In the midst of my research on Amazonian biodiversity, I learned more about Brazil’s recent president elect, Jair Bolsonaro. Coined “Tropical Trump,” Bolsonaro plans to open the Amazon to widespread infrastructure and agriculture, threatening the biodiversity, oxygen production, water sources, and indigenous land (to name a few) in the Amazon biome. By ceasing to protect the Brazilian Amazon and prohibiting the creation of new indigenous territories, Bolsonaro would destroy the border between natural and artificial life, exposing protected territory to destruction.
Brazil contains the majority of the Amazon. Within this land is 8% of the world’s freshwater supply, 20% of the world’s biodiversity, and 7% of the world’s land mass. Needless to say, the conservation of this area is crucial to protecting the earth from natural catastrophe.
Since 2016, the Workers Party has not ruled Brazil. While they cautiously grappled the border between environmental conservation and economic benefit, their rule resulted in a high crime rate, as well as security threats. Despite deforestation rates dwindling significantly since 2005, the Brazilian population chose national security. The lack of protection under the Worker’s Party bolstered Bolsonaro’s campaign, as he won the election because many Brazilians want to protect their nation’s borders from wealthier countries. Willing to sacrifice environmental health and indigenous rights, Brazilians are choosing national sovereignty and economic power. However, as Bolsonaro’s promises come into fruition and mass destruction takes place, the cultural borders between Brazil and other highly modernized countries will disappear. Industrialized farms will plague the Brazilian amazon, rather than indigenous territories and wildlife.
Like our current president, Bolsonaro is driving borders between various demographics of people within Brazil; those who support him, and those who are calling his impending rule an “Apocalypse Now” movement. The majority of the Brazilian population, however, is ignoring a significant aspect of their country, instead putting walls up to create tunnel vision. It’s clear how Bolsonaro’s environmental regulations- or lack thereoff- will fare in the future, when we face immense global health issues. How will cultural, environmental, and political borders be redefined in Brazil when this occurs?
sidenote: Indonesia is already struggling with an extreme surplus of carbon emissions due to Bush’s 2007 proposal regarding ethanol energy. Why do nations fail to look over their own borders and observe the problems endured by countries who made similar decisions? Similarly, why do we fail to look at history while contemplating decisions?
-Anna
Thank you for bring to attention such an important and relevant issue! Your closing statement really resonated with me; my 9th grade history teacher used to always stress the importance of studying history so we do not find ourselves repeating mistakes from the past. As I was following the Brazilian election, I was shocked to observe the amount of public support Bolsonaro received, despite his political views and presidential agenda. His polarizing opinions target not only the environment, but also women, including reproductive rights and wages; the LGBT community; and immigrants, specifically from Haiti, Africa, and Southwest Asia. In this regard, your mentioned label of “Tropical Trump” appears very accurate. However, although it is easy to observe this event in Brasil, removed from our lives in the United States, I think it is also important to reverse this examinatory gaze upon our own country. While our environmental landscape is not nearly as significant when compared to the Amazon and what is at stake within Bolsonaro’s presidency, our federal government has similarly exploited resources for economic gain. Perhaps, coinciding with your point of examining countries beyond your own national border, Brazil should have looked to the United States as an example of what went wrong. (This sounds very cynical, but it is important to consider our role in environmental protection/destruction when evaluating that of other nations)
The thing is, though, Brazil couldn’t look to us as an example. We chose the bad candidate out of a race between a bad candidate and an ok candidate. We made the objectively wrong decision, at least partly due to the interference of a foreign government. Brazil, on the other hand, chose from a field of two bad candidates. What Anna fails to mention in her post is that Bolsonaro’s opposition pary stole billions of dollars from the country. It’s not a matter of Brazilians wanting to punish immigrants or destroy the environment. They just don’t want to reward their corrupt ruling class which feels legitimate.
If anyone reads this comment (other than Professor Cassarino) look up Operation Car Wash. It’s bigger than Watergate, bigger than even the individual one stuff. Also, it feels hypocritical to blame Brazilians for destroying the environment when the US produces the second most carbon emissions in the world.
One thing we’ve discussed in my and Acadia’s ES class is the intersection of environmental, social, and economic issues. James Cone argues that it is impossible to separate the anthropocentric control and destruction of nature from white supremacist and colonialist control and oppression of people of color, which is impossible to separate from economic exploitation and dependency systems. If Brazilian voters are choosing a way out of their economic and security crisis that favors nationalism and does not include environmental mindfulness, they seem to be playing right into the hands of systems that keep historically oppressed countries and people oppressed.
Also why nations fail to look beyond their borders, and why the Brazilian people would pick national security and economic safety over environmental regulation, are both due to human’s natural tendency of self-interest over others. Although essential for survival, it is clear that in some ways our anthropocentric thinking is more harmful in the long run, but of course, again because we are humans, we fail to look long-term… a never ending trend in the struggle for existence.
human nature, I guess
Sorry, didn’t mean to include that last line!
Anna, thanks for bringing this to the table; the environmental impact of political decisions is often overlooked and is nonetheless very impactful. This blog post pairs nicely with Skyler’s from earlier in the semester, and it is interesting to see the pulling back of indigenous territories both domestically and in Brazil.