The fact that "much of the destruction has been in Mato Grosso state, the centre of soya farming in Brazil" does not necesarily mean that soya is the main cause of this increase in deforestation. Bio-fuels (ethanol) from sugar cane are big business in Brazil, and so is eucalyptus planting, which is thriving thanks to the issuance of "carbon offsets" or "carbon credits" which are bought by CO2-emitting industries in the developed countries. Eucalyptus planting, by the way, has far-reaching consequences: it is a very successful "invading species" which has the property of changing local eco-systems into dryer, poorer environments.
When it is known that CO2 is actually helping the planet become greener (more vegetation, less deserts), one can realize the extent of the environmental disaster that is being promoted by the bureaucracies of Brussels and Washington as they religiously listen to politically-motivated NGOs like Greenpeace, FoE, WWF etc.
Also of interest in the article: "Proponents of change say the law impedes economic development and contend that Brazil must open more land for agriculture."
This begs for the following comments: 1) as more land is being used for bio fuels and eucalyptus planting, more arable land is needed for agriculture, hence more deforestation. This, hopefully, will stop when (if) we get rid of the lunatics who are day-dreaming about a no-carbon economy in Washington and Brussels; 2) as population continues to grow rapidly in poor countries, more land is needed to feed everyone. The world's incremental population amounts to about 80 million people yearly, net of mortality; so you may imagine what will be left of the Amazon forest and the jungles of Borneo and Equatorial Africa in 50 years' time. That's without counting an eventual "little ice age" that would reduce the extent of arable land in Canada, Russia, China, and the US.
The argument of the "growth-at-all-costs" advocates is that the UN predicts the world population will stabilize at 9 billion in 2050. But this prediction is based on the hypothetical and highly unlikely end of poverty in the less developed world. We´ve seen with global warming that politically-motivated predictions are no more than wishful thinking. So we would be well-advised not to give credence to the UN predictions as regards the end and reversal of the population explosion. Here as in so many other domains, a precautionary approach is desirable - if we are to save our tropical forests, that is, and what they mean to the world in terms of biodiversity, water regulation, water supply, and climate.
BBC
Mark Duchamp, President, Save the Eagles International
savetheeaglesinternational.org
