2007-03-21 03:50:25 · 11 answers · asked by Genio 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Your statement reflects once again the arrogance of the environmental movement. Brazil, in which most of the Amzon region is in, is a sovereign nation and we have no business to tell them what to do, let alone grab the Amazon from them. I suppose behind your statement is the argument that deforestation of the region is leading to global warming, etc., and we have to stop it by taking the area from the Brazilians. But the truth is that we in the west are still (and will be for many years) generating more CO2 by our profligate live style than can be mopped up by all the trees in the Amazon! And, on this topic, there are more trees in the temperate belt than in the tropical belt put together, and we are not even making much of an attempt to stop the deforestation in the temperate areas. For all our rhetoric, the US alone is destroying more and more of its forests, and Europe is no better.
2007-03-21 04:16:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Brazil would have something to say about that, "No!" What about the native people who live there, will they be prohibited from using their own land? Then who will run such a huge area? The UN can't even run itself, it's a Useless Nothing. No group of nations could agree what to do. And then what about the rights of the natives? What humanity would it be good for, not the natives.
Forget the whole idea, plant trees and use synthetic wood. That would be far more effective and practical.
2007-03-22 00:30:48 · answer #2 · answered by Taganan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better idea - build desalination plants all aound Africa and pump the water inland - help with crops, help to grow trees and help the native African people - BUT, they won't do that will they - coz it will lower the sea level again and it's the simplest solution to aid the so called global warming con - and they'll all fight over it. Then they won't be able to justify all out high taxes - not that they can anyway!
2007-03-21 10:56:43 · answer #3 · answered by jamand 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Amazon is a site rich off black gold. so if we want to exploit the region and destory earth's soon to be limited resources then go ahead
2007-03-21 11:17:32 · answer #4 · answered by Jahpson 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No way, that land belongs to those countries and their sovereignty...that would be againts it.
It's like suggesting that America should be open for the sake of the humanity (since this is one of the richest countries in the globe) so everybody can come here to do whatever they please...
2007-03-21 10:55:52 · answer #5 · answered by Isabelle06 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The good of humanity? The we will nearly all die then perhaps somebody will start to think about it...
2007-03-21 11:01:42 · answer #6 · answered by Pelayo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, we shouldn't invade a peaceful nation/s for financial gains, which is what you propose.
2007-03-21 10:55:12 · answer #7 · answered by Michael E 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why destroy the amazon...the UN would turn it in to a terrorist training camp
2007-03-21 10:54:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Exxon Valdez has gone north, now on the south we hail ....global warming? Nuts to that.
2007-03-21 10:53:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
absolutely and so does Manchester
2007-03-21 10:56:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