The Daily Signal - #537: The Facts You Need to Know About the Amazon Rainforest Fires

Episode Date: August 30, 2019

Are the fires in the Amazon rainforest, dubbed the "lungs of the earth" by environmentalists, a crisis? The Heritage Foundation’s Nick Loris joins us to discuss what’s really happening—and add some much needed context. We also cover these stories: • Former FBI director James Comey mishandled sensitive, non-public information, according to a new government report. • Senate Republicans are asserting that the Supreme Court will remain composed of nine justices. • Kansas University professors are protesting Chick-fil-a. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk, business. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, August 30th. I'm Jared Stetman. And I'm Kate Trinko. Today we'll talk to Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation about the fires raging in Brazil and whether we should be concerned. Plus, we'll play Daniel and Mai's conversation

about two British churches that are taking an unusual approach to getting people in the pews. And a heads up, we're going to take Labor Day off so our next new episode will be out on Wednesday morning. And if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe.

Now, on to our top news. The Inspector General of the Justice Department issued a report on former FBI Director James Comey Thursday and his handling of private materials. The DOJ watchdog wrote in its report, quote, by not safeguarding sensitive information obtained during the course of his FBI employment and by using it to create public pressure for official,

action, Comey set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees and the many thousands more former FBI employees who similarly have access to or knowledge of non-public information. End quote. Comie's closest advisors informed the Office of Inspector General that they were surprised, stunned, shocked, and had disappointment by what Comey did. And they should be, writes Heritage Foundation's John Malcolm, head of our legal center in a daily signal op-ed. However, the Justice Department will not be prosecuting Comey. Comey has tweeted, meanwhile, that the report, quote, found no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained

and any of the memos to members of the media, end quote. Comey went on to say, I don't need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a sorry we lied about you would be nice. The EPA announced on Thursday that it would loosen restrictions on methane emissions that were put in place during the Obama presidency. Methane is considered a greenhouse gas the proponents of the rule say leads to climate change. EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement, quote, EPA's proposal delivers on President Trump's executive order and removes unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burdens from the oil and gas industry. The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable, and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use.

Anne Isdahl, the acting assistant administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air and Radiation, said, according to the Wall Street Journal, that there was a serious question about whether methane should have been regulated in the first place, and that the rule change doesn't prevent companies from limiting their own methane emissions. It's all said, quote, nothing stops companies from taking whatever voluntary, measures they think is appropriate to deal with those concerns. Our job at the EPA is to regulate in a legally and scientifically responsible manner. Senate Republicans are asserting that the Supreme Court will remain composed of nine justices in a new letter to the Supreme Court. Quote, while we remain members of this body, the Democrats' threat to restructure the court is an empty one.

We share Justice Ginsburg view that nine seems to be a good number, and it will remain that way as long as we are here. The Republicans wrote in the letter that was obtained by the Washington Post. The letter followed Senator Sheldon White House, Democrat of Rhode Island, filing an amicus brief with four other Democratic senators that included this line, which some perceived as threatening. Quote, the Supreme Court is not well, and the people know it. Perhaps the court can heal itself before the public demands it be restructured in order to, and the people, and the people know it. It be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics. Staff and faculty at the University of Kansas

have called for a boycott of Chick-fil-A restaurants and demanded the school severed ties with the eatery, which has been moved to a prominent spot on campus. KU granted Chick-fil-A, a bastion of bigotry, a prime retail location in the heart of our campus, said the University of Kansas Sexuality and Gender Diversity Diversity Faculty and Staff Council in a statement to the school's chancellor.

The letter continued, quote, moving Chick-fil-A to the Union and granting a role at the start of all home football games violates the feelings of safety and inclusion that so many of us have striven to create, foster, and protect on campus, and says the meshes that the Union, KU Athletics, and the administration at large, are more concerned about money and corporate sponsorship than the physical, emotional, and mental well-being of marginalized and LGBTQ people. Next up, we're going to talk to Nick Lorris about the Amazon rainforests and whether you should be worried that it's the end of the world. Tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger government, become a part of the Heritage Foundation. We're fighting the rising tide of homegrown socialism while developing conservative solutions that make families more free and more prosperous. Find out more at heritage.org.

