This story is from the Fool Moon news feed on the right. It's an interesting twist on migrating for labor.

For quite some time, there have been small groups of Americans farming in Brazil. Recently, their numbers have been climbing. Young American farmers and their families are moving to Brazil to farm because it's cheaper than doing it in America. With the lower cost of living in Brazil, land can be had for thousands of dollars less per acre than in America and farm hands work for less, while still earning a wage of the going rate or higher. Americans who could only work a small plot in the US can farm and/or manage the farming of 20,000+ acre operations in Brazil.

Soy and cotton are popular crops on these American farms. That product is then sold in Brazil, the US and around the world.

The Americans interviewed said they are liking the experience. They like having warmer and longer growing seasons. The Americans say there are challenges; such as learning the language and the pace of business. It seems the Brazilian bureaucracy moves even slower than America's.

Some Brazilians complain that Americans are buying up Brazil and raising the cost of land. For the most part though, it appears the Americans are welcome. LEM's mayor, Oziel Oliveira, had this to say when asked if Americans were welcome to farm in Brazil, "Absolutely. They're turning into Brazilians."

A friend of mine, from high school, and grammar school to be exact has been farming in Brazil for over 20 years. He loves it! Their family still maanges large acres of oranges in central Cali, but he moved to Brazil after meeting and marrying his wife (who is Brazilian)!

I would hope they're not farming on land that used to be rain forest!

Oh, heavens no! This land was always farm land. Has been since the dawn of creation.

I don't know exactly but, the impression I get is that most of these farms are existing farms.

If the land used to be rain forest, it's not coming back, so people may as well farm it. But I think the rain forest is being destroyed to put in condos and resorts. Visit Forest Gone, a full service luxury vacation retreat.
.

I know that the destroyed rain forest will never come back. I just hope Americans aren't farming on rain forest land they, themselves, have destroyed just because it's cheaper to do so than to farm in the US.

I would not be so sure about the rain forest never coming back...its pretty damn pernicious and has a documented ability to rebound. Of course, we (humanity that is...) are unwilling to surrender land we have taken from the forest and so perhaps in that sense you are right. But...never is a long damn time. One need only look at the rain forest covered ruins of Mezo-American cultures like the Mayans and the Incans to see that the rain forests do indeed come back much sooner than the 12th of Never.

True, provided that the people destroying the forests are dead.

Hint hint.

Well, as you liberals like to point out...I am perfectly willing to kill lots of people.

People are perfectly willing to build things in in appropriate, or even technically illegal places, for profit, and/or for a nice view of a natural setting. Take all those houses still being built on flood plains and natural swamp areas in certain parts of the US for instance.

True, Myr...of course, I think people should pretty much be allowed to do what they want so long as it does not unduly infringe on the rights of others. If you want to build your house in a flood plain...feel free. On the otherhand, I am an uncaring bastard and so I do not think the government ought to be offering you flood insurance if you do...nor do I think the government ought to be investing enormous sums of tax dollars in levies designed to keep your ill advised home dry. If the river floods...as they tend to do...and your home is washed away you can either rebuild it yourself or relocate to a less flood prone area.

Well, I'm with you on that for new construction. But what about old construction, stuff that was done when the world's mindset was "Man can rape Nature any way he likes!"

Point in case: New Orleans, built *below* the levels of Lake Pontchartrain, a long time ago. It's a big city, a national landmark, protected by levees. Should we abandon the city when it floods, or rebuild it? You know it will flood again in the future. Part of Manhattan is below sea level... on the lower floor of skyscapers in the low end of New York City there are "Break Glass In Case Of Emergency" stations in the wall that contain small scuba tanks and goggles (one per every 500 people) in case of sudden flood. Washington DC was built on a swamp.

Now, we all know we shouldn't build stupidly like that any more, but what about national landmark cities that *were* put in risky places? Should the government sink money into protecting those? DC? NYC? The Big Easy?

For the sole sake of historical preservation, no.

As for Americans farming in Brazil or building anything in a foreign country, I'm reminded of a story they like to tell at work.

