Brazil to rich countries: Pay up, or the rainforest gets it
In the run-up to the big Copenhagen Climate Talks next week, the battle lines are already being drawn as the developed world and developing world square off over who should bear the burdens of slashing carbon output in order to halt the growth of greenhouse gases. Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega flatly told the BBC on its Business Daily podcast that if the West wants Brazilian farmers to stop their deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest, the rich world will have to compensate his nation for its idled agricultural capacity. The logic behind this argument is somewhat clear. Brazil and the other developing nations claim they are too poor to sacrifice local economic development to accommodate global needs. Further, the logic goes, the West and the developed world did most of the damage to the environment by pumping out greenhouse gases during two centuries of breakneck industrial growth. Now, the developing world says, the West needs to realize that it must pay for the lifestyle its hot-shower-taking, SUV-driving citizens consider to be their birthright.
All of this makes sense. But it made a lot more sense five years ago. In the cold, hard light of geopolitics, a strong argument can be made that the developing world should and can pay for its own share of carbon mitigation. For starters, lets look at the economics. While the U.S. may be the largest economy in the world today, it's hardly the richest. China, Brazil, and Russia actually have far less national debt per capita. And these nations accumulated so much cash during the natural-resources boom that ran from early 2005 through 2007 that the tables have effectively been turned.
Those three countries, which will probably form an axis of resistance to Western demands in Copenhagen, are able to afford programs the West could only dream of. Brazil is planning huge anti-poverty initiatives and is rapidly upgrading its infrastructure. China is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into its transportation infrastructure and clean-energy development. Russia, flush with petrodollars, is rapidly retooling its military in order to wield not just oil barrels but also gun barrels.
Then there is the fact that China, Brazil and Russia will probably suffer far more from global warming than will the West. China, with its huge, encroaching deserts and severely limited water supply, already faces an agricultural crisis as the pool of arable land available to feed its burgeoning populace continues to shrink. Meanwhile, Chinese demand is rising for delicacies like beef and pork, which are far more resource-, water-, and land-intensive to produce than the staples of its previous diet. In Brazil, where temperatures are already high in much of the country, global warming could cause significant agricultural problems. By contrast, in most Western nations, where harsh winters are a fact of life, warmer weather will likely help farmers.
This argument is sadly Machiavellian. Then again, global politics is hardly devoid of such games. Economists know full well that China, by keeping the yuan artificially low, has caused massive imbalances in currency flows and economic growth patterns. The cheap yuan, likewise, has made it much easier for China to sell its goods overseas and pocket the cash. Russia has shown it has no qualms about holding Europe hostage in its natural gas pricing dispute with Ukraine. And Brazil, which is probably the most benign of the lot, has been a regular in trade disputes before the World Trade Organization and has been regularly accused of protectionist trade policies for "strategic" industries. (To be fair, Brazil says the same about the West.)
More to the point, flat declarations that one side or the other will have to "pay" in order for any progress to occur is beyond destructive. So is pointing fingers. The West started this mess, but we all are in it now and if current trends continue, the developing world will soon be a far worse offender in terms of global emissions. So perhaps Brazil can get some sort of compensation for saving the Amazon Rainforest -- from China and Russia.
Alex Salkever is Senior Writer at AOL Daily Finance covering technology and greentech. Follow him on twitter @alexsalkever, read his articles, or email him at alex@dailyfinance.com.
Those three countries, which will probably form an axis of resistance to Western demands in Copenhagen, are able to afford programs the West could only dream of. Brazil is planning huge anti-poverty initiatives and is rapidly upgrading its infrastructure. China is pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into its transportation infrastructure and clean-energy development. Russia, flush with petrodollars, is rapidly retooling its military in order to wield not just oil barrels but also gun barrels.
Then there is the fact that China, Brazil and Russia will probably suffer far more from global warming than will the West. China, with its huge, encroaching deserts and severely limited water supply, already faces an agricultural crisis as the pool of arable land available to feed its burgeoning populace continues to shrink. Meanwhile, Chinese demand is rising for delicacies like beef and pork, which are far more resource-, water-, and land-intensive to produce than the staples of its previous diet. In Brazil, where temperatures are already high in much of the country, global warming could cause significant agricultural problems. By contrast, in most Western nations, where harsh winters are a fact of life, warmer weather will likely help farmers.
This argument is sadly Machiavellian. Then again, global politics is hardly devoid of such games. Economists know full well that China, by keeping the yuan artificially low, has caused massive imbalances in currency flows and economic growth patterns. The cheap yuan, likewise, has made it much easier for China to sell its goods overseas and pocket the cash. Russia has shown it has no qualms about holding Europe hostage in its natural gas pricing dispute with Ukraine. And Brazil, which is probably the most benign of the lot, has been a regular in trade disputes before the World Trade Organization and has been regularly accused of protectionist trade policies for "strategic" industries. (To be fair, Brazil says the same about the West.)
