans will they need to barbecue 3100 cattle? - Dr00pieS, on 06/26/2008, -0/+7All your cattle are belong to us.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
