Rousseff announces veto of several Forest Code controversial amendments
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff announced Friday that she is vetoing some of the controversial amendments to the country’s Forest Code that would have substantially weakened the country’s forest protection and climate mitigation actions.
The amendments, pushed through the Brazilian congress by agricultural interests, include granting amnesty to landowners who illegally deforested before 2008 and reducing the mandatory forest cover for landowners in the Amazon from 80% to only 50%.
In addition to threatening the Amazon, deforestation contributes to climate change. Harmful climate change emissions emitted through deforestation represent about 15% of the world's global warming pollution—more than the total emissions from every car, truck, plane, ship and train on Earth.
Doug Boucher, director of climate research and analysis, and director of the Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists applauded President Rousseff for “vetoing the most dangerous parts of this law and for her continued commitment to ending Brazilian deforestation by 2020”.
“The amendment that would have granted amnesty for illegal deforestation prior to 2008 would have been a dangerous precedent. Landowners would have been free to continue clearing forests under the assumption that another amnesty period would be offered. Had President Rousseff not vetoed this section, it would have undermined the entire Forest Code.
“Brazil has already reduced deforestation by 68% since 2005. Through Rousseff’s vetoes, Brazil can continue to build on its monumental progress to protect the Amazon and secure its role as the global leader in reducing carbon emissions”, concludes the Concerned Scientists statement.
Suggested Stories
-
May 20th 2013
Brazil opens ports to private investment hoping to ease bottlenecks strangling exports growth
-
May 21st 2013
Brazil main opposition party elects a new leader and 2014 presidential hopeful
-
May 20th 2013
Brazil trapped by Argentina and Venezuela economic mismanagements
-
May 16th 2013
US environmentalist donates 15.000 hectares of pristine Patagonia land for a national park
20 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
You really can't read if you think that is a victory for the farmers.
At the end ,Teixeira/Salvatti team has made done what they want.
You did mean ?-- NGO working group on UN-NGO relations founded in 2009 which has roles between open partnership in between UN and NGOs.
The main problem is the RECENT resurgence in logging and forest clearances.
Many, many rich people need long spells in COMMON prisons for their flagrant deforestation practices and the string of murders that accompany these practices.
Join AVAARZ and become part of a worldwide pressure-group that continues to guide the sensible thinking of the Presidenta.
Moral is good...
Double moral seems to be twice as good.......
I remember you criticizing the Chileans that vehemently oppose the destruction of the most pristine sites of Patagonia with the construction of unnecessary dams and high tension lines.... so the middle class in Santiago can run their air conditioning machines………….
Yes, I am picky and choosy wrt energy issues.
Carbon sinks are important to me - especially the forests and the seas.
Renewable energy provided by gravity acting on water to produce electricity also presses my buttons.
The costs attached to this constant source of energy is my trade-off - aesthetics of powerlines, wind-farms, etc., permanent loss of land to reservoirs (eg Xingo), and people relocations.
I inform myself and then weigh off the balance of costs and benefits.
For instance, I have long preached for the English/Welsh Severn estuary barrage scheme (etc) for turbine electrical energy from twice-daily tidal movements. I know this will change the internationally famous wildfowl reserve at Slimbridge.
I have been accused of NIMBYism wrt the proposed windfarm near my English home. It might appear so, buy I was part of the conservation management team (HMTNC) that designated the area as of Scientific Interest and High Landscape Value some 40 years ago. The recent (poorly argued) profit interests of local farmers diversifying into energy provision do not weigh heavily against my original protections on the area.
No, you are not ”Picky and Choosy” wrt energy issues…….
If you were ”Picky and Choosy”, you would know that nowhere in Europe or the USA are they allowing those monstrous High Tension lines and towers anymore……………
All new projects are subterraneous, and the old lines are also being dig down…..
If you were ”Picky and Choosy”, you would know that they are much better alternatives for hydroelectric energy production than damming a river………….
www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/dec2009/gb2009127_163138.htm
The only ”picky and choosyness” I can spot in your approach for Chile is the picking and choosing of the oldest, most destructive and profit maximizing technology available…..
You know where to stick it...................
Uhuh, just as your mother who's suprised with your online trolling here. Seriously, go hug more trees what they enjoy doing there in Norway.
Long time no talk.
Any thoughts on Dilma's action. For it? Against it?
I'm not buying this recent wave of pro-Brit non-British users. Seems like the Brits want to beef up their perceived international support by...setting up fake accounts to spout their talking points. One of the problems, however, is that their attempts are a bit too forced. They always create accounts that instantly give away their supposed national origin, when most other users never do that.
All new projects are subterraneous, and the old lines are also being dig down…..”
I'm afraid this isn't quite true. I can't speak to Europe, but in North America above ground transmission lines are still used when power has to be conveyed long distances from a generating station to an urban substation. Most hydroelectric stations are located in rugged, rocky areas where digging in power lines is not possible. You are correct in saying that new residential power lines and some existing ones are being located below ground.
I even found somewhere in Brasil - a couple of roads - where urban/residential powerlines are being buried along the road rather than blighting the whole urban landscape with a total tangle of poles, wires and 'cats'/gatos.
This is the way developed countries go, but it it is so very, very slow.
One big advantage is that burying the urban utilities in concrete conduits allows for street pavements to be rebuilt with continuity, avoiding the crippling walks along pavements where every house/shop frontage has a different injury-inducing 'pavement'.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!