So we're joined now by Nick Loris. He's deputy director. of the Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. And his work focuses on economic and environmental policy. Nick, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. So we've seen reports that the Amazon rainforest is experiencing the worst fires in a decade. And many are calling this a global crisis because the rainforest is, quote, unquote, the lungs of the earth. So, first of all, is that claim true? And if these rainforests all burn down, is everything going to hell in a handbasket?

Not at all. In fact, many of what has been depicted as a crisis has been exaggerated or dramatized or just flat out wrong. A lot of the pictures that were tweeted out were pictures from decades ago. Some were pictures of fires that happened in the United States. They weren't even occurring in Brazil. And so there's a lot of misinformation that's been spread about these Amazon wildfires. Even this year, while the number of fires is up, 80% over the previous year. It's really nothing all that new compared to last decades average. It's about 7% higher than last decades average. This is the normal time for these fires in Brazil because the area is used for a lot of different agricultural activities, whether for ranchers and farmers or for growing soybeans. So there's a lot of economic activity. This is their dry season. And this is when they have a lot of scheduled burns. Now, there have been some illegal activity and illegal burns through deforestation processes that shouldn't be happening. And that is problematic.

But the crisis is not what it is purported to be in the media. Okay. And what about this Lungs of the Earth claim? Like, how essential is it for that we have enough oxygen in the climate? It's not. This Lungs of the Earth moniker that the Amazon has received. over the past several days and weeks is just flat out wrong. Most biologists and environmentalists have said that they don't really know where this phrase came from. It's even the 20% number that

says it produces 20% of the world's oxygen is not correct because there's a lot of respiration that occurs in the Amazon rainforest that with the decay that comes from older trees decomposing and the wildlife, the bugs and the beetles and the animals, it's not just that they're producing oxygen, but they're producing the oxygen and taking in oxygen. And so even if we were to completely eliminate the Amazon rainforest, which is not what I'm advocating for, that's certainly not what we should do. There's still plenty of oxygen on the planet. That's not a crisis, nor will it ever be a crisis anytime soon. So you mentioned that, you know, the fires are a bit higher, but it sounds like it's pretty typical for there to be fires in the Amazon rainforest.

What's sort of the historical perspective here? Can you put this year's fires into context for us? Yeah, in regard to the past decade, they are marginally higher or there's more of them over this year compared to last decades average, 7% higher. So really not all that much. it's been several decades now that Brazil, the people of Brazil, the indigenous people of Brazil, the Brazilian government have recognized that the Amazon forest should be a resource for them. And they understand that a lot of economic activity can come through that area. And so decades ago, they built a road essentially through the Amazon and that's created some more economic activity, understanding that they want to, protect a majority of the Amazon rainforest, but they can also use it for economic purposes,

mostly agribusiness. And so over the years, you've seen more and more business popping up, you know, throughout and adjacent to the Amazon rainforest because it is good land in some instances for growing soybeans and for raising livestock. And over the years, they've had to clear brush and smaller trees and things of that nature. And to do that, a lot of these burns are scheduled and controlled. Okay. So you mentioned the business interests. Is there a way for Brazil to both be a good environmental steward of the Amazon rainforest

and be a good place for business? Absolutely. And that's one of the concerning things that I've been reading about this is it's just kind of pitted the agribusiness of Brazil against the environmental and the international community who want to see that Amazon Brazil. And both of those things can happen. They're certainly not mutually exclusive. Part of the problem for Brazil, which has a very robust agricultural business, I believe it provides about a quarter of their entire gross domestic products. So it's pretty substantial. Part of the problem is that the regulations and the permits for scheduled clears and scheduled burns have become more cumbersome and more time consuming. And that's been problematic. and created the perverse incentive of having more illegal burns and deforestation. And so you can have scheduled burns and you can clear certain areas for short to allow for agricultural productivity while protecting a majority of the rainforests.

