A Global intervention is needed to save our planets lungs.

Jair Bolsonaro the far right president of Brazil has informed the world that the Amazon rain forests are not under threat and that media is sensationalising the issue. He is blaming non-governmental organisations for creating the fires to discredit and embarrass himself and his government. He believes this is because of reductions to their funding. There is no evidence to back his accusations. The national institute for ‘Space Research’ point out that Brazil has suffered the record quantity of fires recorded in the Amazon this year,2020.

Macron deserves credit for highlighting Brazil’s environmental crimes at the G7 summit. The $20m in emergency funds pledged by the G7 to fight the thousands of fires presently burning will hardly deal with the problem. Far more promising was Macron’s threat to scuttle a trade deal with South American countries unless Bolsonaro acts decisively to bring an immediate end to deforestation of the planet’s lungs. In expressing this threat, Macron reiterated that it is the matter of global concern and the responsibility to protect the environment.

Sovereignty has invariably been a water tight shield against interventions in any state affairs.. Under the ideology of sovereignty, it gives a nation the authorisation to deal with its citizens as they see fit. Be this gracious, relief, stability or genocide. At the G7 summit Emmanuel Macron presented an unequivocal no nonsense speech, that no sovereignty should be beyond an intervention when it is a question of the world’s population and their planet being at stake.

The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty template what framed to intervene on environmental issues. Non-military and non aggressive measures should achieve this. This tactic is to be applied when a nation cannot preserve its environment, the defense of which could be the source of global concern.

President Jair of Brazil assured those attending he would honour the Paris agreement. However, as he was not in authority during the signing of the agreement, there is little that can enforce the president to adhere to it. It would appear the president is not keeping his word, and deforestation advances at a tremendous rate.. Currently there

Many human rights activists point out that not only do we have a sufficient reason to intervene, but we must intervene. Atrocities against humankind and genocide invariably flow over into neighbouring country boarders. Refugees fighting for their last ounce of freedom will inevitably pour into other nations. This will cause international crisis, panic and disorder from the other nations. Resources may not be that affluent, causing an immense strain on their economy and the civilians.

All the reasons that reinforce the launch of humanitarian intervention apply with equal, if not greater force, in the environment’s argument. Massive environmental crimes, such as those that have developed in the Amazon, have a spill-over bringing about, degradation of the rainforest will produce grave, and irreversible damage and suffering to our planet’s climate and those that live on it.

The intervention requires wise critical judgment, as Brazil possesses one of the greatest military operations in the world with the capital to assist. If the UN where to surround the Amazon and defend the environmentalists managing the fires, stop the farmers illegally felling trees, the likelihood is Brazil responds with military tactics. There would be an immense loss of lives, and the repercussions could be cataclysmic. 

Perhaps it is not worth the blood bath. However, if we cannot prevent the deforestation of the rain forest, then we will lose further lives through global warming. 

Clearly the deterioration of the Amazon rain forest is extremely essential to our planet’s existence and for all life that reside on it. But at what cost determines whether the UN should indeed intervene.

The degradation of the rainforest will do grave, and arguably irreversible, damage to our planet’s climate

The political observation of the president’s intention was thought to be that of a military coup. There are many on the left that are adamant the military would not side with the president. Although he is continually pressing the limits of his power threatening he has the military by his side. We could say he being presumptuous. 

His generals, who previously had the president imprisoned for subordination, gave him the nickname ‘the horse’ as he would be easy to ride in their desired direction. With the left and the right divided, the general’s objectives were to maneuver their early subordinate bringing together the divide. The president held more authoritative sway than expected, leaving Brazil in a state of confusion.

President Jair Bolsonaro was described as a dystopic leader worse than dictatorship. The president dismantled popular public support amenities including universities, free education, public transport, buildings such as libraries and schools. He has withdrawn funding on the environmentalist project for protecting the rain forest, making it clear the farmers are untouchable. They are to maintain expanding their land at the expense of the indigenous tribes, wildlife, and planet’s largest sink tank.

These environmental agencies have contributed to reducing forest fires to a significant low decades ago. The Brazilian president advocates how the Amazon should be taken advantage of. There are no forest fires. He claims it is propaganda to hurt the Brazilian economy. Whilst scientists warn Brazil is reaching a tipping point, the president refuses to acknowledge there is any deforestation concern.

“The forest isn’t burning,” Bolsonaro said in July. “It’s always a bad-faith campaign against Brazil, and it has to do with the economy. Brazil is an agricultural giant. Our agricultural industry hasn’t stopped with the pandemic.” “There aren’t any fires, nor is there one bit of deforestation,” he added in August. “It’s a lie. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil.

He has consistently discriminated against the female gender and gays inviting the country to concur with his view. Thankfully, over 75% of the Brazilian citizens believe gays have rights. They know their president to be racist, sexist, a homophobe. He was heard declaring he was proud of this. He was quoted saying. ” Parents should beat the gay out of their children and he would rather his son died in a car crash then admit he was gay”. Likewise, during public speaking he suggested, “if a woman got raped she probably deserved it”. 