More to the point, flat declarations that one side or the other will have to "pay" in order for any progress to occur is beyond destructive. So is pointing fingers. The West started this mess, but we all are in it now and if current trends continue, the developing world will soon be a far worse offender in terms of global emissions. So perhaps Brazil can get some sort of compensation for saving the Amazon Rainforest -- from China and Russia.
Alex Salkever is Senior Writer at AOL Daily Finance covering technology and greentech. Follow him on twitter @alexsalkever, read his articles, or email him at alex@dailyfinance.com.
Why is Oprah going to cable? Hint: It's nothing to get teary about
Kisses from Hershey: Candymaker may court Cadbury with $17 billion bid
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-11-2009 @ 11:53AM
matt said...
This is an easy fix no need for cap and trade. By all american ag products. Without our demand the market will not be there to encourage them to tear the rain forest down. We did not have to deforest in the USA because the Great Plains was never a forest and is where we produce the greatest volume of our food products.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 11:54AM
ij70 said...
I love the title. Brazil should setup a PayPal account where Greens can send their money.
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 12:29PM
jaguar6cy said...
The West did not "start this mess". All these issues are a money grabs by socialist high tax governments and dictatorial countries wanting to cash in on a bash the West frenzy. Stealing money is the goal for all of them, at our expense, ie pay us off or we will "hurt" the "environment". That alone tells you what the real goal is for all these "liberal" thinking people, governments and countries. They are just using the issue to raise taxes and fund bigger government. Are you falling for it?
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 12:59PM
Connie said...
We all know that obama will sign whatever other countries want to make them happy! Get ready for more taxes, higher energy bills, food bills, insurance bills, especially since the American taxpayer will be paying the worlds way from now on$$$ This is what "spreading the wealth" looks like$$$ Isn't "change" good???
Reply
11-12-2009 @ 1:40PM
giltydreamz said...
UNBELIEVABLE... the whole mess is predicated on GLOBAL WARMING, (thank you al gore-jerkoff)
That reciently is being de-bunked ! ! ! Gawd...
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 4:11PM
FOXYLYNX said...
THE U.S. HAS BEEN FEEDING THE WORLD FOR YEARS AND WE ARE THE ONES FOOTING MOST OF THE MONEY ON WARS. GERMANY AND JAPAN ARE THE ONLY TWO COUNTRIES THAT PAID BACK THEIR WAR DEBT W/INTEREST. I HAVE AN IDEA: PULL ALL OUR FORCES OUT AROUND THE WORLD, STOP HELPING POOR COUNTRIES WITH FOOD AND MEDICINE AND START MAKING OUR OWN STUFF HERE. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO MORE FOR OUR CITIZENS THEN TOO. SCREW BRAZIL!
Reply
11-11-2009 @ 6:36PM
outdoor john said...
Adios rain forest.
Reply
11-12-2009 @ 1:50PM
Richard said...
Mr. Salkever is right. No matter how much we sound the alarm on global warming and climate change the hard reality is that we have a perfect storm working against any significant changes in lifestyle, conservation or consumption. The economic climate is so sour that most people, as recent polls reflect, will put conservation of rain forests and threatened animal species on the back burner.
As someone pointed out recently in a National Geographic article, armchair environmentalists with good intentions all too often ignore the plight of poverty in countries and regions where the only way the poorest of the poor can survive is by ravaging the forests for charcoal and cutting down trees to raise cattle so that rich countries can have the beef that they crave. Environmentalists, unknowingly, may create worse conditions without realizing it.
Cramming exotic animals into restricted land and wildlife preserves allows too many, especially large animals like elephants, to reproduce without enough predator animals to cull the populations. Thus, the area becomes overpopulated and water, a precious commodity for animals and humankind, can no longer be provided to sustain these wildlife preserves. We have seen plenty of documented photographs showing the carcasses of animals which have died of thirst in these protected areas.
Animals on the endangered lists, likewise are killed and either sold to wealthy people in foreign countries or are eaten by indigent people who are unable to feed themselves or their starving families. Who can blame them?
The truth is, we are fouling our own nests and depleting the Earth's natural resources at an accelerated pace. Unless alternative energy sources are developed and marketed quickly, the outlook for preserving forests and animal species is bleak.
It is extremely unlikely that developing countries, rich or not, will meet Brazil's mandate to either pay up or watch the rain forests continue to be depleted. The attitude is clear: "I'm going to get mine while I can and let someone else in the future deal with the problem."
Reply