Course Themes:
The influence of political ideologies and ideas on human history and contemporary affairs
The relationship between the West/USA and the rest of the world
In the current fight against climate change, Brazil promises to end illegal deforestation in their country. However the Brazillian President, Jair Bolsonaro, and his minister of the environment, Ricardo Salles, do not seem so dedicated to the cause, in fact, many speculate they are working against it. In the past, the Brazilian government has undermined environmental protection acts and in doing so, let the deforestation rate in their country rise to the highest it had ever been within the last 100 years.
What makes this interesting is that within his presidential campaign, Joe Biden had stated he would raise 20 billion dollars in order to save the amazon. Now that Biden is president, Bolsonaro has called in this check, asking for money, claiming he will use it to pay for conservation projects. The Brazillian president continues to ask for funds however there seems to be little to no progress taking place in Brazil (nor much concrete intentions to). Many other international leaders are warning others not to fund Bolsonaro because he already has access to hundreds of millions of dollars to put towards forest conservation and it makes no sense why he would need outside funding.
Many organizations within Brazil are also discouraging funds to the government because they do not trust Bolsonaro, Salles, and the Brazillian government in general. Brazillian budget plans have revealed that the government has decreased the budget for environmental conservation further implying that there is no real progress being made. Illegal deforestation benefits cattle farmers, loggers, and illegal mining companies. The Brazillian government has been seen backing bills and initiatives that make it easier for this kind of illegal work to proceed and grow.
Discussion Questions:
What do you think is a possible move in order to pressure the Brazillian government to lead environmental changes?
Why is it so hard to choose between economical gain and the welfare of the earth?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/21/world/americas/bolsonaro-climate-amazon.html
I feel it is so hard to choose between economical gain and the welfare of the earth because economical gain benefits a countries status directly whereas the welfare of the earth has very little credit in the scheme of things. I think that things economically benefiting a country become more important than those benefiting the earth which show how hard of a choice it is.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I think that economic gain benefits a country and could lead the country to more economic gain. And I think that the welfare of the earth is more important, thus being because we can stop some of the climate change growth. I think that we should always choose the welfare of the earth because if we don't save it then a country won't gain nothing in their area and wont grow.
DeletePossible ways to pressure Brazil's government into making environmental changes would be moves such as refusing to interact with them until they make the necessary changes, but that is kind of a exaggerated response. I think that the best move that could be made to pressure Brazil into making environmental changes would be to either help them more clearly see the benefits of environmental change, or if they already know or don't care, create some benefits for leading environmental change. Right now, it seems like Brazil just doesn't prioritize this problem at all, so making sure that this issue becomes a priority to them is crucial.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to choose between economical gain and the welfare of the earth because many believe that economic growth does not go hand-in-hand with rapid cutting of carbon emissions. Additionally, many political and business leaders are not willing to give up short-term profits for environmental sustainability. But, the US found ways in which environmental protection contributes to economic growth. This includes, sewage and water treatment facilities, electric cars, solar cells, and real estates close to parks.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is very hard to choose between economical gain and welfare of the earth because we need to do what is best for our economy but if it means destroying the Earth to do it, then it is not good. Also, many leaders don't want to give away certain economic profits that may help them in the future.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is hard to choose between economic gain and the welfare of the environment because counties tend to only care about what is need for them, in this example money is a priority. Also deforestation has more long term affects rather then short term so Brazil may not realize how dangerous this could be in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very hard to choose between economic gain and welfare of the Earth because I think the economic change is something people can see changing but that welfare and taking charge of helping the earth is more long term and people cannot see the change as quickly. Sometimes the changes that need to be made are changes humans cannot see at all.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard for nations to choose between economic gain and the welfare of the earth for a number of reasons. First off, there is almost no one who does not like economic gain so there is that. People are also content with exploiting the earth natural qualities for money since the effects are not shown right away. Since the effects are not visible until a extended period of time, this creates and illusion that there is no actual effect so many people use this to their advantage. I believe that if the effect on the earth was shown right away, or there was some sort of immediate response, I believe that a great portion of people would stop choosing economic gian over the general well being of the earth.
ReplyDelete