Should The Brazilian Government Consider More Of Using The Amazon Forest To Conserve The Environment Than Use it Partly To Provide For Its People?

Brazil once had the highest deforestation rate in the world and by 2005 it still had the largest area of forest removed annually. Since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometers of Amazon rain forest have been severely destroyed.
By the end of the 1980s the challenge had become such a global issue not only with loss of one of the world's biodiversity and ecological disruption caused by removal of the forests but due to heavy emissions carbon dioxide released from its burning in the forest in Brazil and the loss of a valuable sink which helped absorb global carbon dioxide emissions. In 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change deforestation in Brazil became hugely concern at the Summit in Rio de Janeiro where in collaboration with various environmental groups working in the region to give the Brazilian government an incentive to reduce forest removal and curb the rate of deforestation.
By 2005 forest removal had fallen to 9,000 km2 of forest and on July 5, 2007 Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, announced at the International Conference on Biofuels in Brussels that more than 20 million hectares of conservation units to protect the forest and have more efficient fuel production have allowed the rate of deforestation to fall by approximately 52% in the last three years alone. During the last five months of 2007, more than 3,000 square kilometres were lost.
There however a number of reasons that are attributed to loss of the Amazon forest

Soybean Production This is one of the greatest factors that is seeing more and more loss of the Amazon Forest. Brazil is the second largest producer of soybean after United States and The soy industry is the principal source of foreign currency for Brazil which has also led to the controversial transportation projects that are developing in the Amazon as needed by farmers.Could this be regarded as a misguided policy by the government?

Cattle ranching. Cattle ranching is also one of the leading cause of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. This has been the case since at least the 1970s. The removal of the Amazon forest for cattle farming in Brazil was also seen by developers as an economic investment during periods of high inflation where the appreciation of cattle prices providing a way of outpacing the interest rate earned on money left in the bank.However, today the situation may be even worse.

Hydroelectric dams and mining activities. Hydroelectric dam projects in the Amazon have also been responsible for Deforesting significant areas of the forest . For example the Balbina dam flooded approximately 2,400 km² of rain forest on completion and its reservoir itself has been responsible for contributing to global warming by emitting 23,750,000 tons of carbon dioxide and 140,000 tons of methane in only its first three years of operation. Mining has also impacted on deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon particularly since the 1980s with miners often clearing forest to open the mines, often also using them for building material, collecting wood for fuel and subsistence agriculture.

Logging. Developing regions profit from logging revenue. The economic opportunity for these areas is driven by the money from the timber export and fuel wood demand. The charcoal producing ovens that require the fuel wood are estimated to use large amounts of timber.Its important to note that mahogany is the main type of tree that is used in this economic activity.

Its important to note that massive defforestation of the Amazon Forest has had negative effects on the Global biodiversity and climate change

However its still important to note that the Amazon forest has had some positive contribution towards the people of Brazil which include:

Soybean production is a source of substantial revenue for the Brazilian government which has greatly boosted the Brazilian economy.With more farmers involved in soybean production,Farmers have been able to earn them selves a good income and hence improved standard of living for the farmers of Brazil.The soybean production has certainly brought about transportation projects which are a sign of positive development and more economic activities according to the people of Brazil. Cattle Ranching as an economic activity has also been a source of foreign currency for the Brazilian government,more people are earning income through cattle ranching in the Amazon Forest. Hydroelectric dams and mining activities have been also a substantial source of income for the people of Brazil and more electric energy which could be used for various purposes such as industrialisation. .Logging has a also contributed to the welfare of the Brazilian population.

Therefore these economic activities have built the Brazilian economy in a positive direction but at an expense of climate change and global biodiversity. With that therefore one wonders Should climate change be considered first at the expense of suffering hungry Brazilian population? In another words should the Brazilian population be left to suffer because of the increasing global concern for the environment?and live the Natural provided forest unexploited? or Should the Brazilian population be left to flourish at the expense of Natural environment whose neglect is also potentially likely to have dire consequences on the globe? or the brazilian government is simply taking culculated judgements to help its people and at the same time try to protect the environment?