And at the same time, you want to make sure that if you are protecting certain areas and you don't want them cleared for economic purposes, you are compensating the Brazilian farmers and the cattlemen and the ranchers and the indigenous populations who live there who are losing economic opportunity. One of the things I equated to in the United States is the Endangered Species Act. And so if you own minerals underneath your property, if you come across a huge deposit of oil or natural gas, all of a sudden you're very wealthy and the value of your property increases significantly. If you have a endangered species on your property, say an endangered bird and you're a logger in Oregon or Washington, the value of your property and your business decreases significantly if that bird's habitat is on your property because you can no longer log. And so in that instance, what it does for the logger is creates the perverse incentive to chop down the trees, to destroy the habitat, and potentially, potentially lose economic opportunity while also resulting in a worse off environmental state

by destroying the endangered species habitat. And I think that's somewhat relevant to what's happening in Brazil is that there's a perverse incentive right now for some of these farmers and cattlemen to have unscheduled illegal burns because of the rigorous regulations that have resulted in limiting their economic opportunity. Okay. CNN is reporting that Brazil, quote, has banned the use of fire to clear land throughout the country for 60 days in response to the massive increase in blazing fires in the Amazon rainforest that has caused international outrage, end quote. Is this the right call? An outright ban is usually not the best result. If you look at where the burns have been

scheduled and there are legalized permits, you know, that's areas where it should be allowed to continue. They should focus on the areas where illegal activity is going on. And if there is an international commitment to put out the fires in certain areas where that illegal activity is going on, that's where the concentration should be. And so Brazil already has laws against illegal deforestation and illegal burns. Those laws should be enforced. And that's where the forest fires should be focused on where we put them out. But this is still a way of life for Brazil. This has been happening for a long, long time.

It doesn't make sense to blame the current Brazilian government for something that's been going on for decades. And if this is their way of life, the international community shouldn't chastise them for something that they've done for a long time and largely has had successful results in making sure that they're, agricultural community is well off while the rest of the rainforest is protected, which is a significant amount. So speaking of the international community, a few days ago, French president Emmanuel Macron, offered about 20 million in international aid from him and others to help Brazil fight these fires. Brazil turned it down, has accepted aid from other countries. There's a whole lot of drama I don't need to get into.

But does the international community need to help here and should Brazil be accepting any and all offers. Well, I think the Brazilian government and the Brazilian people were frustrated with this entire process, one because of a lot of the misinformation that had been out there, but also because of the sovereignty of the rainforest, that this belongs to them. This doesn't belong to the world. And the international community and the government of France and elsewhere were treating it like this was something that was new, that was existential, and that was a crisis. And that clearly was not the case. And so I think it's fine for them to accept money, to allocate that money to farmers and cattlemen who may lose economic opportunity as a result of protecting the rainforests,

as well as to put out the fires where they are occurring illegally. But at the same time, Brazil should have control of those resources. You know, this money shouldn't come with strings attached saying you need to do X, Y, and Z in order to receive these funds. Brazil, knows best as to how to fight these fires. They've have hundreds of volunteers who have known how to do this and to schedule and maintain these for years now. And so let's allocate the resources to them, but ensure that they have control as to how they're dispersed.

So last week, MSNBC host Chris Hayes suggested that right-wing politics were behind the fires and the Amazon. Let's play that clip. The important thing to understand and the reason that we're showing you these images, the ones you're seeing on your screen is that this is not just some natural thing that just happened. It is in many ways the product of politics, of right-wing politics, of a right-wing movement dedicated to climate denialism and climate destruction, just like the right-wing movement we have right here in the U.S.

In Brazil, this guy, Donald Trump's buddy, Jair Bolsonaro, is the president. Okay, Nick, is there any truth that right-wing politics is to blame for this? No, again, if you look at the trends and the data of, forest fires in Brazil, and there's a lot of good statistical evidence as these fires occurring for decades. Some of the highest years were under the President Lula, who was the president of the Workers' Movement Party, a far left party in Brazil from 2003 to 2008, were some of the largest years of fires in Brazil. And that happened without the international community batting an eye. And so, again, I think people do need to understand that this is a way of life in Brazil, that this has occurred for years, for decades.