Currently, with the recent outbreak of the pandemic, there has been great controversy over the way the president has handled the lockdown. Because of this, the death toll on 14/03/2021 is one of the highest at 275,000 second from America and rising. It should come as no great surprise in June 2020 when questioned about the death toll in Brazil. He brushed it off saying “I’m not a grave-digger”. A week later, when asked to comment how Brazil has overtaken China’s death toll? He responded, “So what?”

The president’s priorities are with Brazil’s economy and his reputation as not going down in the history books as the president who cost Brazil its financial status. With the lockdown lifted, they open shops while the hospitals are about to collapse under the strain and 1000 of his people are dying a day.

They have buried the dead in mass graves in the Amazon, and the country is in fear of what will happen when the virus passes. The president’s lack of empathy from the start showed that quarantine was the least of his concerns. The state of the economic crisis looming was going to be far worse than that of the death toll. The Guardian wrote how during the last year the president was said to have gleefully sabotaged Covid containment. He reputes science and has repeatedly promoted bogus antidotes and vaccinations whilst refusing the vaccination himself.

The previous president pointed out how Brazil is vulnerable and as has no government running it. That the president Jair Bolsonaro is moronic and has mishandled the pandemic. Even now whilst the country suffers from exhaustion, despair as its hospitals and make shift cemeteries are filling up, he is in complete denial of the suffering and his inept ability to handle the country’s crisis.

During the last few months of last year, Jair Bolsonaro declared Brazil had reached the end of its worst outbreak of the pandemic. Three months later, another 100,000 more die of the disease. During Feb 2021, they have admitted young patients who were previously healthy to the major hospital in ‘Porto Alegre’. The additional strain is infecting anyone it has contaminated any age and entire families. Whereas before one elder member of the family would become infected, leaving the other five Covid free.

President Bolsonaro downplayed Covid-19, ‘a little flue.; as he called, it has caused Brazil to be the second leading country with the COVID-19 death toll. His administration withheld data from the public. They fired his health minister for defending the’ World Health Organisation’ and the replacement health minister resigned through false claims that an unproven Covid drug treatment worked. There was likewise the misleading of information and the interception of states wanting to impose social distancing.

Since Jair Bolsonaro has been in the presidency, Brazil has suffered the worse forest fires on record.

The below figures are taken from , https://news.mongabay.com/2021/01/the-amazon-lost, dated January 2021.

  • The Amazon basin lost more than 2 million hectares of primary forest cover in 2020, according to a new report by the Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP).
  • This number is higher than the area lost in 2019 and the authors say it may be an underestimation.
  • Brazil lost the most primary forest, with Bolivia experiencing high levels of fire-related deforestation of its unique Chiquitano dry forests.
  • While Peru saw continuing deforestation in its midsection, MAAP found reductions in forest loss in the southern part of the country.

The Amazon basin lost more than 2 million hectares of primary forest cover in 2020, according to a new satellite data analysis released today. The authors say this likely eclipses loss in 2019 when 1.7 million hectares was deforested – and is likely even a conservative estimate, meaning that the actual area of forest lost may be larger still.

The analysis was produced by researchers Matt Finer and Sidney Novoa at the Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP), an initiative of a U.S.-based Amazon Conservation and Peru-based Conservación Amazónica along with partners ACEAA in Bolivia and EcoCiencia in Ecuador

More than one million acres of forests have

.

Here’s what we’re up against. More than 1 million acres of forests have been lost since 1990, leaving the global stock at near 10 million acres, according to a July report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). While the rate of annual deforestation slowed to about 25 million acres between 2015 and 2020, the trend lines in several regions — especially countries in Africa and South America — aren’t moving in the right direction. Brazil, for example, recently recorded its highest rate of deforestation since 2008 during the period from August 2019 to July, an increase of 9.5 percent. 

The vast majority of the deforestation is through commodities supplying Palm oil, Soy, beef and timber. Brazil leading with cattle rearing and the concern among the NGO’s is reliant resources just aren’t actively fighting deforestation.

Shareholders, CEO’s, and other stakeholders are desired to focus on where their supplies come from. Businesses have pledged that they will make inquiries and address their supply, but most have neglected to achieve this. According to CDP’s,” Zeroing in on Deforestation, Report”, writes, there is a crucial demand to reinforce consumer products and food companies to allot further efficiency in detecting the regional origins of the merchandise they are purchasing. This is notably relevant to food consumers.

Company’s like ‘Aramark’ are endorsed by Green Country, for their efficient progress on its no deforestation policy . The company has already transferred to purchasing 100 percent of its Soya and 99 percent of its palm oils from regions with no deforestation.

The dilemma is that these giant corporations struggle with the Green Country policy, as their suppliers cannot always ascertain where their raw materials derive from when requested.

It is apparent we are witnessing the demise of the commodity age, where material is sourced from unknown origins. Accountability and responsibility of all supplies and consumers. is necessary should we wish to cling to what is left of our planet’s lungs and primary sink tanks.

.

Categories Uncategorized
%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close