Am I the only one that finds this conversation fundamentally disturbinghttps://twitter.com/AgnesCallard/status/1164957248218701825 …
-
also, paying them not to develop it means that brazil etc. have a fundamental ownership over it. i also dislike this, as its flourishing is necessary to everyone's survival. basically in this model someone has to pick up the tab, but nobody wants to put their hands up
(despite that being in everyones best interests overall. its not in their best interests short-term/economically. which is a massive failure in the system)
-
-
I hear you but I think the thing you find disturbing is Brazil’s sovereignty over its own territory. I think economic incentives are a better way of dealing with problems arising from such sovereignty than military action, and I know of no third option.
-
Does the rainforest being gone have negative externalities? If so (because it does) we shouldn’t be paying them. Of course, developed countries should be paying to reverse the damage they’ve already done. Why do we insist on protecting an economic system that is killing us?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.