| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. 09:05 - Nov 19 with 552 views | NthQldITFC |
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-59341770
If you think that there's any hope left for us or our children, we have to start making a real difference RIGHT NOW.
If you don't think there's any hope left, it's still right to try, because there's at least a small chance that you might be wrong.
'Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon rainforest has hit its highest level in over 15 years, official data shows.
A report by Brazil's space research agency (Inpe) found that deforestation increased by 22% in a year.' |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
| |  |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 09:06 - Nov 19 with 539 views | chicoazul |
Wait, Brazil has a space agency? |  |
| |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 09:15 - Nov 19 with 507 views | StokieBlue |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 09:06 - Nov 19 by chicoazul |
Wait, Brazil has a space agency? |
It's not NASA but they have a few small rockets and some satellites. The UN puts their GDP at higher than Russia's although it's clearly not distributed very well.
They also have a good plane manufacturer - Embraer - which makes great little planes.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 09:17 - Nov 19 with 496 views | chicoazul |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 09:15 - Nov 19 by StokieBlue |
It's not NASA but they have a few small rockets and some satellites. The UN puts their GDP at higher than Russia's although it's clearly not distributed very well.
They also have a good plane manufacturer - Embraer - which makes great little planes.
SB |
And there was me thinking it was all hot women football and palm oil. | |
| |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 10:04 - Nov 19 with 441 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 09:17 - Nov 19 by chicoazul |
And there was me thinking it was all hot women football and palm oil. |
it is in my house |  |
| |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 10:29 - Nov 19 with 408 views | clive_baker |
That's it, I'm cancelling my Brazilian this afternoon.
In all seriousness, I agree entirely. The more conscious decisions we can all make as we go about our day to day should be encouraged. What we're buying, who we're buying from, origins of products etc.
It seems mad to me that our food products on shelves have to show a traffic light indicator for such things as salt and saturates, but there's no such rules around footprint. Measuring the full supply chain and quantifying it isn't straightforward, but I think there has to be an agreement / legislation that looks to index the environmental impact of all products, not just food, all the way across the supply chain from raw materials and their origins, to sourcing, packaging solutions, distribution method and distance etc etc to create a score or traffic light system, perhaps a score out of 1,000 or something. It'll likely be imperfect and something that will no doubt evolve, but we can't let perfection be the enemy of progress, and at least it would a) incentivise large retailers to stock less environmentally damaging products, as they would be so visible b) incentivise manufacturers to seek greener methods, so as to drive sales and listings, and c) allow consumers a point of comparison. ​I think it's the only way people will stop and think about their actions, just as you might if a drink was 70% of your daily sugar.
A potato grown down the road from me, what's the score for that? A steak from Argentina? A steak from down the road even? Is a chicken reared next door more sustainable than Rice shipped over from Pakistan?
We need a far greater degree of measurability for people to be able to make more informed and decisions.
An extension of that would be a knowledge of appropriate 'daily credits'. ie. for the world to significantly slow the rate of change to something more acceptable, what does that equate to per capita. I'm told I should have 2,500 calories per day, I want an idea of my equivilent for my output and green credentials. Eg. If I eat a steak and drive 100 miles to get it in a thirsty diesel car, how much of my weekly allowance is that? If I'm conscious and want to manage my output on a debit / credit basis, I want a basis from which to measure it. And can I understand the relative impact of my decisions. How much is switching to an electric car worth? How much is not eating beef worth?
Personally, I only eat meat twice per week, for environmental reasons, and have done so for ages. More neuanced than that, I don't really eat beef. When I do eat meat it tends to be fish or chicken, and I always seek locally sourced products where possible. I do so because my instinct and common sense tells me this is right, but I'm the sort of person who would really appreciate being able to quantify such decisions. |  |
| |
| Consider boycotting Brazilian products. on 10:39 - Nov 19 with 388 views | WeWereZombies |
One of the hopeful agreements coming out of CoP26 was the deforestation pledge, along with the intention to phase out coal, but even before the conference was over there was pushback form Brazil, Indonesia and Poland (amongst others):
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/cop26-deforestation-brazil-backtracks-fores
However, boycotts are a tactic and only part of a solution. The boycott of South Africa until apartheid ended was a successful tactic because it was widely supported outside that state and seen as justifiable by many within. It was also effective, despite some very obvious transgressions, because it impacted most the people responsible for a racist system. As well as the economic pressure there was also the important element of keeping the injustice broadcast far and wide, not that all who received the message fully understood all the implications.
Can we realistically boycott Brazil, Indonesia and Poland? Is there support within those states? How easy is it to identify goods from them? Ate surrounding countries severely impacted by their policies in the way that Mozambique, for example, was by South Africa? If you cannot establish controls at a border then the most effective block, and therefore the chances of success in a boycott, Even then, they and Malawi were accepting financial aid from South Africa in the form of loans at the same time as practising cultural boycotts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_South_Africa_during_apartheid
I think we have to look at more recent controversies over state specific boycotts such as the humanitarian damage in Iraq and Iran (and consequent undermining of the tactic by Russia) from far ranging trading bans by the United States to assess the usefulness of the tactic - and take a strategic view at this time of increasing adverse impact worldwide so that everyone moves towards acting together. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
