10 ms·

Has Brazil fully industrialized? With a per capita GDP of less than ten thousand dollars and a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to

Has Brazil fully industrialized? With a per capita GDP of less than ten thousand dollars and a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US) I'd say not yet. The west is trying to kick the ladder out from behind them.

conception 7y ago
The thesis that you cannot develop sustainably however is a fallacy. It is not one or the other - and more importantly it cannot be any more.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Easily said from your position. Are you willing to give up most of your luxury to make that happen globally? If so, why haven't you yet?
  - stochastic_monk 7y ago
    Because I'm not a dictator. I can only make changes by being politically active and making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others. I do these things, but don't have the power to force systemic change.
    - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
      c02 emissions per captia (metric tons): France 4.57 United Kingdom 6.50 Germany 8.89 USA 16.49 Brazil 2.59 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map >making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others It looks like the Brazilians are doing a better job at that than you are. All I'm trying to say here is we aren't really in a position to wag the finger at anyone. Least of all the people of Brazil.
  - conception 7y ago
    I mean... I am just a random internet person but I've spent a great deal of money to make my commute not use a single drop of gasoline. My house also is a net positive in energy production. It'll take a while to offset the production of the items I had to buy but I have a horizon of a couple of decades - and they'll be recyclable afterwords. More to the point though is it isn't A) US has to fix itself or B) the developing world needs to be mindful of how it develops - it's both. It's perfectly possible to be "Holy shit guys, the US needs to change how it consumes!" and be like "Holy shit, the developing world needs to change how humans have developed historically!" Hopefully, we'll get back on track in 2020 nationally on A...
simongray 7y ago
> a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US) It's 10% of the population, about a quarter of GDP, so not "mostly". Brazil is usually put into the Newly Industrialised Country category. It has quite a bit of secondary sector giants too.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Fair enough. I didn't look up Brazil specially but I am familiar with the rates in the region and assumed they were similar. Western countries have not eliminated a quarter of their GDP to prevent climate change, shouldn't they do that before telling those much poorer than they to do so?
  - ratww 7y ago
    Stopping the deforestation isn't going to affect the GDP at all, let alone slash a quarter of it. Keep in mind that the deforestation is purely caused by the livestock industry trying to squeeze profits. There are other ways to produce meat that don't involve invading and burning forests. According to the government, in 2017 only 5,7% of the GDP is directly related to agriculture and livestock production [1]. And according to an industry website livestock was responsible for only 31% of that [2]. The rest of that "one quarter" is related to processing and distribution, which can happen in urban areas closer to the southeast, far away from the Amazon, and those things don't benefit at all from the deforestation. And the processing/distribution industry could exist by itself without local production, as proved by places like Hong Kong, the largest importer of Brazilian beef. [3] By the way, the biggest producer of beef in Brazil is the state of Sao Paulo, which is on the other side of the country, not at all related to Amazon. [3] So nope. Stopping the Amazon deforestation RIGHT NOW won't even make dent in our GDP. --- [1] http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/agropecuaria-puxa-o-pib-de-2017 http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/agropecuaria-puxa-o-p... [2] https://www.beefpoint.com.br/abiec-perfil-da-pecuaria-no-brasil/ https://www.beefpoint.com.br/abiec-perfil-da-pecuaria-no-bra... [3] https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/01/18/Brazilian-beef-exports-keep-on-growing https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/01/18/Brazilian-...
gdubs 7y ago
Well, if we believe the climate science, then continuing on that old ladder isn’t good for Brazil or anyone else in the world. The goal is to figure out a way to decarbonize economic growth, so that we’re not closing the door on the developing world, but rather providing new avenues for growth. If the west truly cares about solving the problem of climate change, then we have to accept that we’ve benefited disproportionately from ignoring the negative environmental externalities of our wealth expansion, and pay countries to protect natural resources that benefit the world. It should be more lucrative for brazillians to protect their forest than it is to burn them down to grow animal feed.
GVIrish 7y ago
What good is industrializing recklessly going to do for Brazil or any other developing nation when climate catastrophe destroys all of those GDP gains and more, causes food crises, destroys trillions of dollars of coastal real estate, and causes climate refugee crises? This is not a case where any country is going to benefit from ignoring climate change for more than a few decades. Climate catastrophe is going to hit the lower GDP nations the hardest, because they're starting with less capital to adapt and mitigate the effects. All they'd be doing by developing carbon intensive economies is flooring the accelerator towards the cliff. At any rate, it's a false dichotomy. With the current state of renewables, countries like Brazil, India, China, and Nigeria can continue to industrialize with clean energy and skip coal-based industrialization. They can also develop cities and infrastructure to support mass transit much better than some other nations did.

