Oi from Brazil,
Most of us know Brazil from afar, but we all place it squarely in the seat of responsibility for the next steps in the fight to stop global warming. The Amazon rainforest is not solely, but largely within Brazil’s jurisdiction. It provides much of the oxygen essential for our existence. This fact affords Brazil with a responsibility which extends a long way outside its borders.
The question of clearing the forest has been debated for five decades. It leads to an interesting phenomenon : people in other places have strong opinions on what happens in Brazil. But in Brazil, the same as anywhere, they value their sovereignty, and the ineluctable forces of capitalism are all for clearing.
For those hoping – from afar – that Brazil will discharge their unique responsibility to the planet, the news is good and bad. If you care about the environment, the planet, the future (those three things being one and the same), Brazil represents a crucible of sorts.
In Brazil, the swing of the political pendulum seems to be of much greater magnitude than it is in western democracies. Lula da Silva, with a perfectly legitimate mandate to provide many constituents with a socially-mobile way out of the favelas, faces a difficult dilemma. Bolsonaro, depicted as an environmental vandal hell-bent on development for the sake of greed, says the share of the cake gets bigger with development, and all benefit.
It’s seems a rather nebulous argument either way. The history of capitalism has been that every innovative solution to the conundrum of food production simply encourages more population. It solves the problem for one generation whilst simultaneously creating another problem for the succeeding generation.
Brazil collectively says to the rest of the world, your model is to develop, and that’s what we are doing. We are only doing what you in the balance of the world have already done. Who are you to prevent us from developing in the same way?
Who can blame them? In the south of the country, they demonstrate a kind of co-existence with the forest. Having cleared, farmed, developed, and urbanised many parts of the south, they are able to argue that such a model can work in the greater Amazon.
The good news for the ones who want Brazil to stop the deforestation is that there are still large pockets of forest. The bad news for that same cohort is that the clearing goes on unabated.
Adios from Brazil
Gregorio