Hittanryan wrote:Except the principal cause of deforestation generally comes from cheap slash-and-burn agriculture practiced by lower-income farmers, not mineral extraction. Agriculture requires leaving the topsoil intact, unlike the method you described. That same topsoil is then depleted of nutrients by constant rain and overgrazing, forcing farmers to move on in a short time frame.
Slash-and-burn agriculture can be practiced in a sustainable manner. Yes, much of the time it's not, but that doesn't justify an absolute ban on the practice. See
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.
Hittanryan wrote:You've essentially duplicated what I have already said, that the only rainforest reclamation projects so far have been small in scale and are still works in progress.
No. The article I highlighted demonstrated that rainforest restoration appears to be the norm following mining operations in Brazil: "A legal requirement to restore the forest has been under way since 1984, with nine million trees planted up to 2011 over 4,500 hectares to recreate high biodiversity rainforest."
Hittanryan wrote:Furthermore, just because it is
possible for a company to behave in an environmentally-conscious manner, doesn't mean that it
will, necessarily.
Fair enough. Then mandate sustainable forest management, not absolute bans on development.
Hittanryan wrote:Auralia wrote:The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.
I'm sorry,
what? On whose authority?
God (per Genesis) or natural law (per humanity's relationship with the environment since the dawn of civilization), take your pick. But even if you accept neither, I can think of no other reason for preserving the environment, aside from ensuring that it will continue to benefit future generations of humans. Can you?
Hittanryan wrote:And even if that claim was true, how do you expect the natural environment to serve human interests after it has already been destroyed?
That's a straw man. Sustainable development =/= environmental destruction.
Hittanryan wrote:It's easy to say "partial damage" without defining it. What does that mean? Does partial damage mean sustainable development, or does it mean devoid of life but humans can walk around without a biohazard suit?
Sustainable development, obviously. When you cut down a tree, you partially damage the natural environment. The trick is to mitigate the damage by replanting the tree or allowing enough time for natural regeneration.
Hittanryan wrote:So far, you have demonstrated you have little to no knowledge on how sensitive, fragile even, tropical rainforest ecosystems are to any outside influences. There's a
reason they need to be protected.
And you don't seem to understand that nature changes all the time and is far more resilient than you give it credit for.
Further, there is a difference between environmental protection and absolute bans on development.
Dellin wrote:Which is immensely ironic, seeing as the target resolution's whole purpose is to make sure that there is only "partial damage" by creating regulations that make sure some rainforest areas have protected status.
The resolution also effectively bans slash-and-burn agriculture and mineral extraction in rainforests, regardless of whether or not it is practiced in a sustainable manner.
Dellin wrote:The only way to discredit the idea that you actually just directly endorsed the intention of the target resolution is to fall in with the conspiracy theory that this resolution makes ALL rainforest areas off limits.
You don't appear to understand what the resolution actually does.