Holy Spirit

Noticed on the bus trip yesterday all the destruction of forests and soils in this part of the country, being used mostly for monoculture coffee plantations and as pastures for cattle. While in Central America much of the coffee is grown along with and in the shade of other tree species, here in Brazil - by far the largest coffee producer in the world - almost all of it is grown in the sun. This is very harmful to the soil and biodiversity, and requires much chemical use that damages the health of people and other life besides the targeted pests.

As I logged on to my email account just now, I noticed a news article on Brazil's new environment minister talking about cracking down on illegal cutting of forests for cattle grazing. The article says that burning to clear new or overgrown pasture in the Amazon accounts for about 75 percent of Brazil's production of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. That doesn't even consider the loss of trees to absorb atmospheric carbon, nor the cows' production of methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. And not just in the Amazon but in other areas of Brazil like the Atlantic rainforest where I was working. These could be some good reasons to eat less beef - to reduce the demand - and if you eat it to be more selective about where it comes from.

It seems that cattle grazing is a particularly destructive use of land in the tropics. Aside from the methane, it requires a lot of land for the quantity of food produced. But there are other destructive land uses, and good laws against deforestation exist - they're just not enforced and wealthy landowners have a lot of influence on politicians and the police. Without more enforcement, better economic alternatives and/or more conscientiousness about preserving nature - whether from a biblical or other perspective - I think the rainforest will continue to be destroyed for one purpose or another.

So what's a better alternative to the cattle? We need to be careful about what we substitute so that the cure isn't worse than the disease. The forest needs to be restored but people need income, although if they can produce their own food and trade with their neighbors they need less.

On the topic of cures worse than the disease: During my time in South America, I've been thinking, observing, reading about and talking with people about the effects of both oil extraction and the production of biofuels here. It's been well publicized that oil exploration and extraction have been destructive to forests, wildlife, rivers and people. One particularly glaring example occurred during the 70's through the early 90's in northeastern Ecuador, where the volume of oil spilled is estimated to have been 30 times that of the Exxon Valdez spill. And of course oil use contributes to global warming. But when land use is considered, the large-scale production of biofuels may have an even more detrimental impact on the climate (and on ecosystems in general) than oil.

Brazil is a major producer of biofuels - mostly from sugar cane but also from corn in the north. I saw smaller-scale production of a plant called mamona, grown for fuel oil alongside coffee at a farm next to Iracambi. Noticed that in the gas stations you can buy alcohol for much less than gasoline, and I heard that some people use this for travel within the city and gasoline for longer trips on the highway for more power.

written by  cjones on June 3, 2008 from Vila Velha, Brazil
from the travel blog: so-journ
Send a Compliment

comment on this...