Several years ago, there was a massage parlor. We'll call it "The Happy Ending" massage parlor. I think you get my drift. Well, one night the cops raided the place and one of the patrons was hauled out, in front of the local news cameras, wearing his work uniform. He was not there on behalf of the company in any way. Still though, since the media had his name and employer, the lead in was "Local Sewerage Worker Busted In Prostitution Sting".

The point is, when you look like a representative of something, people will look at you as a representative of that thing, even if you aren't, officially. When Americans do business abroad, even for their own personal gain with no official ties to US diplomacy, they are still seen as Americans and viewed as representatives of, or at least representations of, Americans. They should conduct their business accordingly.

The historical areas, if they are worth saving as a national treasure, should be saved, but any normal dwellings should be not be rebuild in such areas, nor should the area build upon in such areas be expanded. The property owners should be compensated, but not allowed to rebuild, or perhaps they should be discouraged or given financial incentives not to rebuild. The local government with their powers of rezoning land would have a major part to play in this.



I am not sure I fully agree with Lawmage on the "I think people should pretty much be allowed to do what they want so long as it does not unduly infringe on the rights of others" statement, unless he also includes the right of future generations to be able to enjoy certain natural treasures that the US has. There could be much debate about individual rights as well as individual responsibilities with regards to this subject. I more or less agree with the rest of his post, even though I am not a heartless bastard either.

Whenever a news reporter interviews someone whose home was destroyed in a flood, or some other type of natural disaster in an area that's prone to them (e.g. areas prone to earthquakes, mudslide, wildfires, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis, tornados) where these same types of disasters happens all the time, reliably, there's one phrase that is always said that makes me grind my teeth.... "And the InsertNameHere family, who lost everything in the insertdisasterhere, have vowed to rebuild."

Vowed to rebuild. Vowed to rebuild. You hear that every time. As though they were saying "nyah nyah, in your FACE, Nature, you won't flood US out again, or knock our city down with ANOTHER earthquake, or etc etc." What saps!

Myrddin says "The property owners should be compensated, but not allowed to rebuild, or perhaps they should be discouraged or given financial incentives not to rebuild. The local government with their powers of rezoning land would have a major part to play in this." This is so completely sensible that it never happens. They always rebuild in the same place, and 5, 10, 30 years later they are wiped out to the ground and shking their fists at Nature again, vowing to rebuild. It pisses me off.

Regarding farming in what once was rainforest: I have been given to understand that rainforest soil is extremely poor in nutrients, and that crops do not do well in it. How are American farmers wheedling harvests out of such soil?

The ancient peoples which lived in the rainforest, had a technique of making such soil rich; the soil is known today as "Terra Preta do Indio". I am not sure if such techniques would work well with modern farming methods.

Biochar, the modern version of an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice called Terra Preta (black earth), is gaining widespread credibility as a way to address world hunger, climate change, rural poverty, deforestation, and energy shortages… SIMULTANEOUSLY!

Indeed, James Hansen is now placing it in the center stage of <a href="http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf">pro-active solutions</a> for the climate crisis.

If you would like to get out of the noisy arguments and into the positive vision, please check out <a href="http://biocharfund.com/"
>Biochar.fund</a> and <a href="http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/">beyondzeroemissions</a>.

The BBC documentary <a href="http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=secret+of+el+dorado&sitesearch=#">The Secret of El Dorado</a> is what propelled Terra Preta into global awareness and the Australians especially have been providing <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2012892.htm">exciting documentaries</a> about current applications.

And if you would like to plunge deeper there is a great terra preta forum and information archive <a href="http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/">here</a>.


Thanks for giving biochar your consideration.

There is considerable research going on to see if we can develop a process that can duplicate--or improve on--this charcoal-based soil enrichment process. There was money in the draft of the 2007 budget to expand that research, but I don't know if it survived the budget approval process. One neat thing about it is that it increases soil fertility up to 35%, sustainably in perpetuity, while being Carbon Negative (ie, it sequesters Carbon Dioxide back into the soil. The common slash-and-burn process currently used in the rain-forests results in sterile soil within a few years, after which the farm is moved to another spot.

