Submitted by checkmak01 t3_yhxmpt in worldnews
[deleted] t1_iugxhja wrote
Reply to comment by MastersonMcFee in Brazil election: Bolsonaro defeated as Lula makes comeback by checkmak01
[removed]
IVLA2022 t1_iugzzkf wrote
Wrong. That was 2004 - 2005 was when it started coming down again: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-55130304.amp
[deleted] t1_iuh0w9s wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iuh1oxo wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iuh1t5q wrote
[deleted]
IVLA2022 t1_iuh2wpj wrote
He can’t seem to read - his own link says it peaked in 2004 and started to come down under Lula.
[deleted] t1_iuh2aot wrote
[removed]
CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iuh766s wrote
You know full well it’s perfectly reasonable for the massive logging trade in Brazil to take a year or more to turn around like that.
Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuiv2yp wrote
Is that what happened? he signed the paper but the delivery was slow argument?
The second he walked in the office deforestation increased the first year , the second year was higher than his first year
How do you account that?
CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iuj6tvx wrote
He isn’t in direct control over those companies. He isn’t a king.
Aren’t you sick of getting annihilated? Every argument you make gets crushed.
Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujcdhu wrote
By that logic , how do you hold Bolsonaro responsible of deforestation as a president but not Lula as a president?
People can down-vote me as much as they want , doesn't mean anything , I will continue standing by the truth. The ones don't have any argument are being crushed by the facts , not by emotionally driven fanatics
CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iujevnq wrote
>By that logic , how do you hold Bolsonaro responsible of deforestation as a president but not Lula as a president?
Now you’re conflating two different ideas. I didn’t say Lula could not change the logging industry. I said he couldn’t totally turn it around in one year.
On that note, removing restrictions and letting the logging companies do whatever they want is A LOT easier than reining them in.
>The ones don't have any argument are being crushed by the facts
I’ve been through your comment history. You haven’t crushed one person with facts. YOU have gotten crushed left and right by irrefutable evidence that you’re wrong.
Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujofn5 wrote
When Lula walked into the office deforestation increased first year in comparison to the previous president , in his second year deforestation increased in comparison to his first year , so we are talking about two years consistently increasing. Numbers don't lie !
So your argument he couldn't in one year is not true
In fact first 4 years of deforestation of Lula's term is more than double of 4 years of Bolsonaro deforestation
You are a fanatic , can't be argued even with facts
CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iujqmat wrote
>in his second year deforestation increased in comparison to his first year
This is an inane and pedantic point. I did not literally mean that deforestation started to drop on 1 January 2004. This distinction you’re trying to make changes absolutely nothing about my point.
>Numbers don't lie !
The numbers show that deforestation fell by 75% while he was president. Why on earth are you only focusing on when he was initially in office and totally ignoring his entire tenure?
>In fact first 4 years of deforestation of Lula's term is more than double of 4 years of Bolsonaro deforestation
Only because bolsenaro had such a low staring point to start from…thanks to his predecessors.
If mayor A managed to reduce the murder rate from 1000 per year to 100 per year, and then mayor B comes in and changes things to where the rate goes up to 500 per year, it would be unequivocally asinine to try to argue that mayor B did a better job at dealing with murder because “more murders happened under mayor A.”
Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujvp4g wrote
Fernando Henrique Cardoso (president of Brazil before Lula)
1999 total loss 17,259
2000 total loss 18,226
2001 total loss 18,165
2002 total loss 21,651
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula)
2003 total loss 25,396
2004 total loss 27,772
2005 total loss 19,014
2006 total loss 14,285
Does that look like 75% less to you?
CheesecakeMedium8500 t1_iujxeag wrote
This is so pedantic.
Lula —> significant net reduction in deforestation.
Bolsenaro —> significant net increase in deforestation.
If mayor A managed to reduce the murder rate from 1000 per year to 100 per year, and then mayor B comes in and changes things to where the rate goes up to 500 per year, it would be unequivocally asinine to try to argue that mayor B did a better job at dealing with murder because “more murders happened under mayor A” even if murders initially jumped to 110 per year for the first two years of mayor A’s tenure.
Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuk79so wrote
what happened to "deforestation rate plummeted the second he walked in" argument? it became 2 years now?
Bolsonaro did a better job protecting the forest than Lula did according to the numbers
Lula tripled in deforestation , besides the guy is a thief , you don't even know what he is selling from his country
You are such a mindless champagne socialists lot
IVLA2022 t1_iuh3ols wrote
Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iuiu977 wrote
Lula came into the office in 2003 not in 2005
so how do you account for :
2003 total loss 25,396 km2
2004 total loss 27,772 km2
Apply that logic here please
IVLA2022 t1_iuiug0g wrote
Read the article if you need logic.
Just like you deleted all your other comments for being wrong - so are you wrong here again!
[deleted] t1_iuiw474 wrote
[removed]
Warm_Ad_7572 t1_iujv3ub wrote
This type of policies take time to get results, it might have increased a little in the seconda year, but then it started to reduce drastically.
Lord-of-war-Ares t1_iujw77h wrote
Fernando Henrique Cardoso (president of Brazil before Lula)
1999 total loss 17,259
2000 total loss 18,226
2001 total loss 18,165
2002 total loss 21,651
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula)
2003 total loss 25,396
2004 total loss 27,772
2005 total loss 19,014
2006 total loss 14,285
Does this look like an improvement to you?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments