Amazon Deforestation Fell To Lowest Level Since 1988 - And Silva Wins Reelection (yahoo.com) 79
Brazil's 80-year-old president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was re-elected Sunday, reports the Guardian, "defeating his far-right opponent, Flávio Bolsonaro, to claim a historic fourth term in power."
And the results could impact the climate, suggests the Associated Press, since under da Silva the annual deforestation rate in the Amazon fell to its lowest level since records began in 1988: Official satellite data showed the rainforest lost 3,335 square kilometers (1,300 square miles) from Aug. 2025 through July 2026, the period used to calculate the annual rate...
During Jair Bolsonaro's presidency, from 2019 to 2022, Amazon deforestation surged by about 60%, with more than 45,000 square kilometers (17,400 square miles) cleared, according to official data. Under Lula, deforestation has fallen 71% since 2023, the government said. One of Lula's first moves after taking office in January 2023 for a third, non-consecutive term was to revive the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon, known by its Portuguese acronym, PPCDAm. Launched in 2004 during his first administration, the plan had been shelved under Bolsonaro....
The plan has four pillars: strengthening monitoring and enforcement; promoting a sustainable economy; managing protected areas and determining how undesignated public forests should be used; and using regulations and financial incentives to curb deforestation. Measures included restoring sanctions for illegal forest clearing detected by satellites, a practice seen as the most effective tool to curb deforestation that was halted under Bolsonaro. The government also proposed barring properties with illegal deforestation from receiving bank loans and allocated more funding to priority Amazon municipalities that demonstrated reductions in forest loss. It also funded efforts to fight environmental crime and develop subsidized credit for sustainable businesses in the Amazon...
Deforestation and other land-use changes are Brazil's largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which drive global warming. The stakes are especially high in the Amazon, which stores vast amounts of carbon dioxide and generates atmospheric moisture that helps regulate weather far beyond South America... Degradation from wildfires, logging and drought affects about 40% of the Amazon and has outpaced clear-cutting in recent years. A strong El Niño, a periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific, could intensify those threats in 2026 and 2027 by bringing hotter, drier conditions that fuel wildfires.
The article notes that Lula's reelection campaign promised zero net deforestation by 2030, plus restoration to offset all forest loss, legal or illegal.
And the results could impact the climate, suggests the Associated Press, since under da Silva the annual deforestation rate in the Amazon fell to its lowest level since records began in 1988: Official satellite data showed the rainforest lost 3,335 square kilometers (1,300 square miles) from Aug. 2025 through July 2026, the period used to calculate the annual rate...
During Jair Bolsonaro's presidency, from 2019 to 2022, Amazon deforestation surged by about 60%, with more than 45,000 square kilometers (17,400 square miles) cleared, according to official data. Under Lula, deforestation has fallen 71% since 2023, the government said. One of Lula's first moves after taking office in January 2023 for a third, non-consecutive term was to revive the Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Legal Amazon, known by its Portuguese acronym, PPCDAm. Launched in 2004 during his first administration, the plan had been shelved under Bolsonaro....
The plan has four pillars: strengthening monitoring and enforcement; promoting a sustainable economy; managing protected areas and determining how undesignated public forests should be used; and using regulations and financial incentives to curb deforestation. Measures included restoring sanctions for illegal forest clearing detected by satellites, a practice seen as the most effective tool to curb deforestation that was halted under Bolsonaro. The government also proposed barring properties with illegal deforestation from receiving bank loans and allocated more funding to priority Amazon municipalities that demonstrated reductions in forest loss. It also funded efforts to fight environmental crime and develop subsidized credit for sustainable businesses in the Amazon...
Deforestation and other land-use changes are Brazil's largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, which drive global warming. The stakes are especially high in the Amazon, which stores vast amounts of carbon dioxide and generates atmospheric moisture that helps regulate weather far beyond South America... Degradation from wildfires, logging and drought affects about 40% of the Amazon and has outpaced clear-cutting in recent years. A strong El Niño, a periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific, could intensify those threats in 2026 and 2027 by bringing hotter, drier conditions that fuel wildfires.
The article notes that Lula's reelection campaign promised zero net deforestation by 2030, plus restoration to offset all forest loss, legal or illegal.
Democracy and sovereignty wins! (Score:1, Troll)
Yeah, Mr. Donnie Duck Dump, youâ(TM)re not calling my country a âoebackyardâ!
*Dons flameproof suit* (Score:2)
Because it has good taste?
Re:Democracy and sovereignty wins! (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it about time you learned not to mojibake slashdot with dumb smartquotes ?
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't about time Slashdot fully supports Unicode? Version 1.0 was published in October 1991!
Re: (Score:1)
The number of votes in those 2 hours was around 5,000 (five thousand) in total. There's no surge and, obviously no dictator. And I know a dictatorship when I see one.
Now, companies cancelling flights to states where people mostly vote for Lula, cities cutting on public transport to keep people from voting... oh, that's nothing, right?
You have a bridge to sell and a pocket full of lies too. Good luck.
Re: (Score:1)
A *federal judge* (also called a "Justice", in the USA) asked for the passport, because Flavio Bolsonaro is being investigated for several crimes, including money laundering. Oh, and this money laundering includes money sent to his brother in the USA! Who would have thought, huh? Oh, and then Flavio fled the country! Looks like a Hollywood movie plot, doesn't it?
If you look at the big picture: Flavio Bolsonaro ran for the election freely, had millions of votes. One of his brothers, Carlos, was elected senat
Re: (Score:2)
It's democracy for a single judge to order voting to go on for an extra 2 hours
You do realise that the request for an extension came from both candidates?
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing screams democracy like four terms in office.
Following the Trump playbook (Score:4, Insightful)
I see that Flávio Bolsonaro is refusing to accept the result. How long before the attack on the National Congress Palace?
Re:Following the Trump playbook (Score:4, Informative)
It's not the same when the person refusing to accept the result isn't the incumbent in command of the police and army.
Re:Following the Trump playbook (Score:5, Informative)
Bolsonaro *led* in the first round, he did not defeat Lula. That's why there was a second round.
And his lead was only 47% vs 45%. That's not insurmountable.
Also, there's a big gulf between refusing to accept the results and 'some scrutiny'.
Re:Following the Trump playbook (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. It's not unprecedented elsewhere and Brazil only has about 40 years of events to compare to, which is a small dataset - it was going to happen for the first time at some time.
It's a pretty standard outcome where you've got a candidate where people who don't like them also don't agree on what they do want, but are very sure that it's not them. It looks like people rallied around Da Silva because they absolutely didn't want Bolsonaro.
The results should certainly be checked in the normal way, but winning the first round and losing the second isn't a smoking gun. It also depends on what has happened in the news in the meantime.
Re:Following the Trump playbook (Score:4, Informative)
You don't find it a bit odd that Bolsonaro defeated Lula in the election, but didn't get 50% of the vote, and then loses in the runoff? That is unprecedented in Brasil.
As David Hume showed long ago, the fact that something happened regularly in the past is not a guarantee that it will happen in the future.
Perhaps it does warrant some scrutiny.
Lula secured 51.79% of the votes compared with Bolsonaro’s 48.21%, according to Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court – about 4.4m more votes. If, according to you, this warrants scrutiny then presumably if Lula had won 48.21% and Bolsanaro 51.79% then this too would warrant scruting...
Re:Following the Trump playbook (Score:5, Informative)
You don't find it a bit odd that Bolsonaro defeated Lula in the election, but didn't get 50% of the vote, and then loses in the runoff? That is unprecedented in Brasil. Perhaps it does warrant some scrutiny.
No, that's not odd at all. Many parts of the world have run-off elections. It concentrates the vote to prevent like parties splitting the community. In many parts of the world these kinds of run-off elections end up flipping the result, it's a natural result of that election system.
E.g. You have the following parties with the following results:
Right party A - 40% of the vote
Left party A - 31% of the vote
Left party B who is like A but also want to implement policy X - 29% of the vote.
In the runoff now the people who voted for Left party B get to decide, are they hyper focused on policy X to the point where they vote Right wing or abandon the election? In most cases the answer is no, so people who voted for Left party B will vote for Left party A in the run-off and the result flips.
This is perfectly normal for that kind of system and it's actually bizarre that it hasn't happened before in a country where a run-off system exists.
Re: (Score:2)
That explanation sucks.
First of all: you vote for a person. And not a party.
Secondly: in the first vote, you have more than TWO, you have perhaps a dozen, or more candidates.
If in the first vote, one gets more than 50%, it is settled already.
In countries like France it can easy be 3 or 4 rounds of voting.
What actually happens is: the low ranked candidates, get removed from the election.
And the voters who had voted for them have to reconsider who is the better candidate in the next round.
It is bottom line no
Re: (Score:2)
First of all: you vote for a person. And not a party.
No, you vote for a position in alignment with you, not a person.
Secondly: in the first vote, you have more than TWO, you have perhaps a dozen, or more candidates.
Yes. That is my point. And in my example I mentioned THREE not two.
If in the first vote, one gets more than 50%, it is settled already.
Something which has absolutely no influence on the fact that 2-party run-off elections result in changing allegiances when all other players are not in the running.
And the voters who had voted for them have to reconsider who is the better candidate in the next round.
It is bottom line not a race between A and B, but a race about the losers: do they rather pick A or B, or skip the next round.
Yes, exactly what I said in my example.
Look if this were Slashdot.de I would have posted it in German and you may have understood it better, but it's an English site you need to put at least some effort into understan
Re: (Score:2)
No, you vote for a position in alignment with you, not a person.
Nope.
Neither in Brazil nor France, you vote for some "alignment", you vote for a person.
Yes. That is my point. And in my example I mentioned THREE not two.
Did not look like 3 to me.
least some effort into understanding what someone wrote before *checks notes* saying their explanation sucks :D
You have a point
Re:Following the Trump playbook (Score:5, Informative)
I see that Flávio Bolsonaro is refusing to accept the result. How long before the attack on the National Congress Palace?
His father did something similar as an incumbent, and his supporters did just that. Bolsonaro ended up in prison as a result. Here in the US, we pardon rioters like that and give them jobs as ICE agents.
Re: (Score:1)
Because one thing is exactly the same as the completely unrelated thing, except topically. That's why.
Re: (Score:2)
That is actually what the populace is fearing at the moment.
4 million "invalid" votes - how the fark is that possible?
The winner has 5 million more than the second.
Sounds like the loser tried to rig the elections, and lost in trying so.
I have friends in Brazil, they protested the whole weekend against "the far right", and still the second in elections came close to winning.
Re: (Score:2)
Then he can share his cell with daddy.
naming! (Score:5, Informative)
His surname is da Silva so at least get that right. He is always known as Lula, a life-long nickname which is also part of his legal name (since 1982).
Re:naming! (Score:4, Informative)
Not really: in Brazilian Portuguese, "de", "da", "dos", etc. in front of a family name are frequently omitted in common usage, while they are mandatory in official documents. Also, the first surname (usually from the mother) is often not mentioned as well. It is a bit like in the US press it is rather uncommon to find someone mentioned with his/her middle name. Also, the naming rules in Brazil are quite flexible: first and second surnames can be exchanged, or you can use all four surnames from both your parents. And the "name" you' are known by can be only one of your surnames or even a nickname.
By the way, the strange thing here is that the re-elected president is universally known as Lula, nobody under the Brazilian sun says "President Silva" or "President da Silva", it would be ridiculous (also, Lula is officially part of his name, he added it to his official documents several years ago, for this very reason)
Lula won despite US interference (Score:5, Informative)
US interference in the Brazilian election:
"Inside the Trump-administration campaign to return Brazil's Bolsonaro clan to power"
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
"Battle over Meta's alleged Bolsonaro bias intensifies days before Brazil presidential runoff"
https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]
Re:Lula won despite US interference (Score:4, Informative)
You could try looking for other sources and actually analyze the issue, instead of a just posting a knee-jerk reaction to a url. But that would be part of an adult conversation, and we all know that isn't any fun.
Here, have some links:
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
https://www.aljazeera.com/feat... [aljazeera.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian....that unbiased and balanced source of news. (eyeroll)
So which publications do you deem "unbiased and balanced" sources of news?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever it is, it is not the Guardian. I fail to see how Slashdot can quote the Guardian for anything. It is like quoting the National Enquirer.or the Onion
So you can't (or won't) give your opinion on which newspapers we should trust, not do you present any evidence as to why we should not trust the Guardian.
Given this, is there any reason that we should take your opinion seriously?
Re:Lula won despite US interference (Score:5, Insightful)
I trust the Guardian much more than any right wing news source, they are independently funded.
They tell the truth the right hates.
Re: Lula won despite US interference (Score:2)
They're independently funded in much the same way the Nobel peace prize is politically independent. Of course the prize sometimes goes to a deserving candidate still. And sometimes Guardian publishes something good.
Just, as David Graeber reminded us, never, ever forget their ratfucking of Jeremy Corbyn. And remember it's things like that they will spend their carefully built up goodwill on.
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian turning on Labour for being unelectable under Jeremy Corbyn is an honesty. He was an antisemite who let antisemitsim grow and fester in the Labour party. Besides, his policies and lack of leadership made him unelectable and unappealing to the majority of voters, so Labour were better without him. If you want to make a difference, you have to be able to form a government, and the Corbyn fans never understood that. It's been very entertaining watching him try to form a new party and seeing th
Re: Lula won despite US interference (Score:2)
I can paint you as a monster. And if I say it often enough, enough people will believe it. [cbsnews.com]
But he's arrogant. You can't make anyone actually believe it. You can just make them plapper it for loyalty purposes - which is what you're doing now.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever it is, it is not the Guardian. I fail to see how Slashdot can quote the Guardian for anything. It is like quoting the National Enquirer.or the Onion
Of course. This is Slashdot. Questioning the messenger as a low-IQ ad hominem attack rather than debating the material (material which is often corroborated or has a primary citation) is just par for the course among the mouth breathers here.
Re: (Score:1)
I bet this person would say "FOX News", hahahahaha!
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian....that unbiased and balanced source of news
There is no such thing, there never has been, and such a thing is undesirable. We do not want or need a paper which simply repeats claims as they are made. We need the media to compare claims to facts. It's not the media's fault that the reich wing lies more.
Re: Lula won despite US interference (Score:2)
It says something that even though Lula is fairly close to Russia and China (the whole BRICS thing), and was endorsed by his close friend Julian Assange in a rare public statement, even US democrats can't feel bad about Trump's and Facebook's preferred candidate losing.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously are braindead?
A country - as in its government - should not have any preferred result in any others countries elections.
Either you are pro democracy, or you aren't.
The mess the world is in, because the USA try to put people into power.
Now with mass media, Russia and China returns the favour. And you think, it is okay, that USA is interfering with elections in Brazil?
What do you think, why most of the world hates you?
Except for in Finland⦠(Score:4, Informative)
Amazon (the .com version) just chopped down 250,000 trees (illegally) in Finland, so the /. headline just kinda caught me as ironic timing.
Re: Except for in Finland (Score:4, Informative)
Oops, that was Google, it turn out.
Re: (Score:2)
Also it was 400,000 trees. The 250,000 was just one of two sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Google admits fault in response to fake news? Jesus they must be a dumb company.
Bolsonaro not conceding (Score:3, Insightful)
Bolsonaro: "We cheated fair and square and didn't win, so we're going to sue."
It's the same playbook Trump is going to use to try to overturn the midterm results because "we couldn't possibly have lost because we rigged the election with gerrymandered election maps!"
You'll see. Just wait.
Re:Bolsonaro not conceding (Score:4, Informative)
Bolsonaro isn't the guy who got voting extended for a 2 hour window
If you actually look at reports from some of the more reputable media, both Lula's and Bolsanoro's teams asked for the extension.
Re: (Score:2)
If you actually look at reports from some of the more reputable media, both Lula's and Bolsanoro's teams asked for the extension.
While it doesn't seem likely last minute 2 hour extension could have changed the results this was not fair to voters given the extensions were not implemented uniformly across all polling locations. Some locations had already closed up and shut off their machines.
Re: (Score:2)
Bolsonaro isn't the guy who got voting extended for a 2 hour window and then magically went from losing to winning during that exact period.
Votes aren't counted in real time, nor are they time stamped. No one lost or won in a 2 hour window.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, where do you get all of these lies?
In another thread, I wrote you, erroneously, that the difference in votes during the extended time was around 5,000 (five thousand) when, in fact, it was around 35,000 (thirty five thousand) votes. Even then, the difference in the final results is of 2,139,645 (two million, one hundred and thirty nine thousand and six hundred and forty five) votes.
Please, tell me: how can 35,000 voters make a difference of over two million votes?
Good to see da Silva one (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Trump is also close to Russia. He's told numerous times he likes Putin very much. He's all smiles when he meets Putin. And, also, there news of a recent oil and gas deal between the USA and Russia: https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com] . It's said the USA are paying for this oil and gas with missiles, for Russia to use against Ukraine. About China: how many wars do you see them getting into? Are they supplying arms to any country currently at war? Are they invading any countries right now? Are they making threa
From what I can see... (Score:2)
It appears to have everything to do with an impressive push for voter turnout in the 2nd round and getting former no-shows to the polls and they strongly (some will inevitably say suspiciously) toward Lula.
https://www.latintimes.com/bra... [latintimes.com]
"Brazil Set a Modern Confounding Democratic Record on Oct. 25 â" and Produced Polling Data No One Can Fully Explain
A 3-to-1 mobilization gap, four endorsements that backfired, two consecutive polling misfires, and a contested court order: how Brazil's 2026 runoff beca
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Gee gosh golly wiz. None of us can explain how the guy losing handily suddenly magically won the election during the historically unprecedented two hour extension that his own personal defense attorney gave him. Isn't democracy just so inexplicable sometimes?"
Re:From what I can see... (Score:5, Informative)
"Gee gosh golly wiz. None of us can explain how the guy losing handily suddenly magically won the election during the historically unprecedented two hour extension that his own personal defense attorney gave him. Isn't democracy just so inexplicable sometimes?"
You know, if you had looked at media outlets such as ABC News [abcnews.com] you would have found that both candidates teams asked for extensions.
Re: (Score:2)
"Isn't democracy just so inexplicable sometimes?"
Its like McDonald's jingle: Bah bah.. bah dat bah ..I'm lovin it !
Re: (Score:2)
Brazil did not buy the F35 fighters, but settled on the (cough cough) superior and cheaper JAS/Saan Gripen.
That is why the USA want to fuck them up.
Wrong Amazon. (Score:2)
I read the headline as Amazon Defenestration and was wondering who Bezos had annoyed this time.
I blame the trifocals. ;-)
Just for some clarification... (Score:3)
This election was marked by the huge polarization between Lula (center-left) and Bolsonaro (far-right). There were also a number of low-polling right-wing candidates that polled, in summation, around 15% before the first round.
Then, when the first round results came in, we learned that most of these 15%, seeing that Lula could win in the first round, rush toward Bolsonaro, giving him an unexpected edge (). Also, there was around 21% abstention and when all things are considered together, 30% of the voters (almost 50 million people!) didn't choose any of the two main contenders. Here are the results:
Flávio Bolsonaro - 56.104.503 voters
Lula - 53.879.538 voters
Abstentions/Other candidates - aprox. 50.000.000 voters
For the runoff, between Bolsonaro's followers, there was a clear "it's in the bag" feeling, while Lula's campaign aggressively aimed in voter turnout and convincing the more moderate right-wing voters that didn't vote for Bolsonaro in the first round.
And it paid off for Lula. In the last days of campaign, the mobilization for voter turnout was incredibly huge. Here's the final results:
Lula - 64.256.232 votes
Flávio Bolsonaro - 59.826.041 votes
Re:Just for some clarification... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, I think it's valid to say:
- Brazil has a centralized federal electoral organization tied to its justice system, known as TSE (Superior Electoral Court).
- All voters have a unique voter ID with biometry.
- We have fully electronic voting machines that run Linux and an open source voting system that gets constantly scrutinized by civil and parties organizations.
- The voting machines are not connected to the internet during voting.
- When voting ends, the machines are sealed and transported to local TSE's rooms, where they're connected to it's central server which then counts and sums all the votes.
- Around 150 million votes are counted in under 3 hours.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct. It was my mistake and I stand corrected: it's not open source.
But I wouldn't say it's not open to public scrutiny. There are several audits during each electoral cycle and around 100 entities are authorized to participate.
There's also the TPS (Public Security Test) to which any citizen can sign up, as long as they propose some test.
Finally, in 2022, researchers from three universities (USP, Unicamp and UFPE) were authorized to access to the source code in their own labs in order to test it a
Meanwhile Google deforests Finnland. (Score:2)
Meanwhile Google illegally cut down 1.5 million trees in Finnland to make way for a data center. While this is small scale compared to deforestation in other places, this devastated the local environment and will have consequences for generations. It's pretty sickening really. Way to be not evil, Google.