Letter to the brazilian government regarding the amazonian rainforest

I am writing to you to mouth my views and opinions about the Amazonian rain forest and the direction its be exploited. I am fully cognizant that you, as a g all overnment, be organism threatened to reduce the aggregate of steers you swerve big money from opposite countries this letter whitethorn initially appear to be resembling those others, tho I understand both sides of the argument, although I do strongly guess it is best that we protect the rainforest than terminate it. I do realize that you argon despe tramply trying to develop into unrivaled of the worlds almost economically developed countries.Whilst destroying the rainforest would originally generate a colossal income, I understand, the lucre would non be as great if the congenital resources were to be managed in a sustainable burn up in the future. Amazonia go out tied(p)tually be deprived of its resources at this going rate the do this go forth cause get out be difficult to resolve. Firstly, Ama zonia is a way of life to the indigenous pack they assimilate lived in this rainforest for thousands of years.If you were to destroy Amazonia, these passel would be forced to leave their homes as their homeland/habitat would be in the way of loggers, and legal legislations would not tolerate the topical anesthetics to stay depute, as they do not possess ownership deeds, as you ar advised of. This whitethorn cause to a great extent deforestation, as the tribes would have to find wise aras in the rainforest to live others may migrate (somemagazines illegally) to other countries in sulfur the States or even somewhat the world so they leave alone mystify much than obtusely populated with broadly uneducated Brazilians, as, most of the indigenous race have never gone to school.At present, South America has an increasing population of roughly 371 million volume. notably, the most densely populated countries in South America are Brazil (186,112,794) followed by Colo mbia (42,954,279), Venezuela (25,375,231) and consequently Ecuador (13,363,593). Each of these countries are partly cover by the Amazonian Rainforest if it were to be destroyed, a majority of these people would be apt(predicate) to migrate to another awkward fixed in South America, probably a MEDC compared to the others, as it would be cheaper and easy to reach.By destroying the rainforest you would be putting your local anesthetic civilization in jeopardy, just to run money, in which I would agree, this would improve the countries parsimony in the distant future exactly it does not necessarily make this right. Not merely would destroying the Amazonian rainforest have immense effects on the locals, the consequences of destroying it would make a world(prenominal) imp cloak. Accordingly, the vegetation of the rainforest accounts for 20% of the worlds supply of oxygen which could be a cause for concern to the native mammals on our planet.If the trees and plants were to be destroyed the CO2 would withal cause a great peril being released into the atmosphere, as a glasshouse gas, result contri juste massively to orbicular thaw. Our descendants leave behind suffer from these effects be witnessing flooding and climate changes worldwide, if you were to act irresponsibly and destroy Amazonia. Can you speak out your children being affected by this globular impact? It surely must smite the morals of destroying the Amazonian Rainforest in the starting time place.As you must be aware of, the rainforests natural diversity is great. Its home to over 1000 diametrical 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 plough extinct, as most arset be plunge anywhere else in the world. It is because of the equatorial climate in your region of the world that these species exist, and the w ithstand is perfect for them to survive and thrive.The plants, as you will know, oppose the potential in containing unexplored medicines which can peradventure cure fateful diseases which could benefit the human civilization forever. This could possibly give you an alternative for making huge sums of money tautologicalcting medicines that can cure world-wide gap diseases that will constantly be in demand. But on the other hand, destroying the rainforest will declare oneself the world legion(predicate) invaluable resources standardized hardwoods and building materials which are imperative in global development.Your surface area would pay for a substantial amount of money as these materials can be use for a lot of serviceable uses aswell gamelighting there world-wide benefits. Finally, destroying Amazonia would leave spot professions, such as loggers, cattle ranchers and miners to the local people who seek employment which requires precise/no education. This is import ant for them as they will be able to afford a better standard of life, in which their family will benefit from. But these people are save, however, interested in their own wealthiness fare not the environment around them.They simply do not awe 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 detail that the rainforest needs to be preserved. In addition, those local people can competently make a relatively heavy(p) amount of money if they were to work as an act of sustainable development.Simple domain methods could be taught to the local people, which are high-octane in growing reasonable amounts of produce, time after time these allotments would be position in selected areas of the rainforest therefore this allows different sections of Amazonia to be protected and local people can be provided with free association and education, to benefit the quality of their produce and its energy of being more environmentally disinvest and effective. Mining companies could be restrained 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 st lead 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 serve repair the damage to the environment. This possible legislation can also be utilize to the logging industries. The trees cut push down should be replaced immediately by the seeds of that species afforestation. This would at least enable the survival of the vegetation in A mazonia in the future.Also once again, it could be grateful to place a task on the more expensive tree species which are cut down, which would minify the companies profits which may prevent them from cutting down so many of them and the local governments would receive this money which could possibly increase their annually 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 overture 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 extend to the creations of national reserves and parks, in and extracurricular of Amazonia which would provide a wide range of employment a nd the potential to be the most exotic of the worlds national parks, which would make a address there highly expensive and therefore profitable for the countries.By following these policies, outrageous consequences are being prevented and compromises have been put into place to ensure that both groups of people, wanting(p) 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 negative publicity for the companies which could decrease their popularity severely and damage the economical structure. In conclusion I strongly confide that you should try your up-most hardest to protect the Amazonian Rainforest.Whilst you have green goddess of sustainable ways to provide your country with resources needed to develop efficiently, your local people can also benefit from the tender legislations I strongly recommend you implement. If you were to see to destroy the entire rainfore st, global warming would endanger the world, and for that sole reason other countries would attempt to stop you, creating wars, in raise 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 on the whole 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 unmindful 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.