A Burning Hellscape: The Impact of Government, Industry, and Activism on Amazonian Deforestation
In mid-2019, news sources all over the world brandished images of charred canopies and blackened wood — scenes of billowing smoke suffocating the Amazon rainforest, the red-orange fires destroying anything in their path. It triggered an emotional outcry from anyone who felt a deep connection to Mother Nature, instilling a feeling of loss even in people thousands of miles away. Protests were incited worldwide, calling out practices of land-clearing for cattle farming and logging — the primary causes of the fires — especially within Brazil; nearly two-thirds of the Amazon lie within Brazilian territory. Most prominent were the local protests, driven by indigenous activists who were angered by the upstart in deforestation led by illegal land-clearing practices in recent years, all while experiencing the worst year in decades. They blamed the current government, headed by right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, who had campaigned on pro-business, anti-indigenous, and anti-environmentalist ideals. While everyone — including residents of neighboring and foreign countries — loudly called out the practices of the beef industry, Bolsonaro and Brazilian agribusiness firms maintained a defensive stance. Yet, Bolsonaro eventually felt the heat; after some weeks, the fires had grown inconceivably out of control. Instagram hashtags were popping up; celebrities were donating millions of dollars to environmentalist agencies, using Internet activism to put pressure on the Brazilian government. It was then that the federal government succumbed, instating a sixty-day moratorium on the fires, sending the Brazilian armed forces into the swaths of jungle to enforce the illegality of such destruction.
Unbeknownst to many, since the early 2010s, deforestation in the Amazon had been gradually accelerating once again, and 2019 was the culminating point of that uptick. The 2019 disaster brought the Amazon back into focus, and especially so under the lens of climate change. The Amazon is a crucial facet of the global biosphere; it serves as an essential carbon sink. Carbon sinks are natural reservoirs that absorb more carbon than they release, leading to negative emissions, which is even more relevant now considering the discourse around climate change and its driving force: greenhouse gases. The fires fundamentally eliminate this important capability: not only do they create an absurd amount of greenhouse gases through burning plant material, but they also destroy the organisms that have the ability to regulate global temperatures by driving oxygen into the atmosphere and absorbing carbon dioxide.
Given the already-known importance of the Amazon, one question was on everyone’s mind: what led to the acceleration in the 2010s and furthermore, what caused the boom that resulted in the 2019 fires? Alas, the answer is fairly apparent: largely, agribusiness in Brazil, especially cattle-ranching, is to blame. According to a 2019 article in the New York Times, the number of ranches and land used by agribusiness has multiplied due to an intensification in factory farming, and the beef industry is now a giant within Brazil, a vital sector driving the Brazilian economy’s expansion. As of recently, experts blame cattle ranching for eighty percent of Amazonian deforestation. Industrial intensification, however, does not function by itself. Instead, its massive growth is driven by another external force: meatification of diets.
According to Anthony John Weis’ book The Global Food Economy, by definition, the meatification of diets is a nutritional transition within diets, in which protein occupies the central piece of plates and courses, versus the periphery. Evidently, agribusiness firms have taken advantage of this upsurge in meat consumption, which has increased economic potential for the beef industry in countries like Brazil, with meat becoming a more progressively sought for commodity. Change in diets has caused a change in demand; because of this, meat is now an industrial product. The industrialization of the farm animal, such as the cow, and its accompanying technological advancements have made meat highly accessible. Currently, more land is cultivated per person on a meat-based versus plant-based diet, with fifty percent of the land dedicated to animal feed only. This sort of disproportionality will only increase, especially as meatification spreads into developing countries. Brazil’s economy has been positively impacted by this; as of now, there are 200 million heads of cattle and around 173 thousand square miles of forest that have been converted into pasture for the millions of cattle to graze. In short, the economic boom has led to the expansion of agriculture’s land space, which requires deforestation for land-clearing; lamentably, fires are being used as the industrial tool of destruction.
The previous information introduces a causal chain: meatification leads to industry intensification which consequently causes deforestation, with fires being applied to clear land for industry use. Despite their description as a tool, these fires are neither legitimate nor controlled. They are illegal in nature and have the potential of burning through hundreds of acres in just a matter of days, affecting neighboring countries, as well as the delicate ecosystem and biodiversity unique to the Amazon. If the fires continue, the Amazon rainforest itself will be put at an immense risk; not only because it is home to a vibrant ecological community, but because of its previously mentioned role as an essential carbon sink.
