Cow pasture accounts for about 80% of Amazon deforestation since 1970, but feedcrops like soya are still a significant contributor. Animal agriculture excluding cow pasture accounts for an additional 12% of deforestation, and part of that is soya monocultures. Perhaps the bigger problem with soya cultivation in the Amazon is the opportunity cost that is not apparent from the deforestation numbers: it is often grown on former pasture lands that could have otherwise reforested themselves.

That said, you’re right that not buying soybeans from Brazil would have little impact, as the vast majority of the soybeans produced in Brazil are fed to “livestock” animals.

To be clear, the vast majority of the soybeans produced in the Amazon (and elsewhere) go towards “livestock” feed, so buying edamame or tofu isn’t really contributing much (if at all) to Amazon destruction, Atlantic Forest destruction, Cerrado destruction, or any other soy-related destruction in Brazil.

We need both, obviously. Ending animal agriculture is the most practical way to achieve it.

Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated.

I think that this is the crux of the matter, and of course you’re right. The total amount of carbon stored in fossil fuels is (presumably, without searching for the numbers) much greater than the amount currently stored in living organisms, so there is a finite amount of fossil fuels that can be burnt before the carbon emissions exceed the capacity of forests/vegetation to capture it. Do you know what that “finite amount of fossil fuels” would be? From what I have seen, it is quite large, though humanity is rapidly approaching it. What’s needed is for the rate of emissions to be reduced below the rate of capture, and so a reduction in fossil fuel use is urgently needed, but I wouldn’t say that completely eliminating fossil fuel use is more important than protecting forests. All that’s needed in the long term is for carbon capture to at least equal carbon emissions. In the short term, the planet is already close enough to the “point of no return” that reforestation is necessary in order to bring down levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of how quickly fossil use ceases. It has to be both. Burning fossil fuels is not a sustainable way to meet the energy needs of 8 billion+ humans. Cutting down forests for biofuel is not a sustainable way to meet the energy needs of 8 billion+ humans. Deforestation for biofuel would be sustainable for a much larger population than would burning fossil fuels (due to the extremely slow renewal rate of fossil fuels), but we’re past that point. There’s not enough land. Either energy consumption needs to drastically decrease, or non-combustion sources of energy are needed.

I get the impression that we are essentially “on the same side” and just quibbling over details. You make an excellent case against fossil fuels! Looking at it in terms of the broader carbon cycle makes the necessity of ending fossil fuel use very obvious even ignoring any concerns about pollution, destructive extraction practices, or other harmful effects.

I understand what you’re getting at, but I don’t see it as being so simple.

Fossil fuels are essentially just ancient soil carbon, so in a way, we’re talking about the same thing on different time-scales. My point was/is that the combination of deforestation and burning of the cut biomass actually reduces the amount of carbon that can be stored in the soil on a given area of land, not just releasing it once and then recycling it. To capture the same amount of carbon again would require a greater area under management than the area originally cut. On a finite planet, there is a limit to how much this deforestation for biomass production could be scaled up without net-positive emissions. (I’m tired, so this may not be the most articulate.)

The world’s forests capture a substantial amount of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans, and extensive reforestation could capture even more. By reducing the carbon capture potential of forests, that’s less carbon dioxide absorbed year after year. Over a very long period of time, “releasing it one time” is what burning fossil fuels does: it releases stored carbon once, and then trees and other plants recycle it. Deforestation reduces the recycling.

Even though mature forests can store more total carbon, it seems that young forests, with more small trees, may actually be able to absorb more methane, so there can definitely be some advantage to managing trees for wood production on a short cycle. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so this is one way in which the overall situation is complicated.

Of course, avoiding both deforestation and fossil fuels is even better.

I’m glad that we agree on this point. It doesn’t need to be one or the other. The most effective approach to addressing climate change would involve reforestation and eliminating dependence on fossil fuels by developing clean energy technologies.

Ultimately, carbon capture just needs to match carbon emissions (plus a bit extra at first to compensate for current overshoot), and realistically, it will take both reforestation and a reduction in emissions to achieve that. Ending animal agriculture makes the most progress toward both.

I don’t think it’s so easy to say that burning biomass is superior (from a carbon sequestration perspective) to preserving old-growth forest even if that means relying on fossil fuels (e.g. natural gas for heating). I don’t know the answer, but considering that burning biomass does not allow that carbon to accumulate in the soil over time as it would in a mature forest, the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.

Of course I am not advocating for burning fossil fuels; I am only advocating for protection of forests. I don’t think that biomass would be a viable fuel for air travel in particular due to the energy density needed, but if so, and if non-combustion energy sources could be used everywhere else, then farming some young trees to continually cut to use for biofuel for air travel wouldn’t have so much of an impact if that land would not be forested anyway. Freeing up land currently used by animal agriculture to use it for this purpose would be an improvement, but “chopping down a forest” would be highly questionable.

Do you have any hard numbers comparing the total lifecycle emissions of fuelwood to those of other fuels (coal, gas, jet fuel, whatever), taking into account soil carbon as well? If the carbon emissions argument for protecting forests doesn’t make sense, I will stop using it. Deforestation brings plenty of other problems (biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, increased run-off and erosion…) that I/anyone could focus on instead.

That’s what this guy was trying to tell people nearly 25 years ago: https://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_overview.html

video presenting the same information

Let’s all remember that while jet aircraft emit much more than other forms of transportation, this is nothing compared to the emissions of animal agriculture.

I agree that while reducing emissions from air travel is beneficial, it isn’t enough of a solution. However, I think that “pissing off many normal people” is inevitable in the process of arresting climate change, as eliminating animal agriculture is necessary in order to solve the problem. People won’t like that.

Old-growth forest stores more carbon than younger trees, so continually “recycling” fast-growing plants is not superior to letting the forest grow. A combination of syntropic agriculture and forest conservation would probably be more effective.

Properly scaled up, this type of community reforestation effort could work.