[LordOpie]

Apparently, South America is close to passing legislation on flattening HALF of the rainforest, which supposedly provides 20% oxygen, 30% drinking water and 60% cancer medicinal plants for the world.

It's a global resource that they're destroying. But does anyone have a right to tell them no? I mean, just no, without compensation?

Does the planet have UN-type protected areas for natural resources? For example, Florida (USA) should be forced to protect the everglades as it's the only type of it's kind on the planet. But shouldn't the rest of the US/world compensate Florida?

Ideally (hahahaha) the UN would designate and quantify (financially) a bunch of natural resources that should be protected forever and at least the top 30 economies contribute to those countries affected.

I know I'm dreaming, but is this a fair idea?

And if the world doesn't do something, might we run out of oxygen? I know there ain't as much in the mile high city, so I'm o2 deprived already

 

[Changleen]

I'd say it's pretty irresponsible of them to do that, and I would maybe go as far as to say it's not really their right without asking the rest of the planet first. I don't think they ever would though.

There are protected 'world heritage' sites too. I'm not sure who controls that though.

 

[LordOpie]

a friend told me what I mentioned in the first post. I google'd and only found that 3% of the forest is up for bid -- http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1582971.htm

but my point wasn't about the forest specifically.

i'll look into "world heritage sites".

 

[valve bouncer]

How can South America pass legislation? Good idea anyway Loopie.

 

[Silver]

It's a global resource that they're destroying. But does anyone have a right to tell them no? I mean, just no, without compensation?

Good question. Hard to ask though, considering how much crap we Americans spew into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

 

[fluff]

Perhaps if the 'first-world' put their house in order and stopped wasting their own and other nations' resources we would have a voice with credibility. I also wonder where the demand for laying such areas to waste originates.

 

[MudGrrl]

I just read that the chinese a putting a tax on chopsticks, because

"Disposable chopsticks used up 1.3 million cubic metes of timber each year, depleting the country's forests, the ministry said."

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Perhaps if the 'first-world' put their house in order and stopped wasting their own and other nations' resources we would have a voice with credibility. I also wonder where the demand for laying such areas to waste originates.

Agreed.

We can't very well chastize them for ruining the environment, while all the while contributing more than our fair share of pollution, refusing to make any meaningful reductions, and even going so far as denying that a problem exists.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Apparently, South America is close to passing legislation on flattening HALF of the rainforest, which supposedly provides 20% oxygen, 30% drinking water and 60% cancer medicinal plants for the world.

It's a global resource that they're destroying. But does anyone have a right to tell them no? I mean, just no, without compensation?

Does the planet have UN-type protected areas for natural resources? For example, Florida (USA) should be forced to protect the everglades as it's the only type of it's kind on the planet. But shouldn't the rest of the US/world compensate Florida?

Ideally (hahahaha) the UN would designate and quantify (financially) a bunch of natural resources that should be protected forever and at least the top 30 economies contribute to those countries affected.

I know I'm dreaming, but is this a fair idea?

And if the world doesn't do something, might we run out of oxygen? I know there ain't as much in the mile high city, so I'm o2 deprived already

i like your school of thought.
but i like this brazilian dude´s better


"During a recent discussion, in the United States, someone asked my opinion regarding the internationalization of the Amazon Region. The youngster asserted that he expected a response of a humanist and not of a Brazilian. This was the first time anyone had established the humanist viewpoint as the starting point for my response. In fact, as a Brazilian I would have responded simply against internationalization of the Amazon Region. Even if our governments have not given the attention that this treasure deserves, it is ours.

I responded that, as a humanist, realizing the risk of environmental destruction that threatens the Amazon Region, I could imagine its internationalization, just as for everything else that is important to humanity. If the Amazon Region, from a humanist’s point of view, has to be internationalized, then we should internationalize the oil reserves of the entire world as well. Oil is just as important to the well being of humanity as the Amazon Region for our future.

Nevertheless, the owners of oil reserves feel it is in their right to increase or decrease oil production and to raise or lower the price. The rich of the world, feel they have the right to burn this valuable possession of humanity. Similarly, the financial capital of the wealthy nations should be internationalized. If the Amazon Region is a natural reserve for every human being, then it could not be burned down by the decision of a landowner or a country. To burn down the Amazon Region is so tragic, as the unemployment provoked by the arbitrary decisions of worldwide speculators. We cannot permit that the world’s financial reserves serve to burn down entire nations according to the whims of speculation.

Before the (internationalization of the) Amazon Region, I would like to see the internationalization of all the world’s great museums. The Louvre cannot belong only to France. Each museum in the world is a guardian for the most beautiful works produced by the human genius. It cannot be permitted that these cultural possessions, as the natural possession of the Amazon Region, can be manipulated or be destroyed according to the whims of an owner or a country. Recently, a Japanese millionaire decided to have a painting of a grand master buried with him in the grave. This painting should have been internationalized.

At the time of the meeting, in which this question came up, the United Nations convened the Forum of the Millennium and the presidents of several countries had difficulties in attending due to barriers (they faced) at the border. Therefore, I contend that New York, as the base of the United Nations, should be internationalized. At least Manhattan should belong to all of humanity. Similarly Paris, Venice, Rome, London, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Recife, every city with its own beauty, its own history should belong to the whole world.

If the United States wants to internationalize the Amazon Region, due to the risk of leaving it in Brazilian hands, then we should internationalize all the nuclear stockpiles of the United States. Particularly since they have already shown that they are capable of using these weapons, causing a destruction thousands of times greater than the sad fires taken place in the Brazilian forests........ yiddi yadda cut by me.

 

[fluff]

i like your school of thought.
but i like this brazilian dude´s better

I am ready to be internationalised...

 

[Changleen]

Me too, but I want a strict meritocracy.

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

Me too, but I want a strict meritocracy.

With a 100% Death Tax. Everyone starts from scratch.