Norway pays Brazil $1bn for slowing Amazon loss

I had to read this title a few times to make sure I was reading correctly.

Yes, it's true. Norway is paying Brazil to NOT cut down their forests. I even have to say this another way so it sinks into my own disbelief. One country is going to pay another to reserve their own assets. Is that at all like saying, "I'm going to give you billions of dollars so you don't sell your gold. Yes, I'm giving you free money to stop you from selling your assets to make money".

No, I do get it. Norway is trying to stop the loss of rain forest and this is good. Though, shouldn't Brazil do this on principal alone? Maybe they're really in need of money and Norway is coming to the rescue of both country and planet... Either way, the information is just a little weird for me to understand. In my mind it's a "Duh!" moment. Common sense maybe?

So folx... What's your take on this?

Source

Norwegian environment minister Tine Sundtoft announced on Monday that her government would make the $100m payment before the global climate summit in December, as Brazil has more than achieved its commitment to cut the rate of deforestation by 75 percent over the past seven years.



“Brazil’s achievements in reducing deforestation in the Amazon are truly impressive,” Sundtoft said. “The benefits for the global climate, for biodiversity and vital ecosystem services, as well as for the people living in and off the Amazon, are immeasurable.”

Really, it's a good thing what Norway is doing. A lot of what I read when this country is involved seems to be good stuff. Why can't other countries be like these guys. Throw in Iceland (or is it Greenland who locked up their politicians) and there might be hope for the world yet.

a reply to: StallionDuck
Um... they are just going to start cutting again and demand more. Wtf, we invented that! We ransomed the Franks and Angles like crazy. Next summer we were back raiding them! That money could have gone to something far better

www.youtube.com...
I appreciate Norway"s strategy but Brazilian music is much better. I don't like heavy metal and tekhno

originally posted by: StallionDuck

Is that at all like saying, "I'm going to give you billions of dollars so you don't sell your gold. Yes, I'm giving you free money to stop you from selling your assets to make money".

Kind of. Looked at another way it's kind of like offering to pay your next-door neighbor to stop burning tires in his front yard.

a reply to: StallionDuck

I understand your point. But this is also the basic idea behind "UNESCO World Heritage Sites". They designate an area or architecture in a foreign land, then place a lot of rules on what the host country can and can't do with them. But the host country also gets perks from these World Heritage Site designations, like increased tourism & development aid.

A lot of poor countries have arrangements like that. An example would be Timbuktu in Mali. The Mali government isn't supposed to do any major alterations to the site. So even if the Mali government realized there was $100 million worth of precious stones & metals underneath it, they wouldn't be allowed to exploit them unless they break the deal.

Many global activists don't know about this side of things. So they hold massive protests & boycotts when a poor country "starts attacking" a cultural landmark, landscape, or ecosystem. But it seems like they care more about the site than the poor people who may be able to end their poverty by exploiting their own land.

To be fair, I don't know which side is right. It's complex. Poor governments can get boycotted for trying to mine their own mountains because rare animals live on those mountains, even if the mountains hold enough wealth to pull them out of poverty.

So, ushering in a new low for humanity - ecological extortion? Or is it just a good investment?

a reply to: JetBlackStare

I think the question really comes down to sovereignty. Should a country be allowed to do whatever it wants to do to the resources on its own territory? If not, then what's the point in sovereignty? And if so, how does the world preserve the important ecological features that would normally get exploited? It seems like offering incentives & aid are the best ways to get sovereign countries to give up some up their sovereignty on issues like this.

The Amazon rainforest is an important ecosystem. But it can also be exploited to help Brazil's economy. So it appears that Norway is helping Brazil make up for the money it lost by not exploiting the Amazon rainforest (there's probably more to it, though). It would be like if other countries got together & offered to pay Canada to stop developing its tar sands.