Frog on the boil right? I feel the same way about what they did to Seattle.

At the same time, I just signed a new 12-month lease at $150 a month more rent.

I didn't know which way to jump.

Good Morning Charles,
Indeed, that is a most distressing photo from Brazil. And yes, I agree for the most part with Ehrlich and you. The "tools" are there and I live (at least, I think so) a modest life accordingly.

However, an extraordinary number (a billion?) of humans do not have those "tools". Does a Kenyan cattle herder? A Bangladeshi factory worker? Heck, even a Makah (Washington state) fisherman? The last one probably has heard of global warming and its deleterious effects but I contend all are too busy working to feed their family and improve their lot than trying to curb in some small way global warming or resource depletion. I even think any unemployed American wants work first rather than worry about the fate of the planet.

I contend global warming/resource depletion is a "luxury" issue for developed peoples since humans evolve differently in different cultures/economic systems. Sure, it is of immense importance but humans need food, shelter and clothing first. In underdeveloped countries and even in America that's what matters most.

Look, I believe these "tools" necessary. But, until many more (all?) others humans "see" their lot improved then they will get the chance to "see" using those "tools" and improve the Earth as a whole.

The vital part of this is WHY humans are destroying the environment and deforesting. The vast majority of the reason is LIVESTOCK.

In the 90's, the Amazon rainforest was on the brink of being entirely deforested for cattle grazing land -- free range livestock, overall, is much worse for the environment because of the massive land use required. Then, they switched over to factory farms which don't require much cattle grazing land, but are deforesting again to make room for soybeans and other crops for livestock feed. It can take 13 pounds of soybeans or grain to make 1 pound of livestock. We'd grow massively LESS grain and soybeans if we switched to eating MORE grain and beans instead of livestock.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Feature…

The UN says that 18% of global warming emissions are caused directly from livestock. But they don't take deforestation and land use into account. Once that is taken into account, 51% of climate change from humans is caused by livestock. The majority!!! More than all factories, cars, planes, power plants, and everything else put together.

http://bittman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07…

Progressive nations are making steps to reduce eating meat and cheese. Scandanavian governments are telling their people to eat less meat and cheese and targetting meat reduction goals. Finland instituted a "dairy to berries" program to help livestock farmers convert to producing healthier, more environmentally friendly crops (berries because there are not many other crops that can grow that far north, unlike us who have many other options).

We need to institute taxes and programs to move away from eating meat and dairy. We need to increase infrastructure for non-meat, non-dairy foods. It's not a matter of cost - rich countries (US, Canada, western Europe) eat by far the most meat and dairy on the planet. The billion Indians eat 4% the amount of meat per person that we do!! It takes 25 Indians to eat as much meat as 1 average American.

Most importantly, we need to stop culturally accepting people eating meat and dairy if they have other alternatives. It's the most environmentally harmful and unsustainable human behavior by a large margin.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/201…

@2. It's not a luxury issue. In many ways, it's the opposite. The rich in developed nations are the ones who can most easily avoid the fallout from climate change and resource depletion. They can most easily afford to move. Bangladeshi factory workers, on the other hand?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/…

"The effects of climate change have led to a growing sense of outrage in developing nations, many of which have contributed little to the pollution that is linked to rising temperatures and sea levels but will suffer the most from the consequences."

I don't doubt the massive scale of deforestation in the Amazon basin, but that picture isn't really saying much. That's showing, what, maybe an acre of barren land? So what? It tells you nothing about the scale of the problem.

@5,

Do you notice the scale of that structure in the photo? That's a hell of a lot bigger than an acre.

@6: yes, I did notice the scale. That green thing in the middle is a single tree. The white things are cows. The structure is a lean-to likely housing an old hand pump and a water basin or a feeding trough. Like I said, the picture shows just about an acre, maybe a little more if you're being nitpicky, but not much more.

Can you spot where the Mudede house would be today in this picture?

Terra Preta soil like that in the Amazon basin can be manmade, and it is thought that the basin itself was manmade:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/…

It's never too late.

This is exceptionally thoughtful and big-picture material for the Slog.
"We don't have a climate problem; we have a problem of human development." (Ken Wilber)

http://climatechangeforfamilies.com