And understandably, one can be upset if these activities are occurring illegally and it's leading to both economic and environmental destruction. But rather than playing a blame game, we should be focused on productive policy solutions that adequately protect the rainforest while compensating the people who lose economic. economic activity from not being able to grow soybeans or not being able to raise beef and livestock in these areas. There's a solution for both that we should be working in harmony to find solutions rather than just pitting these communities against one another. Okay. Well, Nick Loras of the Heritage Foundation, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me. What the heck is trickle-down economics?

Does the military really need a space force? What is the meaning of American exceptionalism? I'm Michelle Cordero. I'm Tim Desher. And every week on the Heritage Explains podcast, we break down a hot button policy issue in the news at a 101 level. Through an entertaining mix of personal stories, media clips, music, and interviews, we help you actually understand the issues. So do this. Subscribe to Heritage Explains on iTunes, Google Play, or wherever you get your podcast today.

So two churches in England are taking a rather unusual approach to how they are trying to get folks into their churches. Here's what one church is doing via NBC News. Nine whole mini golf course over famous bridges encouraging children of all ages to play and possibly pray. The course constructed in the nave of Rochester's Cathedral, its spectacular setting dating back almost 1,000 years. The idea, a direct response to the day. to the UK's top cleric, the Archbishop of Canterbury's appeal for churchgoers to have more fun. But don't think it stops with a mini golf course. At Norwich Cathedral, they installed temporarily a carnival ride called a helter-skelter

that basically boils down to being a ginormous slide, reportedly 55 feet. The BBC had a fascinating report about this, writing, quote, The Bishop of Lynn, the right Reverend Jonathan Myrick, delivered his sermon from halfway up the ride. God is a tourist attraction, he told his congregation during the cathedral's final service with the Helter Skelter as a backdrop. End quote. The BBC also reported, quote, the bishop had climbed to the top of the helter Skelter before edging halfway down the slide where he stopped to deliver his sermon. He then received a loud cheer as he whooshed to the bottom. Enjoying ourselves is a good thing to do and God will be reveling in it with us and all those

people who have found fun and joy and laughter here, he said. So Daniel, are you excited for your pastor to start delivering sermons from a slide? I'll tell you what. My pastor would, if you know my pastor, man, he, he would, over his dead body would do that. I think that would be a very disrespectful funeral. So here's the thing. Like, there's nothing wrong with a church having like fun events, maybe outside, maybe even inside as a kind of separate thing to like attract new people and, you know, entertain the kids and stuff. But my issue is that when it becomes like the main reason, the main attraction of the church and gets so integrated into what the church is and the way it thinks of itself, I think that's a real problem. I think you've actually changed the religion.

And that's kind of the issue I have with the way this is being justified is some of these ministers quoted here, are essentially wanting to get people with amusement. And we have the same problem in America too. A lot of churches do similar things. I mean, I was telling you earlier before we started recording about some churches, pastors flying in on like a zip line and like kind of crazy antics like that to kind of keep people with attention. Like, I don't think that's helpful either. The main issue is when you're thinking about outreach and trying to reach new people, what you win people with is what you will win. them too. And so if you expect to get them with a carnival, good luck keeping them if you stop

having a carnival because people are going to be attracted to that and not what you actually think you're selling. I mean, you can't really, if you mix the carnival in with your message, then, you know, people may not like your message. They might just like your carnival. Yeah, I have a lot of thoughts about this and it actually just made me incredibly angry in the sense I was like when they talk about civilizational decline, like this is example A, and I know I'm not the first or only one to have that harsh reaction

to this. But at the heart of it it's like if you take the Christian faith seriously, and I mean other faith traditions obviously of their own things, but like they're very rich. Like it's literally saying God became man and saved everyone and destined them if they

choose to accept to eternal happiness. Like the fact that that is not compelling enough by itself, but a 55 five foot slide is great. It's like that's not a church problem. That's a people problem. Or maybe it is the church is not conveying the real thing. But it's like when they were saying in the NBC News report like, oh, you need fun.

