By Ollie Wickramsinghe
The problem started in 1960 when government incentives to clear land for production coincided with the upbringing of modern tools such as bulldozers and chainsaws. As this happened, people realized the high level of demand that there was for resources that the rainforest provided. It was too good of an opportunity for people to pass up. Nobody thought about the long term damage that it could have on the rainforest because of its sheer size. Also, the size of the rainforest caused people to want to cut down the trees and use the open land for ranches. These people would farm cattle and sell the beef to large distributors. Locals sprung at this opportunity and started to create relationships with businesses all around the world. Today, major distributors like Cargill Meat Solutions rely on beef from the cattle ranchers that are
destroying the Amazon. The government struggles to regulate these farmers as they have no way to truly track the amount of trees they are cutting down. These people are able to do as they please because everyone cutting down the rainforest works for themselves with their own equipment and tools.
The Amazon Rainforest soaks up 600 million metric tons of carbon each year. Thirty years ago, the rainforest would soak up almost 1 billion metric tons of carbon each year.
Deforestation not only reduces the number of trees that can absorb CO2, but it also releases large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere when the trees are burned or decay. This leads to exponential growth of carbon emissions on our planet. Not to mention the constant industrial advancements that we make everyday, which prominently adds to the carbon emission problem as well. The global pandemic also had negative effects on plans to slow down the environmental degradation. Cuts had to be made to the IBAMA, Brazil’s environmental police, in order to keep their economy afloat. This led to even less regulation of farmers. Also, forest fires in 2020 took down a fraction of the rainforest as well. Some spots actually became carbon emitters, rather than carbon sinks. The United States is doing some things to help the cause. For example, the government has provided funding for several conservation programs aimed at protecting the Amazon Rainforest like the USAID-funded Amazon Vision program. Which focuses on preserving the forest through sustainable land use and biodiversity conservation. Research shows “Banks and asset managers based in the EU, UK, US and China have made deals worth $157 billion with firms accused of destroying tropical forest in Brazil, Southeast Asia and Africa since the Paris Climate Agreement”. These financial institutions have netted $1.74 billion in interest, dividends and fees from financing the parts of agribusiness groups that carry the highest deforestation risk – primarily soy, beef, palm oil, pulp, and paper. Agribusiness companies thrive off the cleared land that is created by the cutting down of trees. “Agricultural land covers almost 40% of Earth’s ice-free surface. To keep pace with a growing global population, that use of land is expected to expand further, putting pressure on vulnerable tropical forests and grasslands. But not all agriculture is equal. Globally, beef and soy are the leading drivers of tropical deforestation and conversion of other habitats”. Also, land speculators, which are people who purchase large plots of land with the hope that its worth will skyrocket, benefit off the immense plots of land that are constantly being created. These benefits are short-term and localized, and do not outweigh the well-documented negative impacts of deforestation in the Amazon. The long-term costs of deforestation in the Amazon far exceed any potential benefits and have significant and far-reaching consequences for the planet as a whole. These few large businesses and sectors of people are the only reason this is still an outstanding issue. It is simply far too difficult to get everyone on the same page because so much money is at stake.
Simply stopping the deforestation problem immediately is just not possible. There is far too much economic reliance on these processes. Such intervention carries risk and could appear to challenge an important international norm. Sovereignty is the idea that countries should have control over their own internal affairs—a principle that suggests Brazil can use its land as it wishes. Brazil has done just that, enabling deforestation to its economic benefit as it enlarges the agricultural industry, which accounts for over 20 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. However, the global consequences of Brazil’s land-use decisions have been so ruinous that some policymakers are suggesting intervention, even if such a move would undermine Brazil’s sovereignty and could set an uncomfortable precedent. Many locals make an honest living through this and for good reason, because large companies need this work to be done to keep them afloat. Another route that can be taken is spreading awareness to people around the world. People with real power who can make an immediate change are the best bet for this problem. We must find a solution that benefits everyone. The answer is alternative locations for people to farm cattle. And in regards to the raw resources that the Amazon Rainforest provides, we must find ways to continue farming these resources without destroying the actual trees. Another thing we can do is “offer Brazil economic incentives to combat deforestation in the Amazon. By supplying foreign aid, the United States could support sustainable farming initiatives, practices that prevent forest fires, or the revitalization of the Brazilian forests''. Lastly, we could publicly reprimand Brazil for deforestation. The United States could continue publicly reprimanding the president for his lack of action to protect the Amazon. This option does nothing to stop deforestation but does not risk damaging the U.S.-Brazil economic relations and cooperation on diplomatic issues. Although avoiding such damage could allow the United States to bide its time until Brazil elects a more cooperative government, the Amazon could soon reach a tipping point from which it would be difficult to recover. The main issue is that far too many people depend on the money that deforestation brings. The cycle that started in the 60s must be broken. Consulting the large companies that pay the farmers to cut down trees is crucial to begin the process of eliminating all action in destroying the rainforest. They are the ones with the power, as they profit the most from these practices as well as employ people to act. Alternative ways for these companies to stay afloat, and the farmers continuing to earn a living without destroying more of the rainforest, need to be studied.
Sources:
Garcia , Micheal. “Stopping Deforestation in the Amazon.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 25 Mar. 2022,
5 Wickramasinghe
Hananel Director, Sam, et al. “Charting a New Course for U.S.-Brazil Action on the Amazon.”
Center for American Progress, 9 Nov. 2021, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/charting-new-course-u-s-brazil-action-amazon/.
Renwick, Danielle. “Deforestation in the Amazon.” Council on Foreign Relations, Council on
Foreign Relations, 3 June 2019, https://www.cfr.org/amazon-deforestation/#/en.