Anyone ever thought ab sending mercenaries to rainforests to stop the deforestation? SERIOUS. all the big companies do is lie and continue chopping and burning. what else can we do that shows results?

20 comments

1. Actually not too bad of an idea. We are enough people, money shouldn’t be the problem…. I know some organisations the do rewilding also pay folks to protect the lands, maybe that could be a first heads up

2. Similar in respect to the people that hunt poachers? Those countries don’t mind that, but for countries with deforestation issues, the gov’ts I’m sure get kickbacks from the corporations, and corporations in general have more protection than stateless actors (poachers).

3. Sending wagner group would either have them be bought by the criminals or turned into fertiliser within a few months.

4. Of all groups, you pick wagner – absolute scum and war criminals.

5. There are multiple countries which have task forces like this. There are some documentaries about them, they always look pretty based and you can see, they do it for their love of nature.

   The logistics are obviously very hard, but I think it’s easy to argue, how the money is worth it

6. *If and only if* the government of any rainforest country *first asks* for that kind of help help

   smh

   Besides, here in the USA we need to dramatically fix the political problems in our own country, then pass sweeping meaningful environmental laws and commit resources to enforcing them. Starting with the rapid decarbonization of US energy mix

   Only then do we have any business offering environmental law enforcement help to other countries.

   Notice I said, *offering* help not just sending soldiers in illegally.

7. Question: Both philosophically and legally, when does it become self defence to retaliate against the person who made the call to chop down forests?

8. You absolutely don’t trust mercenaries. Whatever they do for you when you pay them, they’ll gladly do back to you too when someone else pays them to. The only way to control that is to not allow them to operate in the first place.

   On top of this, there’s extensive documentation over the decades of mercenaries (or private military contractors, or other euphemisms) horribly violating human rights and committing other crimes, because they don’t live where they work, they don’t have to live with the long-term consequences. That’s not too different from national militaries invading someone else’s home, but there are further problems with oversight and control.

9. You hire mercenaries. Someone with more money will buy them.

10. Why mercenaries when you can build a legal, recognised army?
    Like literally we have the military in many countries. If we were to gain some form of political power in these countries we could then put the soldiers to use.

11. It’s mainly the locals now needing gold and farm land!

12. Why not arm the indigenous people who live there?

13. Crowd funding militant group? What a world

14. They already are… who do you think is killing the natives trying to stop the logging?

15. I can’t recall it being done, but why would you do it?

    I beleive the idea misplaces cause and effect. Corporations dont destroy the environment just because, they do it because destroying the environment results in a product that you and I want.

    What’s worse, even when you and I know it destroys the environment we are highly resistant to altering what we want to save the environment.

    Its why the current climate change efforts are doomed to failure, they are attacking the problem from the wrong end.

16. You want to send mercenary forces after people who are farming cattle.

    Capitalism is the problem. It can be fixed, but we need to get rid of the lizard men who are in charge now.

17. Piracy/privateering will get much better results. A mercenary group deep inland would need a supply chain. You might end up paying for the roads that are then used by loggers and ranchers.

    There may need to be a marketplace where prize ships and/or cargo can be sold. Alternatively the action needs to be financed by donations. The latter allows for many more non lethal actions. The privateers do not need to subdue the crew if they are not capturing it. Drone boats can potentially have global range via satellite control. Most of the reefer ships carrying beef are single walled vessels. Holing them with a ram would not necessarily sink the vessel but forces them out of service until repairs are done. Quite likely a total loss on perishable goods. A slow sinking ship is unlikely to result in crew deaths most of the time. Disabling or breaking the propellors or rudder is also an option. These are not necessarily less dangerous options since the ship might drift into a dangerous situation. Regular cargo ships can haul refrigerated containers so you might need to make that expensive too.

    Loggers, ranchers, and miners can team up and hire their own mercenary bands. They can also shift their activities to avoid any well defended specific location. In the ocean the strategic situation is reversed. They have to arm and defend all their ships engaged in global trade. That alone cuts a huge chunk out of their profits.

    It also potentially pits them against each other. Ranchers working land that was cleared a century ago need that cargo ship for export. Clearing new land does nothing for them.

18. You would think that the powers that are would be able to protect the rainforests with their vast militaries, but it’s not a priority for hardly anyone with the power to stop this. Yes, only governments and militaries can protect this, but they listen to whoever gives them more money, which are usually industrial interests.

19. Sup with you leftists always wanting to kill people?

20. Ooo you people are dangerous

Comments are closed.