conception 7y ago

The thesis that you cannot develop sustainably however is a fallacy. It is not one or the other - and more importantly it cannot be any more.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Easily said from your position. Are you willing to give up most of your luxury to make that happen globally? If so, why haven't you yet?
- stochastic_monk 7y ago
  Because I'm not a dictator. I can only make changes by being politically active and making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others. I do these things, but don't have the power to force systemic change.
  - fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
    c02 emissions per captia (metric tons): France 4.57 United Kingdom 6.50 Germany 8.89 USA 16.49 Brazil 2.59 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?view=map >making environmentally sound decisions myself/encouraging others It looks like the Brazilians are doing a better job at that than you are. All I'm trying to say here is we aren't really in a position to wag the finger at anyone. Least of all the people of Brazil.
- conception 7y ago
  I mean... I am just a random internet person but I've spent a great deal of money to make my commute not use a single drop of gasoline. My house also is a net positive in energy production. It'll take a while to offset the production of the items I had to buy but I have a horizon of a couple of decades - and they'll be recyclable afterwords. More to the point though is it isn't A) US has to fix itself or B) the developing world needs to be mindful of how it develops - it's both. It's perfectly possible to be "Holy shit guys, the US needs to change how it consumes!" and be like "Holy shit, the developing world needs to change how humans have developed historically!" Hopefully, we'll get back on track in 2020 nationally on A...

simongray 7y ago

> a population mostly employed in the agriculture sector (compared to 2% in the US) It's 10% of the population, about a quarter of GDP, so not "mostly". Brazil is usually put into the Newly Industrialised Country category. It has quite a bit of secondary sector giants too.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Fair enough. I didn't look up Brazil specially but I am familiar with the rates in the region and assumed they were similar. Western countries have not eliminated a quarter of their GDP to prevent climate change, shouldn't they do that before telling those much poorer than they to do so?
- ratww 7y ago
  Stopping the deforestation isn't going to affect the GDP at all, let alone slash a quarter of it. Keep in mind that the deforestation is purely caused by the livestock industry trying to squeeze profits. There are other ways to produce meat that don't involve invading and burning forests. According to the government, in 2017 only 5,7% of the GDP is directly related to agriculture and livestock production [1]. And according to an industry website livestock was responsible for only 31% of that [2]. The rest of that "one quarter" is related to processing and distribution, which can happen in urban areas closer to the southeast, far away from the Amazon, and those things don't benefit at all from the deforestation. And the processing/distribution industry could exist by itself without local production, as proved by places like Hong Kong, the largest importer of Brazilian beef. [3] By the way, the biggest producer of beef in Brazil is the state of Sao Paulo, which is on the other side of the country, not at all related to Amazon. [3] So nope. Stopping the Amazon deforestation RIGHT NOW won't even make dent in our GDP. --- [1] http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/agropecuaria-puxa-o-pib-de-2017 http://www.agricultura.gov.br/noticias/agropecuaria-puxa-o-p... [2] https://www.beefpoint.com.br/abiec-perfil-da-pecuaria-no-brasil/ https://www.beefpoint.com.br/abiec-perfil-da-pecuaria-no-bra... [3] https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/01/18/Brazilian-beef-exports-keep-on-growing https://www.globalmeatnews.com/Article/2018/01/18/Brazilian-...

gdubs 7y ago

Well, if we believe the climate science, then continuing on that old ladder isn’t good for Brazil or anyone else in the world. The goal is to figure out a way to decarbonize economic growth, so that we’re not closing the door on the developing world, but rather providing new avenues for growth. If the west truly cares about solving the problem of climate change, then we have to accept that we’ve benefited disproportionately from ignoring the negative environmental externalities of our wealth expansion, and pay countries to protect natural resources that benefit the world. It should be more lucrative for brazillians to protect their forest than it is to burn them down to grow animal feed.

GVIrish 7y ago

What good is industrializing recklessly going to do for Brazil or any other developing nation when climate catastrophe destroys all of those GDP gains and more, causes food crises, destroys trillions of dollars of coastal real estate, and causes climate refugee crises? This is not a case where any country is going to benefit from ignoring climate change for more than a few decades. Climate catastrophe is going to hit the lower GDP nations the hardest, because they're starting with less capital to adapt and mitigate the effects. All they'd be doing by developing carbon intensive economies is flooring the accelerator towards the cliff. At any rate, it's a false dichotomy. With the current state of renewables, countries like Brazil, India, China, and Nigeria can continue to industrialize with clean energy and skip coal-based industrialization. They can also develop cities and infrastructure to support mass transit much better than some other nations did.