When presented with vast, untapped natural resources like Brazil does, countries often face a dilemma – pursue economic development to better the lives of its people, or protect the environment. 
 

• What is the line between utilization and exploitation? Are the gains worth the costs?
 

• Does the developed world have the right to censure the developing world for making these choices?

• Consider whether it is possible to achieve both- pursuing economic development to better the lives of its people AND protect the environment? (Think: Polarity Thinking!) How would this be possible? 

• Choose or craft a relevant GP essay question where you can use this case study as a relevant illustration in your essay. 

A big part of why the Amazon fires were allowed to get that big was the lack of regulation and control by the government, but by choice. Motivated by economic development and a vast trove of natural resources, Jair Bolsonaro’s government believes that the Amazon is a resource that is there to be tapped for the good of his country. 

•Built the Trans-Amazonian Highway in the dense Amazon rainforest, pushed people who had been only populating the coastal cities to settle in the Amazon, promising wealth and livelihoods in new cities that were fuelled by the bounty of natural resources. Vibrant cities (like Manaus) sprung up along the highway, farmers tilled the land and huge corporations moved in. 

•This proved fertile ground (pun intended) for the growth of the country’s cattle ranching and soybean agriculture industries. 

•The cattle sector of the Brazilian Amazon, incentivized by the international beef and leather trades, has been responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[2][3] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the world's largest single driver of deforestation. 

•Much of the remaining deforestation within the Amazon has resulted from farmers clearing land (sometimes using the slash-and-burn method) for small-scale subsistence agriculture[7] or mechanized cropland producing soy, palm, and other crops.

•More than one-third of the Amazon forest belongs to more than 3,344 formally acknowledged indigenous territories. Until 2015, only 8% of Amazonian deforestation occurred in forests inhabited by indigenous peoples, while 88% of occurred in the less than 50% of the Amazon area that is neither indigenous territory nor protected area. Historically, the livelihoods of indigenous Amazonian peoples have depended on the forest for food, shelter, water, fibre, fuel and medicines. The forest is also interconnected with their identity and cosmology. For this reason the deforestation rates are lower in indigenous territories, despite pressures encouraging deforestation being stronger.

•Prioritized economic and energy output

•And therefore scrapped environmental regulations and increased fossil fuel usage

•They pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, becoming the only nation not to be a part of it

•And they stated that they do not believe that CO2 is a major contributor to global warming, or that it is even happening in the first place. 

In his 4 year term, Trump oversaw the rolling back of more than 100 environmental regulations (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks-list.html), including allowing the drilling of oil in wildlife refuges, removing pollution controls on streams and wetlands. 

President Biden’s announcement (just hours after being inaugurated) that the US would be rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement brought a wave of hope to those who are hopeful for more American leadership on climate issues. It is also significant because it highlights just how much domestic political considerations can steer these big international decisions. 

•Even as more clean energy options are starting to surface, the oil industry has not seen a dip in demand. Developing countries like China and India still run on oil, using it to transport their gigantic populations and produce plastics that are commonplace in all consumer products. 

•At the same time, the green energy sector is growing, and there is increasing demand for more sustainable forms of energy. Precisely because oil companies are profit maximizing, they have found that they need to adapt to this changing landscape and start diversifying their supply. Ironically, “Climate change poses an existential risk to the oil and gas industry,” wrote Neil Beveridge, an analyst at Bernstein, a Wall Street research firm, in a recent note to clients. 

•At the same time, supply has been boosted through the exploitation of shale oil reserves and the development of fracking technology. 

•Given the scale of their operations and the economic growth they generate, Big Oil companies are also often given much leeway to continue developing from governments, and are not subject to the most stringent of regulations. 

So largely, we have seen the oil industry continue to flourish, but to the detriment of the environment. 

So we can reflect a little more about whether: 

•Causes – Dependence on biomass (wood, charcoal, dung and crop residue) as cooking fuel and lack of ventilation 

•Environmental impacts – release of toxic particulate matter

•Health impacts – 4.3 million deaths globally attributed to exposure to IAP in developing countries in 2012

However, not all of individual consumption is the result of selfish and unthinking attitudes. In some cases, the environmental problems caused by individuals trying to fulfil their needs and wants is borne out of necessity and lack of access to resources. A case in point is the problem of household/indoor air pollution.

Indoor air pollution in developing nations is a significant form of indoor air pollution (IAP) that is little known to those in the developed world.

Three billion people in developing countries across the globe rely on biomass, in the form of wood, charcoal, dung, and crop residue, as their domestic cooking fuel. Because much of the cooking is carried out indoors in environments that lack proper ventilation, millions of people, primarily poor women and children face serious health risks. Globally, 4.3 million deaths were attributed to exposure to IAP in developing countries in 2012, almost all in low and middle income countries. The South East Asian and Western Pacific regions bear most of the burden with 1.69 and 1.62 million deaths, respectively. 

Even though the rate of dependence on biomass fuel is declining, this dwindling resource will not keep up with population growth which could ultimately put environments at even greater risk.

This is a problem that plagues many communities in the developing world who are prevented or constrained from taking more environmentally friendly routes because their most basic physical needs have not yet been met. Do more research to see more examples of how this plays out around the world. 

This is a problem that plagues many communities in the developing world who are prevented or constrained from taking more environmentally friendly routes because their most basic physical needs have not yet been met. Do more research to see more examples of how this plays out around the world. 

It is not realistic as it is more important for them to focus on their survival than on environmental sustainability.

More developed countries have to lend a helping hand to the less developed countries to become more environmentally sustainable.

it will be very hard as you have to chabge your lifestyle in order to be more environmentally friendly for example going waste free.

It is the responsibility of the more developed countries to aid the lesser xeveloped countries in ensuring environmental sustainability. How far do you agree

2. many animals die in transit (they die in vain) 

3. threatens not just wildlife, but human health and government stability. 

measures to take: 

  https://www.doi.gov/blog/10-things-poachers-dont-want-you-know-about-wildlife-trafficking