The current dire condition within the Amazon has led to increased environmental activism throughout Brazil, to not only protect the vast natural environment but people, too. For example, localities in both rural and urban Brazil have begun a transformation towards vegetarianism and veganism. Brazil is currently the world’s primary meat producer and a major meat consumer but, surprisingly, it also has one of the highest rates of vegetarianism in the world, second only to India. Driven by the deforestation caused by cattle-ranching, as well as high obesity and diabetes rates in poorer areas, many people have turned towards plant-based diets. During last year’s dry season, state prosecutor Leticia Baird from the state of Bahia attempted to replace the meat-centric menus of many rural public schools in the region with plant-based options. This has since then been implemented in multiple public schools within various states. This is not to say the transition has been easy: many of these programs have received opposition from parents and community leaders who believe meat consumption is central to regional culture. The debate between the two groups got so severe, the federal government intervened and threatened to cut funding for these schools if they changed to an all-vegan diet. This backlash forced some schools to include meat in their menus once again. Nevertheless, Baird’s experience demonstrated that the local government, school leaders, and even students understood the importance and necessity of transforming their diets given the environmental and physiological impact. This is why Baird and other government, school, and community leaders are hoping to continue the plant-based transition by reaching a compromise, where the majority of the menu is plant-based, but there is an availability of meat-based options throughout the week.
It is not to say veganism or vegetarianism will save the Amazon; Brazil is also one of the largest soy producers in the world, and that also has its adverse effects on the Amazon. However, the impact of meat production is considerably greater than that of soy, with larger methane production and water usage caused by beef manufacturing. This does not mean that everyone should go vegan; people’s diets should not be individually controlled. However, the cost-benefit analysis demonstrates that current levels of meat consumption are exaggerated and detrimental to the planet; it will only get worse as meatification spreads into areas that have been traditionally meatless or to states where meat has been inaccessible.
Furthermore, the deforestation of the Amazon poses a very complex social dilemma; many indigenous tribes and communities call the rainforest home. States like Pará, Acre, and Mato Grosso are home to a variety of native tribes but are also some of the states experiencing large amounts of deforestation led by cattle farmers and agribusiness giants, which have been heavily protected by the Brazilian government itself. The industrial growth, however, is why the fires have grown out of control; indigenous activists recognize their fight is with the cattle-ranchers that start the fires near their autonomous territory, but also with the federal government that has reversed environmentalist policies and supported business over the livelihood of native tribes.
Consequently, indigenous environmental activist groups have taken charge, defending their land from the blazes. Indigenous activists have pledged to uphold their way of life and protect the Amazon by rejecting current president Bolsonaro’s ideology and stringent support of agribusiness, protesting the continued practice of razing with fires. These groups have faced the invasion of their lands as well as dealt with forceful uprisings from industries, the government, and their supporters, threatening indigenous autonomy and way of living. When the fires first grew out of control, Bolsonaro even went out of his way to incorrectly place blame on the native groups for igniting the flames, without a single shred of proof.[8] In response to the Brazilian government’s statements, activists have prioritized environmental justice over economic growth; they believe the Amazon serves all of humanity, but criticize how humanity has mistreated the earth due to consumption-driven purposes. In order to defend their land, traditions, cultures, and health, the activists have created intersectional alliances with other social movements, protesting the Brazilian state’s mistreatment as well as the policies implemented by them in an attempt to protect corporate interests, such as those of the beef industry. They have created united fronts of protest in order to fight against the unequal institutional and systemic conditions that have led to these fires further impinging on native people’s lives and worsening the deforestation experienced in the Amazon.
One example of such a group is the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon, an activist umbrella group that fights deforestation and promotes conservation within the frame of native civil rights. In an attempt to reclaim their lands and rights, they have used mass protest as a way of expressing their anger at the destruction of their habitats for the benefits of multimillion-dollar firms and at the expense of their well-being. The organization emphasizes the weakening of government regulations and enforcement in Brazil, and how it has led to spikes in deforestation practices, frequently in states like Mato Grosso, Pará, and Amazonas, where many indigenous peoples and communities reside. The Coordination places blame on the Bolsonaro administration for its anti-indigenous and anti-environmental rhetoric, which they believed has instigated genocidal and destructive actions in the Amazon rainforest. At the core of their movement are the real-life stories of native persons that have been directly impacted by deforestation; they utilize personal and emotional narratives to spread their message, using their anger towards the government to incite activism. One significant example of these sorts of narratives was that of an interview between a CBS journalist and Tashka Yawanawa, chief of the Yawanawa people, who in a discussion about the Amazonian fires stated: “If we don’t have a government to protect and help us, we are going to sacrifice ourselves to protect our land,” as he believes indigenous peoples in the Amazon are facing a genocide, perpetrated by Brazil’s president Bolsonaro and Brazilian agribusiness.
In a more direct attempt to criticize meatification and the spread of the beef industry in Brazil, the Association of Brazil’s Indigenous Peoples (APIB) went on an international activism tour throughout Europe, protesting Bolsonaro’s government as well as the involvement of the European financial sector in the investment and expansion of Brazilian agribusiness, specifically the soy and meat businesses, which deal with what is labeled forest risk commodities. They intended to direct the focus on the global consumption of commodities such as beef, which have an intense effect on indigenous land rights and environmental protections. These indigenous activists call out increased meatification driven by exaggerated consumption, highlighting to the rest of the world the supposed non-visible effects the production of meat has on native tribes and the health of the rainforest.