S.1884 – The Salazar Harvesting Energy Act of 2007

A Summary of Biochar Provisions in S.1884:

Carbon-Negative Biomass Energy and Soil Quality Initiative

for the 2007 Farm Bill

http://www.biochar-international.org/newinformationevents/newlegislation.html

Bolstering Biomass and Biochar development: In the 2007 Farm Bill, Senator Salazar was able to include $500 million for biomass research and development and for competitive grants to develop the technologies and processes necessary for the commercial production of biofuels and bio-based products. Biomass is an organic material, usually referring to plant matter or animal waste. Using biomass for energy can reduce waste and air pollution. Biochar is a byproduct of producing energy from biomass. As a soil treatment, it enhances the ability of soil to capture and retain carbon dioxide.

( Update; In conference the $500 M was cut to $3M....:( )

Oh. What a surprise.

"you liberals" Copyright Sean Hannity 1998, all rights reserved.

However, if you are offering your services, I'm not saying I'm accepting them, because that would not be legal, if you see what I'm saying. What's it gonna cost me?

Does anyone know what percent of the original rain forest now remains, and/or if any of it is preserved under the Brazilian government's protection?

Which orignal rain forest, Dax? The one the existed before the Olmecs cut large swathes of it down? The one the existed before the Toltecs cut large swathes of it down? The one the existed before the Mayans cut large swathes of it down? Or the one that grew back and is now being cut down by modern Brazilians?

You know that there's no way to devine the extent of the 'original' rainforest, Law. Mesoamericans had no way of mapping anything. Nor did they have the means to cut large swathes of it. Besides that, forests continually renew themselves, as you know.

However, Amazonian rainforests are now being cut down at an alarming rate--alarming to people who care about the environment and the amount of clean air a rainforest provides the world.

But the thread is about farming in deforestrated areas of the Amazonian rainforest. If Americans are farming deforestrated areas, they have to be adding chemicals to that land, unless they use biochar methods of replenishing the earth.

If Americans are, as Aint has said, farming cleared rainforest areas then they are, again as Aint has said, representatives of the US. I would hope that those representives of the US would teach rather than simply take.

Biochar is not being used in the rainforest. Exactly how it was done has been lost. The current farming technique is slash-and-burn, with fertilizing sometimes used to extend the time before the land is completely sterile. (Its the rain!) If Americans are farming there, they are either using slash-and-burn (deforesting) or have purchased an already farmed area and using a lot of fertilizer, which will only defer for a while the day when they will have to abandon their farm and find a new area to deforest.

Not exactly...the thread is about the broader environment and Mankind's place and role in that environment. Farming in deforested areas is being used as a salient in that discussion.

Implicit in your statement is that people who are not "alarmed" by such cutting do not care about the environment or the putative amount of clean air a rainforest provides to the world. That is little more than an attempt to falsely claim the moral highground for your side of the discussion and to cast the opposition as somehow immoral or degenerate. In point of fact, some of us are not overwrought about the forest clearing because we know that the environment changes, forests come and go and come again....People need to eat as well, Liz, and farming in former forested areas is one way to provide that food. As it happens, I think we ought to take a go slow approach to such clearing because I think there exists a strong likelihood that valuable plant and animal resources are being lost before they can be properly exploited. As for the clean air argument...its a false one, Liz. Grasslands are far more effective than rain forest at serving as the "lungs of the planet." In point of fact, the oceans are infinitely more effective that rain forest or grasslands. The entire "lungs of the planet" issue is a fabricated one intended to instil fear for the purpose of modifying behavior. I thought you were opposed to such fear mongering?

Incidently, why is it that when a foreign national comes to the US and opens a business he or she is not deemed a representative of their country but if an American goes anywhere and does anything its suddenly a part of US policy?

That's the one!

Because that's the double standard we live by. It's OK to call a duck a duck everywhere but here.

LEM's mayor, Oziel Oliveira, had this to say when asked if Americans were welcome to farm in Brazil, "Absolutely. They're turning into Brazilians."

Volumes.

Brazil is a bunch of bullshit and from there just to get a driver's license or a state ID you have to go to 3 places. It is not like here where you just show 2 forms of ID.

Because U.S.A. rules!!!


Attempting to modify people's behavior by instilling fear and terror in them is very wrong, and should never be used to accomplish goals or preserve power. I think that's something we can all agree on.

I don't know how much rain forest is left, and how much is being destroyed on a daily basis, but apparently there are enough people in the world who don't care to make clearing a viable option.