Yes there were many contradictions in the COP summit, but this is exactly what it's for so the world can understand the actual challenges other countries go through which takes the backseat when these meetings are held in rich countries.
Reminds me of some Red Bull art thing in berlin where they build some temporary structure from shipping containers, and cut down a big three in the middle. 1. They could have build around it 2. They held seed bomb workshops at the place….
I mean, I think it's a bad look for a "climate summit" to choose a location that results in 0.8 miles of rainforest being cut down.
But that said, the article also claims "tens of thousands of acres" cut down. 10,000 acres is 15 sq-miles. That's a lot more than an 8 mile freeway, unless I did some math wrong (possible).
they have an agenda, if you look at their submission history
bangers such as "why climate change is not an existential crisis" and "much climate hysteria just aimless guilt in search of futile acts of atonement"
people should lose their submission privileges after having dozens on dozens of flagged submissions, history of editorializing of titles, etc. some of their other non-climate submissions are really quite awful. just a bunch of rage bait.
It's specially interesting that the article goes through lengths to criticize this legal deforestation while not mentioning the progress in fighting illegal deforestation. Seems like the current admin doesn't do much when in fact it is successfully reverting the damages done in the previous admin by Bolsonaro:
Yes there were many contradictions in the COP summit, but this is exactly what it's for so the world can understand the actual challenges other countries go through which takes the backseat when these meetings are held in rich countries.
Title reads as if they just cut down the entire thing lol. (The original title too).
Reminds me of some Red Bull art thing in berlin where they build some temporary structure from shipping containers, and cut down a big three in the middle. 1. They could have build around it 2. They held seed bomb workshops at the place….
It makes for a good headline, but
> the cleared land which stretches more than 13km (8 miles)
I mean, I think it's a bad look for a "climate summit" to choose a location that results in 0.8 miles of rainforest being cut down.
But that said, the article also claims "tens of thousands of acres" cut down. 10,000 acres is 15 sq-miles. That's a lot more than an 8 mile freeway, unless I did some math wrong (possible).
No, it says it cut through an area of "tens of thousands of acres"
(2025)
Why posting this today OP?
Just over a week ago:
Brazil sees record fall in Amazon deforestation as key election looms
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqe8rzg6zl00o (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50244092)
>Why posting this today OP?
they have an agenda, if you look at their submission history
bangers such as "why climate change is not an existential crisis" and "much climate hysteria just aimless guilt in search of futile acts of atonement"
people should lose their submission privileges after having dozens on dozens of flagged submissions, history of editorializing of titles, etc. some of their other non-climate submissions are really quite awful. just a bunch of rage bait.
Whatever happened to virtual attendance?
Couldn't they just build a runway there for the private jets?
/s or a landing pad for Bezos' and Musk's reusable rocket booster transporters to unload Robo-Billionaire husks?
That's too bad, I would have liked to visit it one day. I hear Mt Everest will be demolished next to make room for a bodega.
I hate these low effort "gotcha!!" articles, no doubt written to discredit climate activism movements.
They built a 13 km highway connecting an underserved city. It isn't going to be removed after the summit.
Is Brazil not allowed to have infrastructure because a large part of their country is rainforest?
And why is a random article from 2025 being upvoted here?
It's specially interesting that the article goes through lengths to criticize this legal deforestation while not mentioning the progress in fighting illegal deforestation. Seems like the current admin doesn't do much when in fact it is successfully reverting the damages done in the previous admin by Bolsonaro:
The Brazilian Amazon deforestation rate in 2020 is the greatest of the decade (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01368-x)
Brazil sees record fall in Amazon deforestation as key election looms (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqe8rzg6zl00o)
HN nerds will justify anything if they can write words that appear logically sound.