What, in turn, has been the government’s response? As stated, what has primarily driven these revolutionary reactions from groups like the Coordination and APIB is Bolsonaro’s right-wing, pro-industry policies, which received considerable backlash the moment the Amazonian fires caught international attention in 2019. Prior to his election, Bolsonaro campaigned to open up the Amazon to more agriculture and mining, attacking the IBAMA — Brazil’s equivalent to the Environmental Protection Agency. Since his election, Bolsonaro’s resulting policies have diminished environmental regulations and prioritized economic development over environmental protections. Bolsonaro decreed that environmental issues solely matter to vegans, who “only eat vegetables.” It was a controversial claim, especially considering many Brazilians are actually altering their diets in response to the environmental impact of meat consumption. Brazilians consistently ranked high in a 2014 comparative study that analyzed the positive receptivity of vegetarianism or veganism and generally ranked low in the positive receptivity towards meat. Despite how central meat is to Brazilian culture and food, it is evident that a shift towards less meat consumption is occurring; government and industry should not ignore that.
So, there is a bright light at the end of the tunnel. There are solutions available to the Brazilian people; originally, Brazil had been experiencing a downward pattern of deforestation before its reversal in the early 2010s. According to a 2014 study led by Daniel Nepstad, the Brazilian Amazon experienced an astounding seventy percent decline in deforestation rates since the 1990s. These positive changes were mostly due to strict enforcement of environmental laws, government intervention within the beef supply chain, expansion of protected areas, and restricting landholders’ access to credit. All of the listed solutions were applied and enforced within a variety of Amazonian nation-states; however, in Brazil, Bolsonaro’s recent elimination of the aforementioned stipulations that had already been weakened during the early 2010s produced the boom that reinvigorated deforestation practices. Despite his defensive tactics, the quantitative data demonstrates that Bolsonaro and his government have played a major role in the deregulation and consequent deforestation via razing. However, the reimplementation of these successful provisions could lead to the positive trajectory they briefly experienced.
Conversely, there is a counterargument as to why the fires are important to the Brazilian way of living. In an attempt to reason with critics and activists while playing down the effects of deforestation, Bolsonaro called the fires a cultural phenomenon, and criticized other countries for calling out Brazil by using what he labeled colonialist language. When digging into the history of the fires in the Amazon, it is evident they have been a frequently used method of land-clearing for over a century. Small rural farmers in Brazil began the practice, but it has now become industrialized. The scale has grown exponentially, and that is the essential issue. Bolsonaro is correct in emphasizing the cultural or historical importance of the fires for Brazilian farming. Yet, it seems like there is a general agreement that the fires are too costly, causing much more harm than good. Brazil’s history as a European colony and its culture should be taken into account when discussing matters of importance — the economy, farming, production, diets, colonialism, native rights, and even environmentalism itself are highly complex, multifaceted issues that require intensive conversation. Even so, it does not make anyone, especially the Brazilian government, exempt from criticism, and more so when the loudest critics are their own people.
The standoff between indigenous activists and Bolsonaro’s federal government resulted in rising tensions, international attention, and mass protests. Despite their initial opposition and self-protective tendencies, Bolsonaro’s government eventually slightly sided with those protesting the fires, yielding to the pressure by attempting to alleviate the burnings and enforcing their illegality. Whatever the intentions and though necessary, the response was perceived as shortsighted, slow, and insufficient. Of course, they remedied the immediate problem, but Bolsonaro’s government has continued the pro-business rhetoric even after the extreme razing in the Amazon. Bolsonaro continues the pathway towards further industry intensification, inviting the profits resulting from intensified meatification, despite the aforementioned environmentally damaging effects of deforestation via cattle-ranching and the potentially deadly byproducts of land-clearing. Instead, the focus is on Brazil’s economic benefits resulting from increased meatification and the industrialization of the farm animal.
The president’s eventual defeat meant that activists indeed scored a small win, as Bolsonaro did pledge to cut back on illegal land-clearing. Nevertheless, he continued emphasizing his belief that Brazilian environmental policy is strangling the country’s economy. He also reiterated his anti-indigenous rhetoric, stating that no land would be designated to native persons under his directive. This leaves indigenous persons more exposed and at risk than most other Brazilians, not just because of the violent and racist language used by the federal government, but because of the continued threat to their habitat. It is likely the first time in contemporary Brazilian history that a socio-environmental disaster is resulting from the words and actions of the President and his administration. The statements and the current government’s stance not only set a dangerous trajectory for the upcoming critical years for addressing climate change but put millions of his own constituents in a precarious situation.
As many indigenous leaders have reiterated, as long as Bolsonaro and like-minded people are in power, agribusiness will continue their destructive and unregulated practices to profit off increased global consumption. Indigenous and environmental activists will continue the fight, but one can only wonder what last year’s experience and results mean for the upcoming burning season. Hopefully, if there is a reoccurrence, the international community will remember the feelings of despair, and once again shine the spotlight on the deficits of the Brazilian government by supporting indigenous activists and communities in the fight against deforestation and the industrialization of forest risk commodities.
