There's no surprise at all in the fires in the Amazon area. Nothing much abnormal. There was a concentration of organic matter from the last two years, which were rainy years, so this year the fires are slightly more common and stronger. The dry season is from August to October, peaking in September.
There was also a small rise in deforestation in comparison with the last years, but nothing big. The deforestation could happen after wood – WHICH WE SHOULD BE LEGALLY EXPLORING LIKE PEOPLE DO IN OTHER COUNTRIES, BUT WE ARE NOT, AND I BLAME TREE-HUGGERS FOR THIS ILLEGAL DEFORESTATION
– or after opening space to create free range cattle – don't think it's the same meat you import from us, because it's not, our regulations are way heavier than it should, retardly heavy in everything, any militancy for a boycott would only hurt who LEGALLY creates cattle, and a healthier cattle than you could ever get in your own countries
When they deforest an area by cutting down trees, they need to clean the terrain. So they cut trees before the dry season and let the dead vegetation die. So then they set fire to it. The green, wet, forest, will barely be burned. When they burn it's because there's a lot of dead trees already in there – and it's a natural phenomenon: around 30% of the trees in the forest are already dead by default, standing there hollow and drying as the time passes
. So… One of two things will then happen when they set fire:
—When the rains come back (around November), if let alone, the forest will healthily start to grow back, healthier and now younger than before, the flora and fauna (who had run away from the area) will somewhat be reestablished after 10 years, the trees will be in a big size in 20 years, then you barely will notice that area had been burned. So setting fire to it ASAP is a better choice than leaving it dry and accumulating dead biologic matter. Tree-huggers are insane and, if it depended on them, we would see truly huge natural fire preceded by a dead forest, fucked up and taking a long time to recover. Fires in this case are a good thing.
—Or… If the intention was to clear the terrain for other uses, then the fire will be used for this. The problem is what happens next, they will plant grass so the forest won't grow back. But let me tell you it needs some dedication to keep pastures in place of the forest. The forest will spread like plague if the terrain is let alone. Our legal colonization of the region kind of failed in the 80s because of that. Anyway, illegal cutting down of trees and illegal creation of pastures are two things that should be fought (not the fires). And it is fought. The reason all of this bullshit propaganda started is because the government wanted to fight better against such deforestation. Will explain this in other post.
Point here is, most of the fire was natural, unintentional, non-criminal. The fire uses to be good to the forest. Animals will run away from it, to wetter areas, they won't simply die, they are not retarded, there's enough green forest for them to run into; then the fires will naturally be extinguished by rains or because it got out of dry fuel. There's nothing outside of control and the proportion of areas burned are so small I don't even have the percentage to give you, but it's way way way way way way lower than a single percent.
I said about the legal exploration of the Amazon. Our legal land owners are the ones who mostly preserve the forest. Well… The part that people can interact with, because the forest is truly huge, people outside of Brazil seem to have no idea of the size of it. You get huge areas of forest that will live, die, and never see a single human being in their life (good, right?). The part that is explored is kept safe mostly in private properties. Our laws demand 80% their lands are kept untouched. FUCKING EIGHTY PERCENT. We already live in a tree-hugging dictatorship here, there's no need for more of it – and I also place the blame of this sudden hysteria about the Amazon in our usual complacency with tree-huggers and globalists, we give them a hand, they want both of our arms to them
. And by that 80% I'm not talking about preservation areas, these should be kept entirely untouched, with few exceptions for "sustentable developing", which means some tree-hugging inefficient bullshit used to grab money from the government, international donations or for money laundering. It's 80% by default, everyone has to keep 80% of their property as useless forest.