It's like everything is fun in 2019. Everything, everything, everything. There are six million streaming cable. There's carnivals galore. Like it has never been easier to have fun. Like if you think you are going to get people with enticing them by fun, you are, I'm sorry, a moron. Like this is ridiculous.

And I think that it also shows like if a church cannot in and of itself understand what a sacred, wonderful thing it has. Like that is such a deep decline in the church. I mean, again, like what I just, I cannot believe you would dilute the message like this. Yeah, it shows that the clergy is not even convinced of the compelling thing that it has, which I think is what you're saying. And it reminded me of this famous C.S. Lewis quote. I don't have it in front of me, but he basically says the problem with man and God is that man is not that our appetites are too strong for God, but that they're actually too weak. And we just can't fathom how amazing God could be in our lives. And we'd much matter. And then he says, like, we're like kids playing with mud pies when we could be enjoying a holiday at the sea. It's like, it's just a completely different league. And we don't, we don't have the ability to envision that. But it's the clergy's job to help us get there, you know, not to, you. Not to just totally cater to where we are. And this gets also at a basic question of what the church is actually for.

If it's out for its own, you know, longevity, for its own existence in itself, then it's just there to entertain people or keep people as members, then, like, I have trouble seeing what the purpose of this institution is. But if the church is about proclaiming a message that it expects many people will reject because the path is narrow, but that it also is the path to life. Okay, that's something different. And that's something that people are going to be, at least some people are going to be drawn to. Yeah, and I think it also, it just, you know, and I'm sure these are well-intentioned efforts to get people to go to church.

I mean, as you said, I have no problem with if a church has outside the church, carnival rides or, you know, like, it's not like you have to start with like, oh, hey, here the Ten Commandments change your whole life. But I don't know. I was also thinking I was recently reading a history of Americans in Paris by the, what's his name, the famous historian, David McCullough. And he was talking about Americans in the early 1800s who crossed over the Atlantic and had these very perilous seasick journeys. And it all sounded wretched. And one of the first things they would see in France, and I can't remember what city or what cathedral, but they would see one of these medieval Gothic cathedrals.

And my understanding is both these churches in England are supposed to be quite beautiful. I haven't been to them. And apparently, like, one of these famous Americans, and I just can't remember any of their names, but they wrote home and they were like, the horrible journey, like all the seasickness, all of this was worth it just to see this cathedral, just to see the stained glass, just to see the beauty here. And, you know, I realize they didn't have HBO in the 1800s, things have changed, expectations of change. But I also, I just feel like we have so little room in the modern life to appreciate true beauty, to appreciate sacred spaces. and it's just gross. Yeah, I think churches can use their own wisdom to determine how much, you know, quote-unquote, fun or attraction is like okay and how they integrate that into their church. But I just wish we would see more conviction on the part of particularly pastors and clergy about how compelling their own message actually is.

And I think we see that there's a real hunger. And like we've certainly discussed Representative Ocasio-Cortez's like Green New Deal and the problems with it. and, you know, the world is not going to end in 12 years. But I think we do see an energy among young adults on issues like climate change and, you know, even to a certain extent, LGBT issues because they want to be part of something bigger than themselves. There is a real hunger, even though I would argue it's misguided in these particular issues to, like, you know, make the world a better place and have things be better. and I think that it's sort of like that's what churches should be trying to happen to, not people who just want to go to a carnival

because a real carnival will always be better than a church carnival. Oh yeah, I mean, Christianity offers a complete narrative about what this world is for and how we can play a role in it and the story that God is writing. I mean, that's, you know, should be pretty exciting and comprehensive. Right. And that you matter and that your life matters and that you have a role, you know, no matter how few Instagram likes you get or how small you feel among 7 billion people.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud. And please leave us a review or rating on iTunes to give us feedback. We'll see you again Wednesday. The Daily Signal podcast is executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Lauren Evans and Thalia Ramprasad. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.