Letter to the brazilian government regarding the amazonian rainforest
I am writing to you to express my views and opinions about the Amazonian rainforest and the way it’s being exploited. I am fully aware that you, as a government, are being threatened to reduce the amount of trees you cut down from other countries; this letter may initially appear to be like those others, but I understand both sides of the argument, although I do strongly believe it is best that we protect the rainforest than destroy it. I do realize that you are desperately trying to develop into one of the world’s most economically developed countries.
Whilst destroying the rainforest would originally generate a huge income, I understand, the profits would not be as great if the natural resources were to be managed in a sustainable approach in the future. Amazonia will eventually be deprived of its resources at this going rate – the effects this will cause will be difficult to resolve. Firstly, Amazonia is a way of life to the indigenous people; they have lived in this rainforest for thousands of years.
If you were to destroy Amazonia, these people would be forced to leave their homes as their homeland/habitat would be in the way of loggers, and legal legislations would not permit the locals to stay put, as they do not possess ‘ownership deeds’, as you are aware of. This may cause more deforestation, as the tribes would have to find new areas in the rainforest to live – others may migrate (sometimes illegally) to other countries in South America or even around the world; so they will become more densely populated with mostly uneducated Brazilians, as, most of the indigenous people have never gone to school.
At present, South America has an increasing population of roughly 371 million people. Notably, the most densely populated countries in South America are Brazil (186,112,794) followed by Colombia (42,954,279), Venezuela (25,375,231) and then Ecuador (13,363,593). Each of these countries are partly covered by the Amazonian Rainforest – if it were to be destroyed, a majority of these people would be likely to migrate to another country located in South America, probably a MEDC compared to the others, as it would be cheaper and easy to reach.
By destroying the rainforest you would be putting your local civilization in jeopardy, just to make money, in which I would agree, this would improve the countries economy in the distant future – but it does not necessarily make this right. Not only would destroying the Amazonian rainforest have huge effects on the locals, the consequences of destroying it would make a global impact. Accordingly, the vegetation of the rainforest accounts for 20% of the world’s supply of oxygen – which could be a cause for concern to the native mammals on our planet.
If the trees and plants were to be destroyed the CO2 would also cause a great risk; being released into the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, will contribute massively to global warming. Our descendants will suffer from these effects; be witnessing flooding and climate changes worldwide, if you were to act irresponsibly and destroy Amazonia. Can you imagine your children being affected by this global impact? It surely must defeat the morals of destroying the Amazonian Rainforest in the first place.
As you must be aware of, the rainforest’s natural diversity is huge. It’s home to over 1000 different tree species; 40,000 plants, 2. 5 million insects, 3000 fish, 1,300 birds, 440 mammals, 430 amphibians and 380 reptiles. Destroying the habitats of the wide variety of these species will cause a majority of them to become extinct, as most can’t be found anywhere else in the world. It is because of the equatorial climate in your region of the world that these species exist, and the weather is perfect for them to survive and thrive.
The plants, as you will know, oppose the potential in containing undiscovered medicines which can possibly cure fatal diseases; which could benefit the human civilization forever. This could possibly give you an alternative for making huge sums of money – extracting medicines that can cure world-wide spread diseases that will always be in demand. But on the other hand, destroying the rainforest will provide the world many valuable resources like hardwoods and building materials; which are imperative in global development.
Your country would receive a substantial amount of money as these materials can be used for a lot of practical uses aswell – highlighting there world-wide benefits. Finally, destroying Amazonia would provide key professions, such as loggers, cattle ranchers and miners to the local people who seek employment which requires little/no education. This is important for them as they will be able to afford a better standard of life, in which their family will benefit from. But these people are only, however, interested in their own wealth fare – not the environment around them.
They simply do not care about the millions of animals that will suffer from their actions – but it is you that can prevent this, or even just change these occurrences. However, this is understandable on their behalf; they need money to survive, but the reasons for deforestation are easily outshone by the fact that the rainforest needs to be preserved. In addition, those local people can capably make a relatively large amount of money if they were to work as an act of sustainable development.
Simple farming methods could be taught to the local people, which are efficient in growing reasonable amounts of produce, time after time; these allotments would be placed in selected areas of the rainforest – therefore this allows different sections of Amazonia to be protected and local people can be provided with free knowledge and education, to benefit the quality of their produce and its efficiency of being more environmentally clean and effective. Mining companies could be restrained into only being able to mine only certain amounts/types of the minerals underneath the rainforest flooring, at different intervals during a year/month.
Taxes can be installed on each ore the foreign companies extract, so the country itself would receive extra amounts of money from work they don’t participate in, as their own resources are being disposed. Once theses mines have been exhausted – deprived of all their natural resources – the companies must reforest the area, to help repair the damage to the environment. This possible legislation can also be applied to the logging industries. The trees cut down should be replaced immediately by the seeds of that species – afforestation. This would at least enable the survival of the vegetation in Amazonia in the future.
Also once again, it could be acceptable to place a tax on the more expensive tree species which are cut down, which would decrease the companies profits which may prevent them from cutting down so many of them; and the local governments would receive this money which could possibly increase their yearly revenue dramatically . Ecotourism will provide employment for the local people, but more importantly boost the economy, just like all of the other sustainable activities, but the difference would be; the beneficial improvement to the popularity and reputation of the rainforest.
Amazonia’s natural beauty will be appreciated as it deserves, with a minimal amount of deforestation, and a global demand to witness its magnificence, which will always be constant – fetching high prices from each tourist. The use of ecotourism could be extended to the creations of national reserves and parks, in and outside of Amazonia; which would provide a wide range of employment and the potential to be the most ‘exotic’ of the world’s national parks, which would make a visit there highly expensive and therefore profitable for the countries.
By following these policies, horrific consequences are being prevented and compromises have been put into place to ensure that both groups of people, wanting to protect the rainforest and destroy the rainforest are happy with the agreement. If any of these legislations were to be broken then fines could be used to create negative publicity for the companies; which could decrease their popularity severely and damage the economical structure. In conclusion I strongly believe that you should try your up-most hardest to protect the Amazonian Rainforest.
Whilst you have plenty of sustainable ways to provide your country with resources needed to develop efficiently, your local people can also benefit from the new legislations I strongly recommend you implement. If you were to decide to destroy the entire rainforest, global warming would endanger the world, and for that sole reason other countries would attempt to stop you, creating wars, in order to inevitably save the plant. Your only acceptable reason for cutting down the rainforest is to make money from the large amounts of natural resources you produce.
But when the rainforest would be completely destroyed, you will have nothing that is valuable remaining. Moreover, the profit you would make from the various techniques of sustainable development, in a relatively short time period, at around a matter of a decade, would be greater than if you were to destroy the rainforest entirely. So you could receive a better ‘turn-over’ from saving the planet, eventually. It is not essential that you totally cut down the rainforest. Destroying it will cause far more arguments and worldwide horror than leaving Amazonia to provide us with the resources required.