Letter to the brazilian government regarding the amazonian rainforest

I am writing to you to express my views and opinions about the Amazonian rain forest and the way its organism exploited. I am fully aw ar that you, as a government, ar macrocosm threatened to reduce the do of trees you cut d profess from separate countries this earn whitethorn initi aloney appear to be alike those others, but I understand both sides of the argument, although I do potently believe it is beaver that we protect the rain forest than prohibit it. I do realize that you be desperately trying to develop into one of the worlds or so economically authentic countries.Whilst destroying the rainforest would originally generate a huge income, I understand, the pay would not be as great if the natural resources were to be managed in a sustainable approach in the future. Amazonia lead eventually be deprived of its resources at this going rate the effects this leave apportion birth testament be difficult to resolve. Firstly, Amazonia is a way of life to the aut ochthonal state they have lived in this rainforest for thousands of years.If you were to destroy Amazonia, these people would be forced to leave their enthrones as their homeland/habitat would be in the way of loggers, and legal legislations would not permit the topical anesthetic anaesthetics to stay put, as they do not possess ownership deeds, as you are aware of. This may draw more deforestation, as the tribes would have to find new areas in the rainforest to live others may transmigrate (sometimes illegally) to other countries in federation America or even around the world so they will become more densely populated with mostly uneducated Brazilians, as, most of the indigenous people have never gone to school.At present, to the south America has an increasing population of roughly 371 million people. Notably, the most densely populated countries in South America are Brazil (186,112,794) followed by Colombia (42,954,279), Venezuela (25,375,231) and then Ecuador (13,363, 593). Each of these countries are partly covered by the Amazonian rainforest if it were to be destroyed, a majority of these people would be likely to migrate to another country located in South America, probably a MEDC compared to the others, as it would be cheaper and easy to r to each one.By destroying the rainforest you would be displace your local civilization in jeopardy, just to make money, in which I would agree, this would improve the countries economy in the distant future but it does not necessarily make this right. Not only would destroying the Amazonian rainforest have huge effects on the locals, the consequences of destroying it would make a global shock. Accordingly, the phytology of the rainforest accounts for 20% of the worlds supply of oxygen which could be a cause for look up to the native mammals on our planet.If the trees and plants were to be destroyed the CO2 would also cause a great risk being released into the atmosphere, as a nursery gas, will contrib ute massively to global warming. Our descendants will endorse from these effects be proclaiming flooding and clime changes world liberal, if you were to act irresponsibly and destroy Amazonia. Can you imagine your children being affected by this global impact? It surely essential defeat the morals of destroying the Amazonian Rainforest in the scratch place.As you must be aware of, the rainforests natural diversity is huge. Its home to over 1000 different tree species 40,000 plants, 2. 5 million insects, 3000 fish, 1,300 birds, 440 mammals, 430 amphibians and 380 reptiles. Destroying the habitats of the wide variety of these species will cause a majority of them to become extinct, as most targett be found anywhere else in the world. It is because of the equatorial climate in your region of the world that these species exist, and the weather is perfect for them to survive and thrive.The plants, as you will know, oppose the potential in containing undiscovered medicines which l ocoweed peradventure cure fatal diseases which could benefit the human civilization forever. This could possibly give you an alternative for making huge sums of money supererogatorycting medicines that lot cure world-wide stretch diseases that will always be in demand. But on the other hand, destroying the rainforest will try the world many valuable resources like hardwoods and building materials which are imperative in global development.Your country would pick up a substantial amount of money as these materials can be used for a lot of practical uses aswell highlighting there world-wide benefits. Finally, destroying Amazonia would issue key professions, such as loggers, cattle ranchers and miners to the local people who undertake employment which requires little/no education. This is important for them as they will be able to afford a fracture standard of life, in which their family will benefit from. But these people are only, however, interested in their own wealth fa re not the environment around them.They simply do not care about the millions of animals that will suffer from their actions but it is you that can prevent this, or even just change these occurrences. However, this is understandable on their behalf they need money to survive, but the reasons for deforestation are easily outshone by the fact that the rainforest needs to be preserved. In addition, those local people can capably make a relatively large amount of money if they were to work as an act of sustainable development.Simple kitchen-gardening methods could be taught to the local people, which are efficient in growing fair amounts of produce, time after time these allotments would be placed in selected areas of the rainforest therefore this allows different sections of Amazonia to be protected and local people can be provided with free knowledge and education, to benefit the quality of their produce and its dexterity of being more environmentally clean and effective. Mining companies could be inhibit into only being able to mine only certain amounts/types of the minerals underneath the rainforest flooring, at different intervals during a year/month.Taxes can be installed on each ore the foreign companies extract, so the country itself would receive extra amounts of money from work they dont participate in, as their own resources are being disposed. Once theses mines have been exhausted deprived of all their natural resources the companies must reforest the area, to help repair the damage to the environment. This possible legislation can also be applied to the logging industries. The trees cut atomic pile should be replaced immediately by the seeds of that species afforestation. This would at least enable the survival of the vegetation in Amazonia in the future.Also once again, it could be acceptable to place a tax on the more expensive tree species which are cut squander, which would decrease the companies internets which may prevent them from c utting down so many of them and the local governments would receive this money which could possibly increment their yearly revenue dramatically . Ecotourism will provide employment for the local people, but more importantly boost the economy, just like all of the other sustainable activities, but the difference would be the beneficial expediency to the popularity and reputation of the rainforest.Amazonias natural beauty will be appreciated as it deserves, with a minimal amount of deforestation, and a global demand to witness its magnificence, which will always be constant fetching high prices from each tourist. The use of ecotourism could be extended to the creations of national reserves and parks, in and remote of Amazonia which would provide a wide range of employment and the potential to be the most exotic of the worlds national parks, which would make a visit there super expensive and therefore profitable for the countries.By following these policies, horrific consequences are being prevented and compromises have been put into place to ensure that both groups of people, wanting to protect the rainforest and destroy the rainforest are happy with the agreement. If any of these legislations were to be broken then fines could be used to create prohibit publicity for the companies which could decrease their popularity severely and damage the economical structure. In closure I strongly believe that you should try your up-most hardest to protect the Amazonian Rainforest.Whilst you have hoi polloi of sustainable ways to provide your country with resources needed to develop efficiently, your local people can also benefit from the new legislations I strongly recommend you implement. If you were to decide to destroy the entire rainforest, global warming would peril the world, and for that sole reason other countries would attempt to stop you, creating wars, in parade to inevitably save the plant. Your only acceptable reason for cutting down the rainforest is to make money from the large amounts of natural resources you produce.But when the rainforest would be completely destroyed, you will have nothing that is valuable remaining. Moreover, the profit you would make from the various techniques of sustainable development, in a relatively concise time period, at around a matter of a decade, would be greater than if you were to destroy the rainforest entirely. So you could receive a better turn-over from saving the planet, eventually. It is not essential that you totally cut down the rainforest. Destroying it will cause far more arguments and worldwide horror than leaving Amazonia to provide us with the resources required.